Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O’Leary slam “Christian Darwinism” in forthcoming book

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins.

Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?

In the authors’ view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution – or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.

Dembski and O’Leary insist that this conflict has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Darwinism is, as they will show, the increasingly implausible creation story of atheism, which diverges at just about every point from the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.

Yet Darwinism is publicly funded, and taught, in many jurisdictions, without any criticism permitted.

Reactions – not only praise but criticism – are expected and much appreciated! Regular updates will be provided at www.uncommondescent.com, so persons who wish to comment on the project can post there.

Contact: Denyse O’Leary oleary@sympatico.ca

Comments
Lord bless this effort. it is impossible for evolution to be compatible with Christianity. Too much opposition to the nature and origin of man and so to God. Other stuff can be ignored. Yet why ignore? I am a biblical creationist. If biology can be wrong then so can geology.Most of evolution is based on geological presumptions. without the geology there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion. yet this keeps popping up on i.D radar.Robert Byers
August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST
StephenB @ 39 "Theistic evolutionists want to have it both ways, Drawing on the Darwinist paradigm, which is purposeless by definition, while claiming that there is, nevertheless, a purpose in back of the purposelessness. It doesn’t get any more irrational than that." If the neo-Darwinian theory says "God didn't do it" then the TE position must be to say God did it by not doing it. Agree, what could be more irrational, i.e. intellectually degenerate.tgpeeler
August 9, 2010
August
08
Aug
9
09
2010
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PST
mikev6, 'they’re rhetorical talking points to impress the gullible.' Well let's hope a few of the gullible 39% who swallow that neo-Darwinian tripe are impressed shall we!bornagain77
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST
bornagain:
Well I guess if you totally ignore the fact that practically the entire media, from print to TV, is ‘indoctrinating’ known Darwinian falsehoods (which is the proper use of the word by the way) then I guess you can say what you said without being totally wrong, but alas I cannot turn blinders on as readily as the Darwin faithful can to the overwhelming evidence for a Darwinian propaganda machine. Thank goodness Darwinists cannot block the internet, nor those brave few outlets of press which will not cow down to the rhetoric of neo-Darwinists.
Some 80% of the US population is Christian, and only 39% of the US population accepts evolution. Who do you think is better at "indoctrination"? Unless you have some independent numbers to back your claims, they're rhetorical talking points to impress the gullible.mikev6
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PST
StephenB: Aha - thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding - perhaps I'm not used to evaluating statements on this blog from the POV of theistic evolution. Generally I step aside when one group of Christians tells another that they're 'doing it wrong'. It's easier to avoid now that it doesn't normally escalate into open warfare. I'm curious, however, how such a book will be responded to by other Christians.mikev6
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST
---CannuckianYankee: However, many of them get their theological “soundness” from a twisting and omitting of biblical passages, for which they claim biblical soundness." I get your point. I guess you could say that our individual characterizations of the TE folly fit nicely in complementary fashion: Ignore Scripture when possible, read passages selectively when pressed, and twist then when necessary.StephenB
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PST
StephenB, _________________________ —”CannuckianYankee —”So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t biblical.” You: "This is a very interesting comment, and I don’t doubt that there is an element of truth in it for some TEs. However, my impression is that most of them avoid the relevant Biblical references like the plague, and will address the point only when there is no means of escape." __________________ Yes, I would have to agree with that. I think my statement could have been better worded: The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t theologically sound. However, many of them get their theological "soundness" from a twisting and omitting of biblical passages, for which they claim biblical soundness.CannuckianYankee
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PST
It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me that theistic evolutionists are so willing to submit themselves to a naturalistic worldview when it comes to biology, and appease those who dogmatically maintain a 150 year old (outdated) scientific paradigm, but then seek to salvage some morsel of genuine faith in acknowledging God's creative role in the design of the universe. Do they really, truly believe that God is disinterested in the biology of His creation, or is their emphasis on global, universal design (of the universe) merely reflect a guilty conscience?Bantay
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PST
mikev6 this song reflects exactly how I feel about the censoring of any opposing evidence to Darwinism, by Darwinists, in the mass media as well as in the public school classroom; Kutless - Shut Me Out (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXCFdWStLgbornagain77
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PST
mikev6 you state, 'Regardless of what you call it, Christianity seems better at it, at least in the US.' Well I guess if you totally ignore the fact that practically the entire media, from print to TV, is 'indoctrinating' known Darwinian falsehoods (which is the proper use of the word by the way) then I guess you can say what you said without being totally wrong, but alas I cannot turn blinders on as readily as the Darwin faithful can to the overwhelming evidence for a Darwinian propaganda machine. Thank goodness Darwinists cannot block the internet, nor those brave few outlets of press which will not cow down to the rhetoric of neo-Darwinists.bornagain77
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST
---mikev6: "I don’t get this statement. Are you saying that the development of humans was inevitable under evolution?" Mike, I am not clear on what you are not clear about? Darwinists say that evolution is, without question, a purposeless, mindless, unprogrammed process that did not have man in mind. Design theorists, as scientists [not philosophers] say that evolution, if true, was likely [not without question] a purposeful, mindful, programmed process which did have man in mind. If evolution was programmed with man in mind [a reasonable proposition from an Intelligent Design perspective] then obviously the development of humans was inevitable; if evolution did not have man in mind [a Darwinist dogma], then the development of humans was not inevitable. [A good philosopher could explain why evolution, if true, was, without question, programmed. Science cannot make any claim with apodictic certaintly owing to the probabalistic nature of inductive reasoning, a fact that Darwinists obviously do not get. Theistic evolutionists want to have it both ways, Drawing on the Darwinist paradigm, which is purposeless by definition, while claiming that there is, nevertheless, a purpose in back of the purposelessness. It doesn't get any more irrational than that.StephenB
August 8, 2010
August
08
Aug
8
08
2010
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PST
StephenB:
evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, except that it did, in the final analysis, have man in mind, after all.
I don't get this statement. Are you saying that the development of humans was inevitable under evolution?mikev6
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PST
bornagain:
Sorry mikev6 but true Christianity is not so much indoctrination into a false belief system as neo-Darwinism currently is, or as say the false belief system of Nazism was, as you seem to think it is, but true Christianity is more of a introduction into a personal relationship with the living Creator of this universe and all life in it
My statement has nothing to do with the truth of either side. Gil used the word "indoctrination" in his orginal comment, and my point was that it could be used to refer to either side depending on your point of view. Not surprisingly, you would use it directed at evolution. Regardless of what you call it, Christianity seems better at it, at least in the US.mikev6
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PST
mikev6, you state:
I will say that, IMHO, the Christian side of the equation generally is better at the indoctrination process. Considering how easy it is to get through formal schooling with no biology at all, evolution indoctrination seems a distant second place.
Sorry mikev6 but true Christianity is not so much indoctrination into a false belief system as neo-Darwinism currently is, or as say the false belief system of Nazism was, as you seem to think it is, but true Christianity is more of a introduction into a personal relationship with the living Creator of this universe and all life in it: This song goes well with Barry's topic: Nicole Nordeman - What If http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f658EuiDRAcbornagain77
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PST
Gil:
Nevertheless, some people like me do manage to throw off the shackles of atheism and recognize the evidence around them.
Sure - and I don't have a problem with anyone's individual choice in this matter - I was just struck by your particular choice of phrase. I will say that, IMHO, the Christian side of the equation generally is better at the indoctrination process. Considering how easy it is to get through formal schooling with no biology at all, evolution indoctrination seems a distant second place.mikev6
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PST
riddick, thanks for the quote. That was indeed, interesting.StephenB
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PST
Sure, SB. I think TE is a philosophical cul-de-sac, among the most gutless positions one could take. It just so happens that a new pastor has come to my fair city to lead a flock of self-described "progressives." He was quoted in yesterday's paper. "One of our signs says 'God is Still Speaking.' Scripture was written at a time when most people thought the world was flat and they had no scientific data that we work with every day of our lives. To not progress theologically to the point of incorporating that kind of modern thinking into our scripture just doesn't make sense anymore." Well. Isn't that sweet. And he looks like such a nice guy in the accompanying photo. Probably a dad, perhaps even a grandfather. Maybe he leads sing-alongs on his guitar like you-know-who.riddick
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PST
---riddick: "And if you don’t see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can’t help you." Inasmuch as there is no reason to believe that Scordova or any other ID advocate desires to deny anyone's freedom of speech, it is evident that your perception of an "implicit desire" to the contrary is made up in your own mind. On the other hand, we have mountains of evidence to show that Darwinists suppress freedom of speech at every turn, a fact that was well documented and dramatized in the movie, "Expelled." Excuse me for changing the subject, but do you have an opinion about theistic evolution, which is the subject matter of this thread?StephenB
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PST
---riddick: “It’s fine by me if you and scordova want to get your panties in a wad about an editorial written by people with no power to hire or fire anyone at NIH, let alone the director. And if you don’t see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can’t help you.” I didn’t get my panties in a wad about anything. You mischaracterized Scordova’s thread, which has nothing to do with this one, and I simply corrected your mischaracterization. In the process, you falsely attributed a “non-sequitur” to me while stumbling into two of them yourself, both of which I identified. ---“Turning to the larger issue, what’s up with the positive slant and crocodile tears concerning FC and the NIH, anyway? As an independent conservative/libertarian, I’m curious about UD’s apparent embrace of a huge government agrency whose mission is, in part, “to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems…” The larger issue is on this thread, which you continue to avoid by way of distraction. If you haven’t heard, it is about theistic evolutionism and its internal contradictions. It has nothing at all to do with Scordova’s thread, which, as I indicated earlier, you misread coming out of the gate. This would be a good time to abandon the issue and attend to the subject matter under discussion.StephenB
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST
oops. "Who's" in my post above should be "Whose".riddick
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST
I thought Dembski provided a way of accomodating Darwinian evolution in his book, The End of Christianity. In it he argues that the Adamic Fall works backwards in times as well as frontwards. This means that ancient life in an old earth would have been subject to the effects of the Fall, and would be subject to the law of natural selection. So I am confused why Dembski thinks that there is no way to accomodate Darwinism and Christianity.Bilbo I
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST
SB, It's fine by me if you and scordova want to get your panties in a wad about an editorial written by people with no power to hire or fire anyone at NIH, let alone the director. And if you don't see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can't help you. Turning to the larger issue, what's up with the positive slant and crocodile tears concerning FC and the NIH, anyway? As an independent conservative/libertarian, I'm curious about UD's apparent embrace of a huge government agrency whose mission is, in part, "to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems..." Who's misguided notion was this? Does anyone on this blog want to argue that this is a proper role of the federal government? No, I don't think FC should be fired for being a Christian. But I do think the NIH should be shut down because it's rapidly becoming the plaything of the nanny state, suggesting to us, among other things, what or what not to eat, when to see a doctor, and encouraging us to get needless flu shots. If the Obamas have their way, these and many more suggestions will soon become mandates and laws (think ObamaCare). And the distractive rants of Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al, will fade into obscurity as we slide into the gray haze of a totalitarian state.riddick
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PST
---"CannuckianYankee ---"So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t biblical." This is a very interesting comment, and I don't doubt that there is an element of truth in it for some TEs. However, my impression is that most of them avoid the relevant Biblical references like the plague, and will address the point only when there is no means of escape. When I pressed Stephen Barr and Ted Davis at the First Things blog, for example, each tried to reconcile Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19 with Christian Darwinism [only after I explained the relevance of each passage to the problem of a TE world view] and contrived the most tortured arguments you have ever heard. To the question, "Did God reveal himself in nature or didn't he," here is my interpretation of their answer: God revealed himself with respect to cosmological design but then went back into hiding with respect to biological design. How's that for a schizophrenic world view? This is typical TE thinking: God revealed himself in nature, except that he didn't; God designed the world, except that he didn't; God programmed evolution, except that he didn't; evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, except that it did, in the final analysis, have man in mind, after all. And so it goes. A thing can be both true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. They want their God and their Darwin too, but they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin, even as they claim that God is their main concern and that coherence is their main objective. Unbelievable!StephenB
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST
Let me correct the last part of the above paragraph, which is all gibberish. It is meant to read - The ambiguous convoluted case of Woodrow at Columbia Seminary (which got a lot of publicity at the time) is worth looking up for anybody interested in the history of the Church's clash with Darwinism in the late 19th century.zephyr
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PST
I've always been fascinated with the way theistic evolutionists contradict and contort themselves in order to reconcile their theism with their faith in neo-Darwinism. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are among the most conspicuous I suppose.. Interestingly Francisco Ayala has a recent article selling this dupery at Standpoint Mag, entitled "Evolution can be Religion's friend". http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3073 Interestingly before the ID movement really got going, I think it was not well clarified or less well understood (even largely forgotten) that neo-Darwinism if seen as the sole mechanism of evolution is blatantly anti-religious in content and spirit. I always think men like Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dennet, Provine, E O Wilson and the rest of the atheistic Darwin club should be commended for at least being consistent and forthright and following the implications of Darwinism to its logical philosophical conclusions. Some of my biggest heroes in science were and are in fact theistic evolutionists, however they tend to be, in fact are in their entirety, of the older generations whose time is gone. I don't think, for all their strengths, that they tended to give too much thought to what Darwinism really is and more pertinently nor do I think they were really aware of how weak and limited the Darwinian claims actually are (for example Haeckel's recapitulation was not well recognised for the fraud that it is several decades ago), as was the case several decades ago. I'm assuming this new book gives considerable attention to the likes of Teilhard de Chardin whose influence in selling theistic evolution was considerable and perhaps second to none. Also it is worth mentioning those in the 19th century who did much to legitimise and sell the new Darwinian faith to religious believers. In America the notables here were John Zahm (very much a predecessor to Chardin), John Fiske and James Woodrow - all were fascinating characters in their own right. The ambcase of Woodrow at Columbia Seminary is vital to anybody interested in the history of the Church's clash with Darwinism in the 19th cneturyzephyr
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PST
“In the authors’ view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution – or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.” That sounds a lot like P.Z. Myer’s, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who see that there is no possibility of any kind of accommodation between science and religion. Ironically Darwin himself, though he was personally skeptical, was very accommodating when it came religion and religious belief. Consider the following: “Darwin stopped attending church after his father died, yet he played an active role in parish life. His children were baptized and confirmed at the parish church, where the family had both a pew and a plot. Darwin entrusted the education of his four younger sons to carefully chosen Anglican clergy. He maintained a lifelong friendship with the local vicar, supported the local church and five Sunday schools, and helped supervise church finances. Emma, like a good pastor’s wife, held family prayers on Sundays, took the children to services and dispensed food and medicine to the elderly, poor and sick. She also organized a drop-in centre/reading room for local workers as an alternative to the pub. She and Charles supported the work of evangelists who came to the village preaching temperance.” http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2009/11/rescuing_darwin/ Of course I am using accommodation as a implying toleration not endorsement. I would also argue that there are different kinds of theistic evolution, some of which are more compatible with biblical theology than Darwinian forms of TE, which is basically dysteleological. The problem I have with the Darwinian TE’s is not that they are seeking accommodating (tolerant) and civil dialogue and debate with materialist’s, it is that they are often very unaccommodating towards other Christian positions.john_a_designer
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PST
Nevertheless, some people like me do manage to throw off the shackles of atheism and recognize the evidence around them.GilDodgen
August 7, 2010
August
08
Aug
7
07
2010
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PST
Bantay & CY: I'm staying out of this one from now one so I don't make myself look even more stupid. You guys know a lot more about TEs than I do. But thanks for the insights and comments.ellazimm
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PST
Gil:
The other possible explanation is that some people have been so completely indoctrinated, for so long (perhaps their entire lives), that they believe it just has to be true, no matter logic or evidence to the contrary.
Fully agree. Nevertheless, some do manage to throw off the shackles of theism and recognize the evidence around them.mikev6
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PST
ellazimm, TEs basically accept that God exists, but they don't believe his work can be detected scientifically. This is not a biblical position in light of Romans 1: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1: 18-20, NIV) So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn't biblical. Well, is it not? Romans goes so far as to say that even God's "invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature" are also detectable through what has been made. Surely detecting design would be the first way of knowing this.CannuckianYankee
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply