How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community …

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 3, 2015

Christian Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

BioLogos, we are informed, is holding a meet right near an American Scientific Affiliation conference. Funded by Templeton millions, it claims:

In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design(ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer. At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.

So this means what?

Obviously, it is dreadfully skewed. I will let readers help straighten that out. But let’s point out one thing first:

“Our “intelligent God”? Has anyone ever heard God described that way? It sounds like garbage written by an expensive PR firm.

And whoever suggested giving up pursuing scientific explanations anyway?

The principle question is whether scientific explanations require metaphysical naturalism (nature is all there is).

That is the very question that both BioLogos and ASA want to duck (for whatever reason). Which is why I continue to call them “Christians for Darwin.”

Lots of people today yay-hoo for Jay-hoo—and then proceed to live their lives as if nature is all there is.

It shows, and the world knows that.

If you live in a free country, and I pray you do, you can believe in God or not.

But if you do, you should understand what is described in the following hymn. Otherwise, please don’t get involved. Don’t fund or belong to mugwump groups.

In the famous expression, their mug is on one side of the fence and their wump is on the other.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

so if the bible did say otherwise is this group agreeing it would trump the science?? Then they say only natural mechanisms run the universe. If god does it ITS always natural. How not? This group is attacking Christian doctrines by attacking YEC etc. They are attacking God as a being who by whim rules the universe. They are just useful to those attacking Christianity/Bible belief /creator etc They are useful to bring audience to these matters but they are foolish in all ways in their passion of opposition. Carry on london.Robert Byers_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

This is a dead horse. Stop whipping it. Tenderized horse meat just tastes better. (Or so I am told.)Mung_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

How is it possible to be a believing Christian and at the same time assert that there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature? Jesus' miracles? These would have to occur by natural processes and thus not be miracles.Silver Asiatic_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis
There simply is no empirical data to support this statement, neither for BL nor the ASA. I know everyone at BL and hundreds of ASA members, and I can never recall any one of them endorsing metaphysical naturalism.
Ted, this is probably a typo by Denyse. I think she means methodological naturalism as opposed to metaphysical naturalism. Is it not fair to say that most BL supporters subscribe to the former?StephenB_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

I comment on two statements from Denyse: (1) "BioLogos, we are informed, is holding a meet right near an American Scientific Affiliation conference." Not exactly. The BioLogos conference--its first public conference ever--is in Grand Rapids, starting June 30. The ASA conference--an annual event since the late 1940s--will be in Tulsa on the last weekend in July. The two meetings are "right near" one another, neither in time nor space. Incidentally, I'm glad BioLogos is offering that discount for those who attend both conferences. Perhaps the Discovery Institute will be inspired to offer a similar discount at some future event, for those who also want to attend an ASA meeting--just a suggestion, one that I am powerless to implement myself. (2) "The principle question is whether scientific explanations require metaphysical naturalism (nature is all there is). ... That is the very question that both BioLogos and ASA want to duck (for whatever reason). Which is why I continue to call them 'Christians for Darwin'.” There simply is no empirical data to support this statement, neither for BL nor the ASA. I know everyone at BL and hundreds of ASA members, and I can never recall any one of them endorsing metaphysical naturalism. Not one. In every single case, if Denyse were to ask someone " whether scientific explanations require metaphysical naturalism," the answer would be, No. So, Denyse, having pretended to ask a question on your behalf, I'll now ask you one on my behalf: Who's ducking that question? I'll follow it with a second question for you, Denyse: Why do you continue to whip on the ASA? Is your complaint simply that the ASA is not an advocacy organization, such as UD or TDI or AiG or BL? If your complaint is that there are too many proponents of evolution in the ASA, then persuade a few hundred ID supporters to join the ASA and you'll change the facts. The ASA accepts as members anyone who self-identifies as a Christian and who agrees with the mission and identity of the organization--which is not to oppose or support evolution or ID. Many ID proponents are members, including the newest elected member of the ASA Council, the group of five people who rotate through the various offices. I mean Fritz Schaeffer, the famous chemist from Georgia. Since he was elected to Council this year, three years from now he will the ASA president. In that responsibility, he will be following several other pro-ID people in recent years, including Walter Bradley, Ken Touryan, and Bob Kaita (a fellow of The Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/p/34 who has just gone off Council after serving a full term. Gimme a break, Denyse. This is a dead horse. Stop whipping it.Ted Davis_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

'things look as though nature is all there is. But we believe God designed them anyway.' leodp, very comical when transliterated for clarity! They need your lexicon.Axel_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

I was reading the other day putative support for the divine paradigm alluded to by Pope Francis by St Thomas Aquinas, in which he speaks of a kind of 'hands-off' stance on the part of God towards his creation; a sort of devolution of responsibility for the universe and natural world, to 'natural laws', on the grounds of subsidiarity I believe he called it. I was puzzled, since we've been discussing 'laws' in such a context, as no more than occurrences observed to follow regular patterns. But he seemed to be talking about to some kind of front-loading, it seemed to me. It then occurred to me that all Aquinas was acquainted with, at least in some measure, was of a purely mechanistic world. But that the particles that are the subject of quantum mechanics, being matter in it most basic form (in fact, their existence qua matter being subject to observation by a conscious mind), would, at some point, be in contact/issue from the Spirit of the Creator: that God behind the mysterious force referred to by Planck: 'All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.' Subsidiarity might make some sense in the context of mechanical engineering, but not, it seems to me in the context of the spirit of the Creator. Even Christ as the Son, and Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Holy Spirit, who enlivens the Mystical Body of Christ, the branches of the True Vine, are one God with the Father. In any case, even before suspecting what strikes me as that lacuna in Aquinas' understanding, I couldn't see God's perfectly scrupulous attention to the activities within an E-Coli cell, for example, as being any kind of problem or mind-numbing chore for Him. There is certainly evidence in Paul's epistles as well as NDEs that the whole of Creation is palpably suffused by the divine.Axel_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.
Ah, God the "little d" designer. Gregory will have a stroke.Mung_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Biologists is a joke..... No evidence of God but he did it anyway..... Hahahahahahahahahaha????????????????????Andre_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

They seem to be getting a little closer - less talk of "intervention" or God as "the tinkerer" or "ID is mechanistic". But there are still problems.
In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design(ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity.
I think there are Jewish YEC's and OEC's. But anyway, true about ID.
It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis.
They like to twist things. In this case, "intelligent cause" = God. So, "ID claims the existence of God is scientifically testable". What is should say is that ID claims there is evidence of intelligent design in nature, and it as testable as other historical sciences, like evolutionary theory, are.
ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer.
They have to put one of their loaded terms in there. But that reveals their biased agenda: "direct action". Sorry. ID doesn't claim "direct action".
At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena.
Let's play the BioLogos game of re-phrasing their mission statement ... "Biologos believes there is no evidence for the existence of God, but we believe an intelligent God exists because that's what our sacred text says. We trust that science is the only source of truth and there eventually will be scientific explanations for the existence of everything, including our own theological speculations."
We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.
Creator? Interesting. Biologos is a creationist organization.Silver Asiatic_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Dawkins: Things appear to be designed, but we believe that nature and unguided material forces did it all. ASA & BioLogos: things look as though nature is all there is. But we believe God designed them anyway.leodp_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply