Thus, once a church makes questionable science, divisive politics, or voyeuristic celeb gossip a subject of belief, what is lost is the faith once delivered to the saints.

On this we agree. The more interesting question is what variant theories are to be ruled out of bounds for a Christian. In particular wrt origins there may be some theories that must be ruled out on theological grounds. For example I have heard it suggested that God was not the creator of the universe but that the universe was created by a fallen creature. This was proposed as a way to deal with the problem of evil and I can’t remember any more details. To me this is unacceptable. Based upon what she has written in this thread, I strongly suspect that Ms O’Leary would rule out EC/TEs. While I would not rule out YEC, ID or OEC, any approach that explicitly denied “In the beginning God” is unacceptable.

Dave Wallace

Thus, once a church makes questionable science, divisive politics, or voyeuristic celeb gossip a subject of belief, what is lost is the faith once delivered to the saints.

On this we agree, although for different reasons I suspect.

But where one narrow sect or section of a faith asserts its own perspective as absolute truth and condemns all others who do not share that view as being not true believers then churches have a duty to speak out on the question and make it clear where they stand.

Well, how about the person who said ““But maybe natural means will be found that provide a complete theory of evolution” at 1 above?

It is no use to claim that God set all things in motion and observes them. If God’s actions are undetectable, he either doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter.

That is the atheist’s point, not the theist’s.

But we have massive evidence that Darwinism is a tax-funded falsehood already, so there is no reason to worry that nature will confirm the view you consider viable.

Your deep confusion on this point is typical of too many ASA members.

While I am here, the very fact that a person who claims to be a Christian would have a deeply felt need to defend the theories of Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett, etc., should arouse suspicion in any reasonable person.

A clever ten-year-old would understand, so I will say it once more and then leave the discussion:

Darwinism is about unguided evolution via survival of the fittest. Christianity could accept guided evolution by the providence of an active God, whose work is EVIDENT in nature.

Scripture, tradition, reason, and evidence all affirm design and evidence for God’s work. Only Darwinists and their Christian popularizers deny it.

I am sorry to have to say these things, and must, in any event, go back to doing something more useful.

1. Darwinism is about UNguided evolution. It always was. And what most people today mean by “evolution” is Darwinism.

a. Darwinism may well be about UNguided evolution if one accepts both his theory and his metaphysics or world view.
It seems a bit strange to me that this definition is pushed as part and parcel of evolution by people like Dawkins and by yourself and others on this blog. Just because I accept General Relativity as the best theory we have in its area, does not mean that I accept Einstein’s world view. Just because someone accepts evolution does not imply that they are a darwinist… As it happens I do NOT think that Darwin’s theory ie random mutations and natural selection is an adequate explanation for life and the world as we see it. Some .EC/TEs think that the neo Darwinian synthesis explains the diversity of life as we see it or natural laws will in time, I don’t hold that position but that’s just an opinion.

I do not consider myself a Darwinist but as someone who accepts evolution ie common descent and some amount of RM + NS. I totally reject philosophical naturalism.

God always supervises and observes all that occurs and everything is designed either indirectly by natural law or by intervention. If you are interested we could discuss intervention and it’s detection further.

2. Christianity would accept GUIDED evolution, with some important qualifications.

2a Please elucidate the qualifications and also what you mean by GUIDED, I assume you mean constant, moment by moment intervention but it is not worth discussing till I understand your meaning.

3. A project aimed at getting Christians to accept UNguided evolution as the norm is a project that lessens their belief in the guidance and providence of God.

3a If you mean philosophical naturalism then we are in violent agreement on this point. If you mean that it is proven that the natural laws, their constants and initial conditions are capable of producing life as we know it, then we agree as I do not think they can but have yet to see proof that they can’t. By natural laws I am not only referring to those we now know but to further laws we may discover in time. Biology is a very hard science as well as a relatively young.

4. “But maybe natural means will be found that provide a complete theory of evolution?” Atheists take that for granted. Christians don’t believe it.

4a Some Christians do and some don’t. I don’t believe it, not as theology and not as a scientific proof. All Christian EC/TEs that I know accept “In the beginning God” and thus by definition reject naturalism.

5. Well, why do you regard it as an insult? If you really believe that God might have had nothing to do with the evolution of life (item 4 above) – that it all happened by merely “natural” means – you are exactly what I have described. You should either be proud to be justly described or amend your views.

5a Because you are attributing belief to me that I do not hold, namely naturalism and other items I have denied above.

6. And if you think you have heard the last from me on this topic, watch for a new book announcement.

6a Fine but please interact with what people really think and don’t construct a straw man as that does not further the conversation in any manner. Denyse if ID could really demonstrate that interventionist style design was necessary by using scientific and mathematical methods that would be highly significant.

7. Do you, by any chance, work with or for Biologos? The Clergy Letter Project? NCSE?

7a No I do not work with or for Biologos or the Clergy Letter Project or NCSE. I have written comments at Biologos just as many IDers have. I am a full member of ASA and both comment and post on their blogs to some extent.
—
Again I refer you to my question in my previous comment and ask that you identify Christian TE/ECs who deny “In the beginning God”.

But what the cat may not fully appreciate is that the confusion sown harms discussion about what “evolution” really means.

I wouldn’t worry too much about that clergy letter. 13,000 clergy members from institutions such as MCC, Unitarian Universalist, some liberal Lutheran, United Methodist, Episcopal and a rare Presbyterian church is nowhere near a majority. And even these churches are very thinly represented. I did not find one signatory from the major denominations of Baptist, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Brethren, Mennonite, AME, etc. I doubt if they will ever get any. mmmmmmmmm

(the mmmmmm was my cat’s input)

It’s not at all clear, as you know, that the mimetic patterns of butterfly wings can be explained by natural selection.

Unless you are a darwinist of course. There are for instance two different butterfly species living hundreds of miles away from each other. But they looks alike.
So darwinists posited “mimicry”.

Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their “model” – males Hypolimnas misippus – in southeast Asia.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/pa.....misipp.htm

And “selective agent” in the case? Don’t bother – some unspecified migratory birds.

My point is simply that a religious institution is not a political party or a lobby.

If we want politics, let’s join a political party, and if we want to lobby, let’s join a lobby.

If we want to engage in the public worship of God, we should go to church (synagogue, mosque, gurdwara … ).

Churches can’t compete with parties and lobbies on their own turf; they can only be co-opted by them.

And when the church begins to sound like the Darwin lobby, why go to church?

In my view, Christian lay people should be encouraged to be active in reputable community service – as lay people.

At my own (Catholic) church, none of the stuff I cited at 8 would be permitted as a teaching.

There is, however, a continuous, expected parade of clergy, religious, and lay people shaking the can for the causes that have been perennially approved by the church, dating from New Testament times.

That has worked out better for us in the long run.

Did you previously work as a journalist for Pravda?