Getting Over Our Love for Darwin
| November 10, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Getting Over Our Love for Darwin
By William A. Dembski
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009
http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=6474&issue
Charles Darwin published his “Origin of Species” in 1859. There he presented the classic formulation of his theory of evolution. Lady Ashley, reacting to the theory at the time, remarked, “Let’s hope that it’s not true; but if it is true, let’s hope that it doesn’t become widely known.” Lady Ashley’s second hope has failed: Darwin’s theory is everywhere and has now become textbook orthodoxy. This year, universities around the globe are celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” as well as the 200th anniversary of his birth.
But what about Lady Ashley’s hope that Darwin’s theory is false? Darwin presented a bleak picture of ourselves: we are mere modified apes; we are the “winners” in a brutal competitive evolutionary process, most of whose players are “losers,” wiped off the evolutionary scene before they could leave a legacy; the traditional Christian view that we are made in God’s image is simply a story we tell to convince ourselves that we’re special.
Intelligent design supporters like me view Darwin’s theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life’s development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.
Darwin lovers are quick to reject such complaints. After all, as novelist Barbara Kingsolver declares, Darwin’s idea of natural selection is “the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life. It is inarguable, and it explains everything.” Kingsolver is no fan of Christianity. Yet many Darwin lovers are Christian. Francis Collins, who directs the National Institutes of Health, is a Christian Darwinist. Leaving aside a healthy skepticism that regards every scientific theory as refutable in light of new evidence, Collins exempts Darwinian evolution from such skepticism: “evolution, as a mechanism, can be and must be true.”
Any theory that explains everything and that can and must be true is either the greatest thing since sliced bread or the greatest swindle ever foisted on gullible intellectuals. The intelligent design community takes the latter view, siding here with Malcolm Muggeridge, who wrote: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
Still, it’s easy to understand why so flimsily a supported theory garners such vast support. It provides the creation story for an atheistic worldview. If atheism is true, then something like Darwinian evolution must follow. Hence, any attack on Darwin becomes an attack on the atheistic secularism that pervades our culture. Nonetheless, even though atheism implies Darwinism, the reverse is not true: Darwinism does not imply atheism. Indeed, Christian theists who embrace Darwin abound.
The wedding between Darwinism and Christianity, however, is an uneasy one. To be sure, plenty of marriages are uneasy, and uneasy marriages are often endured because divorce can entail more difficulties than endurance. Thus, when I got involved with the evolution controversy 20 years ago, I naively thought that any Christian, given sufficient evidence against Darwinism, would immediately jump ship. Darwinian evolution, according to Cornell historian of biology Will Provine, is “the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” Why should Christians stick with such an engine when it’s no longer needed?
Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loath to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, Christian Darwinists hope that Darwinism is true. But is it really? In this year of Darwinian bacchanalias, let us soberly reassess whether Darwin’s theory is indeed true. And if the evidence goes against it, as the intelligent design community is successfully demonstrating, then let’s be done with it. In that case, reconciling Christianity with Darwinism becomes a vain exercise, solving a problem that no longer exists.
William A. Dembski is research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of prominent books in the field of intelligent design, including The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, written with biologist Jonathan Wells.
122 Responses to Getting Over Our Love for Darwin
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Besides Born, what else is Allen even doing at his post in 89 except personally attacking you? It is not like he used actual quotes from your post at 86 which clearly demonstrate his concern over the “procedure” or style which with you argued. When allen dismisses our arguments as ad hominems all he has done is used the term ad hominem as an adhominem.
Allen just wants to respond to posts that he thinks he win the arguments of. All others are ad hominems to him.
And Allen proves he is a fraud when he delivers the king od ad hominems against me here…
“Frost122585’s argument in comment #33 is what is known as the “No True Scotsman” argument and is entirely fallacious. To be specific, Frost122585 asserts without supporting evidence of any kind that his definition of a “true Christian” is the only valid definition.
Why should anyone who is interested in rational debate pay any attention to Frost122585’s utterly fallacious and profoundly counterproductive (not to mention divisive) argument?”
Here is is personally slandering me. This is not the language of man deeply concerned with ad hominems.All Allen is doing is argueing for a realtivistic view of Christainity where all definiiton’s of Christnaiity are equal. THis is total nonsense. It is a theological discussion that would require quite a bit of detail for me to define what I caonsider to be a Christain. It would certainly include Romans which wipes the floor clean of so called Christain Darwinists.
Let me be cleat that i am stating an opinion here an not trying to make an argument of any kind.
Allen is nothing but a psud-intellectual who next to nothing about logic and for most of his recent posts has done nothing but personally attack people while hypocrtically calling them the ones who only resort to Ad hominems.
Wow. Almost none of his postgs have any substance whatsoever yet he has the audacity to criticize the long and developed posts of both Born and myself.
What a fraud.
Frost:
Is being faithful to Matthew 7:1 part of that definition?
Yes, hummus. Interesting how I have not seen you post here before. Mathew 7:1 is abused by relativists as an example of Christ supposedly telling all of man not to judge anybody. This is total nonsense.
He is speaking to the multitudes and telling them not to be “HYPOCRITES” and making the point that hypocrisy is wrong and if you want to hold others to the standards of God you better worry about your own behavior first and foremost because you will be judged as well.
It does not in any way mean that we can just “not judge” prostitutes and murderers and therefore can ourselves become prostitutes and murderers without fear or concern of being judged by God. That is the absurd reality if we universalize that quotation by Christ totally taken out of context.
This is why in Matthew 6 Christ says
“(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
2
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9″This, then, is how you should pray:
” ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]‘ 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
All he is saying is to make sure that you yourself uphold the commmandments beofre you begin preaching and so forth to others.
And yes personally I do sin- as everyone does- and I do not excuse myself from it at all. But I still spread the word not for my own glory but for the benefit of theirs. I this day and age there is so little truth that i cannot help by openly express what I know to be True. Speaking the Truth to those diluted in lies is true charity.
Christ is saying to “forgive their sins” against you- not because you “cannot judge them” but because you obviously already HAVE. You know they have sinned. Period. Once you forgive them you have not judged them. The Lord judges ultimately judges them but of course we judge not people but their ACTIONS.
Of course we as men have to judge one another’s actions. Christ judged the actions of the money changers at the temple. He judged many people in the Bible including the faith of those he chose to heal. But this is a verse that is ALWAYS taken out of context- so that it can be used to justify “the actions” of whatever people want to do without someone else calling them out on it.
It is the job of the Church to “teach” people right from wrong and “tell them” what they should and should not do. And personally it saddens and angers me that people who claim to be Christians and stand for the Truth and salvation of man kind would think that we don’t have “the right” (or something) to tell our brothers when they are doing evil or doing wrong. This kind of liberal theology leads to a society that is lawless, decadent and evil.
The problem is that most Christians have NO IDEA what the Bible is about at all because they don’t study it. They just pick out any parts they like- like the quote to not judge people- and run around and use it as an excuse to do whatever evil they want or defend the actions of their friends and families as not wrong or evil etc. And quotes like that one are all they even know. The think that Christ died so they can do whatever they want now. ANd these same people don’t read the Bible though because too much of it obviously makes no sens to them in light of their liberal understanding which is based on the deep study of one quote taken out of context that they heard about from a friend at lunch.
They are so ignorant of scripture that think this is what the Bible is all about- freedom and love and peace and moral relativism etc. Which is totally absurd, wrong and the opposite of what Christ taught when you actually read the Bible through.
So of course God wants us to judge each others actions- and try to help each other to do and see right. That is True charity- preaching and correcting each other in hopes of helping one another to achieve salvation. That is why we even have a Church. Even though most people are of bad will and will totally reject your help. The Lord just does not want us to be hypocrites when we do it.
So WHY is it so important to God that we ourselves not be Hypocrites?
“For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” ( Matthew 5:20)
“I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” ( Matthew 12:36-37)
and matthew
“41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear”
John 28: “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. 30By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.”
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
Because you are going to hell unless you yourself, though your faith and works, obey all of the commandments, regardless of how much you “preach the word” to others.
He is saying don’t preach to “impress other men of your own morality” by blowing a trumpet or doing good deed so that others see you do them. You have to keep the commandments ALL of the time- especially in private when you are all alone with the Lord. because it does not matter what en think of you but it is only God who ultimately judges people. No where does it say not to correct or judge “the actions” of others. Of course the Lord has the only say on who is righteous- but is not to say that would should condemn the evil actions of men.
Frost:
I would certainly agree that only Christ can judge someone’s life as a Christian. And I would certainly not suggest that you shouldn’t speak out against evil. The problem, though, is you are going well beyond just condemning evil. You have moved into condemning anyone that doesn’t believe exactly as you do. Over on the school shooting thread (Comment 14) you have passed judgement that anyone who believes in the theory of evolution is not a Christian. Perhaps you should spend less time condemning others and ponder what scripture says about pride. I believe there is something in there about motes and beams that might interest you too.
No I said if one believes in “Darwinism” (not evolution guided by God or something) they cannot be Christians in light of Romans- which says God;s existence in his creation is made so manifest that no man is left without excuse and because of Christ’s quote in Matthew 13
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to heaven, and only a few find it.”
I see no reason to try and find speculative reasons to liberalize the size of the gate. Especially when I see Christianity and Darwinism as naturally contradictory.
I also do not think that is is a coincidence that staunch atheists like Karl Marx (whose works lead to 10s of millions of deaths) do things like dedicating their books to Charles Darwin.
Nor do I think it arbitrary that Charles Darwin confessed to being “hopelessly muddled in light of his theory and how it squared with creation and design. He knew that the chance driving his theory was not enough- and yet he allowed the flaws in the world to corrupt his faith. He obviously did not die a professing Christian. And of course people like Dawkins claim Darwinism can make you a fulfilled atheist. I don’t see how Christians can cling to a doctrine that is also view by many atheists as the foundation for their faith. Especially in light of Romans.
And I think I do Christian charity in telling people not to believe in Darwinism because of it’s view of nature but not just for the scriptural reasons but also because the theory of Intelligent Design really refutes it and it at the very least poses as a legitimate alternative to it on the secular level. And ID should appeal to Christians because it aligns with scripture as well.
If you can’t see how other professed Christians reconcile then perhaps you might consider removing that beam from your eye and stop standing in judgement of other people’s relationship with God.
No see that is the moral relativism that causes people to fall into sin and out of faith. Because if you just ignore scripture like Romans then you can do the same things with divorce- and you opinions on abortion, and theft etc.
So no, Hummus, you are the exact example of why you cannot be a Christian and a Darwinist. You twist and bend scripture to mean things it does not so that you do not have to believe what the word of God actually says.
Sorry the reason why I cannot see how the two can go together is the same reason why I cannot see why someone can be both a theist and an atheist.
If I told you I was both a theist and an atheist and you said you could not see how this is reasonable- taking a log out of your would not help either.
Actually, I have not made any statements regarding either my relationship with God or what I believe about evolution.
But, I suppose it is no big deal for you to decide what I am all about. After all, you are completely confident in your ability to determine the nature of complete strangers relationship with God. After passing judgement on hundreds of millions of people, including the entirety of the Catholic Church, reading my mind ain’t no thang, right?
Motes and beams, Frosty, motes and beams.
Yeah what you tried to do is use scripture to support relativism which I explained is wrong. While I cannot judge anyone’s soul I can say what scripture says is required to be of the faith and I can say how contrary positions like Darwinism cannot be reconciled with it.
But, maybe you should practice your own poison and pretend like “you don’t know what I believe” either – when I say
a Christian cannot be a Darwinist.
But while we are on it let’s clear up what Matthew 7 :3 is really saying
3
Ok, so right here he is saying why would you preach to and criticize others when you are still sinning yourself? He is not saying not to ever criticize and preach to others- but that one needs to REMOVE the spec in their own eye first. as we will see…
4
So it is clear.
But then he says…
So I guess we are done here.
Actually, I haven’t made any statement regarding relativism. So, maybe you should stop flailing away at that star man.
… you will go right on and do so before the comment is over.
Sure, but you do more than that. You go well beyond. You decide who is a real Christian or not. That is God’s job, not yours.
Plank, Frosty, plank in one’s own eye. Interesting typo, though.
Yes, it is very clear. You are guilty of putting yourself in God’s place, deciding who and who isn’t a real Christian. For some reason the words “sin of pride” comes to mind.
Ah, I see what you have done here. You have passed judgement on me, deciding I am not a Christian . So, you are dismissing me with an insult. Very good. Congratulate yourself on how clever you are. Your work here is done.
And yes, I agree we are done here. I cannot imagine a better ending. I’ll give you this, Frosty, at least you are consistent. There is a whole world of Christians out there that you have yet to examine and find unworthy. None of that pesky self-examination for you. Onward!
tribune7
You have made some good points overall — I accept the original meaning of “Darwinism” was not as I thought.
I still maintain there is great confusion on both sides of this issue between Darwin’s theory strictu sensu and philosophical interpretations of the theory. ID proponents are not entirely to blame for this, but the loose way they use the word “Darwinism” does not help clear up the confusion.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, this thread seems to have moved on into other areas, so let us leave things there.
Kind regards
C.
Hummus,
your last post was totally worthless. You did nothing but go right back to your you fallacious and absurd straw man argument about the like “do not judge” which is totally taken out of the context of the Bible as I already quoted and showed.
Once again there are certain things you must believe to be a Christian. This is not my persona judgment but God’s. I am only repeating God’s word. It is not “MY” judgment for example that you need to believe in Christ to go to heaven- Christ says it himself- I only repeat what he has said.
Darwinism is not the only world view that would prevent you from being a True follower of Christ. There are other examples I can give and say with 100% certainty that one is not a Christian.
For examples
Could you be a Satanist and a Christian?
No. Of course not.
Could you reject Christ as the savior and the word of God made flesh and be a Christian?
No.
Can you be a Muslim and a Christian?
No.
Can you be a murderer who knows he is sinning against God and does not care and refuses to repent and be a Christian?
No.
There are plenty other things.
All you are doing is taking one little quote from the Bible totally out of context and trying to spin it to support your own moral relativism which is totally un-Biblical.
I cannot personally judge anyone’s soul- only God can do that on judgment day- but I can say whether one is a Christian or not based on what scripture makes clear. That is I can tel you how God will come down on the ruling- just like I can say with certainty what the law of a State says regarding what it illegal. To say the law is not the same as to Judge someone OBVIOUSLY. The only difference is God’s law is divine and perfectly clear and there are no loop holes. This is why Christ teaches in
Matthew 37:
Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; anything else is from Satan.
So, sorry but as I have shewn over and over again- your argument is laughable and twisted. You clearly don’t understand the Bible and should remain silent on issues that you are ignorant of. And for the record I have not seen one single quality post from you yet. That is one single post that somehow would help to enlighten the viewers of this site.
Frost
If you can’t see the inherent contradiction in that, there isn’t much I can do for you, bud.
Ah, so you can’t see into the soul of a man, but you can read the mind of God? Awesome! Listen, professional theologians can’t agree on what Romans means and they are reading it in the original Greek. I am supposed to take the word of some guy commenting on blog?
Then let my posts stand as a testament to themselves. I don’t understand why you are so compelled to respond after having previously said we are done here?
I know you have passed judgment on me and have found me lacking. Why continue to guild the lily, when there are millions of so-called Christians who need you to pass judgement on their relationship with God?
hummus man,
I can’t see the wind, but I often know what my friends are thinking. What’s your point? Does everything you know have to been seen? Then how could you know logic or reason, have you seen them as pieces of material?
Hummus said,
“If you can’t see the inherent contradiction in that, there isn’t much I can do for you, bud.”
Yeah maybe you should get the spec out of your eye and stop claiming to see things other cannot-that is by your own same ridiculous interpretation of Matthew.
Then you ignorantly write:
“Ah, so you can’t see into the soul of a man, but you can read the mind of God?”
Yeah it is called scripture which is the revelation of God from his mind to ours… how you could miss this is incredible.
Then you say:
“Then let my posts stand as a testament to themselves. I don’t understand why you are so compelled to respond after having previously said we are done here?
I know you have passed judgment on me and have found me lacking.”
I reply to set the record straight. It was you that replied to my last post right after I posted it. But whether I respond or not is not related to the subject matter of the posts. I see no reason to let you false characterizations of my posts and of the Bible stand without rebuttal obviously;
And, I don’t pass any judgment on you. I don’t know what your faith or lac thereof might be. I have a sense from what you write what you are likely to believe. But my arguments are not against you- or any Darwinist- they are against your fallacious flawed reasoning ad arguments and against the notions that Darwinism can be squared with Christianity. And you don’t have to agree with my arguments because you are given freedom of choice- but you cannot refute them because they are air tight.
And all you are doing is repeating “do not judge” ad “you cannot know the mind of God”-
Yeah as a Christian you know what God has said- and you know what is and is not necessary to be a Christian- and like I said I am only acting a lawyer and not a Judge. I know the law- I can repeat the law- I should repeat the laws to other as part of my Charity to fellow man. But God will be the Judge and Jury- not me.
And your argument is completely worthless.
Frost,
This needs to be a civil discussion Frost, if you continue I will moderate you, and if you continue past that, I won’t allow your comments out of moderation and may be forced to ban you. Let’s keep it civil, okay? You can get your point across without this.
Other than deciding that I am not a real Christian, that is.
And all your are doing is assuring me that you can. So, I’ll ask again, why should I believe you when theologians reading in the original Greek can’t agree on what Romans means?
So, are we done here or not? Because, seriously, I think that jitsak fellow is in need of some of your Christian charity.
Clive, sure but I meant worthless not as an a simple insult, but as a measure of the value of what he was saying. I don’t think Hummus has done much other than to just keep repeating one quote from the Bible taken out of context. So while I cannot respect the quality of his arguments I can use softer language.
As to Hummus, he is now switching ground trying to argue for scriptural “interpretations” and so forth. So because I used the text to prove him wrong now he is trying to say we cant trust the text because there is a diversity of opinion on it- which is just another attempt to make the meaning of scripture relativistic to the interpreter.
But this is not really an issue because if you read the Bible at all honestly, you can see the point is that God makes his word clear and what the Church does is tell people what they “must believe”- not to judge them but to lead them to salvation. This is not passing judgment it is just teaching scripture.
So I think I am going to end it here- and Hummus can take the last word if he/she wants.
But out of friendliness to Hummus I think I will praise one thing from Hummus posts at 104:
“So, maybe you should stop flailing away at that star man.”
“Star man ” – making fun of my typo of straw man.
I honestly thought that was funny. Ok, I promise that I will keep “flailing away” at that “star man” for sure.
Clive:
I am not disputing the wind or the atom. I am disputing that Frost has any special insight that renders him capable of deciding who and who isn’t a real Christian.
frost:
Switching? Not really. The entire edifice of your presumed ability to differentiate the real Christians from the poseurs is built on the notion that you hold the one true interpretation of Scripture. I am merely pointing out that people who study the Bible for a living can’t agree. Thus, it is presumptuous in the extreme to think you know better.
Jitsak. Shady character to say the least. Go git him. He needs some Christian charity. Why should I have all the fun.
CLAVDIVS: You said,
“Bruce David said (above) that ‘random variation culled by natural selection produces change in species … by itself, is incontestable and has been observed in nature and even in the laboratory.’ But bornagain77 said ‘Darwinism [is] a theory with never any credible scientific support to sustain it’.
Am I the only one that is puzzled by this? Just what is ID’s position on the reality of Darwinian mechanisms?”
I think you will find, if you read the ID literature, that ID proponents are pretty consistently in agreement that the mechanism of random variation/natural selection works to produce minor change in species. The question at issue is whether that mechanism is capable of producing major change in living organisms, a.k.a. macroevolution (e.g., new body plans, new organs or organ systems, new processes). It is this for which there is no evidence for and much evidence against.
If you read the post you referred to above carefully, you will see that this is what I said there.
Bruce,
I think what you said could be read both ways. You meant changes within species.
avocationist,
Really? I thought I was quite clear: random mutation and natural selection can and do produce minor changes in a species, but the evidence very strongly suggests that that mechanism is incapable of producing major biological novelty, such as new body plans, new structures, organs, or processes.
Bruce David
Thanks for the response.
I understand that ID questions the sufficiency of Darwinian mechanisms to produce macro-evolution.
What I am confused about, is whether ID recognises macro-evolution and common descent as something that has really occurred in the history of life.
If we grant that the mechanisms of variation and selection are insufficient, and thus that intelligent guidance is required, that does not logically necessitate that common descent is false. For example, it is logically possible that a designing intelligence guided the process of imperfect replication so that macro-evolution occurred according to a prescribed plan.
What I guess I am stumbling over, is that many ID arguments seem to focus on disputing that macro-evolution occurred at all, rather than on the separate issue of whether macro-evolution occurred in an unguided manner.
Thanks
C.
In comment #35 stephenB wrote:
And then in comment #72, stephenB wrote:
So, stephenB, doesn’t this comment consist of precisely the kind of linkage between religion (i.e. Christianity) and ID that you claim does not (and should not) exist?
—Allen MacNeill:
—-”So, stephenB, doesn’t this comment consist of precisely the kind of linkage between religion (i.e. Christianity) and ID that you claim does not (and should not) exist?”
No. Did you analyze the context of the remarks I was responding to? Did you take note of the numerous references to God in the question I was being asked? Did you consider the earlier comment, made by you, asking what it is about Roman’s 1:20 that either requires or denies the direct intervention of God in natural processes.
Did you notice that I responded by saying, “nothing.” “It indicates only that God played a role and made it happen in some way.”
Did you notice that, before that, I was responding to and disagreeing William Dembski’s comment that theistic evolutionsits can, in any way, make a case that Christianity can be reconciled with Darwinism.
Did you notice that my main point, which started the ball rolling, was to ask theistic evolutionists, who can’t stop talking about religion, to make up their mind about whether God did or did not play a role, rather than to say, as they do, that he played a role by not playing a role.
ID begins from the bottom up, analyzing the evidence and following where the evidence leads. Theistic evolutionsts, on the other hand, begin from the top down, positing that God must have done things Darwinin’s way, because a competent God wouldn’t tinker with his creation. Thus, in responding to theistic evolutionists, ID defenders must talk about God, because theistic evolutionist will not stop talking about him except to say that he isn’t really involved in the evolutionary process, except that he is.
CLAVDIVS, I appreciate your comments as well.
With regard to your comment in Post 117: What I am confused about, is whether ID recognises macro-evolution and common descent as something that has really occurred in the history of life.
There has been discussion on that very point here
If you don’t feel like making the click, the answer is that ID neither endorses nor disputes macro-evolution and common descent.
Frost122585 @112
Ironic, isn’t it?
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-339317
No Mung. Nice try but I used not one quote out of context over and over- but many different passages and quotes in context, and along with a clear and cogent supporting argument. Sorry.