Intelligent Design

Theology at BioLogos: The Curious Case of the Wesleyan Maneuver – Part 3

In Part 2A and Part 2B, we analyzed in great depth the discussion between Crude and Dennis Venema. We discovered that Venema consistently evaded Crude’s questions, and that, even when he finally answered them, his answers were unclear and unsatisfactory. And we discovered the source of the lack of clarity – Venema’s self-contradictory commitment both […]

Intelligent Design

Theology at BioLogos: The Curious Case of the Wesleyan Maneuver – Part 2B

Continuing, from Part 2A of this posting, our analysis of the BioLogos conversation between Crude and Dennis Venema: Crude comes back one more time for clarification (67718): “So then, you believe God knew what evolution would result in, in advance of His beginning the process. And of course, He had and has complete power over […]

Intelligent Design

Theology at BioLogos: The Curious Case of the Wesleyan Maneuver – Part 2A

In Part 1 of this posting, I introduced “the Wesleyan Maneuver,” one of the great BioLogos devices for getting away with an evasive and unsatisfactory account of the relationship between divine action and evolution. Here in Part 2, I wish to illustrate the Maneuver by means of a real example. Perhaps the most memorable example […]

Intelligent Design

Theology at BioLogos: The Curious Case of the “Wesleyan Maneuver” – Part 1

As readers of UD know, the organization called BioLogos is dedicated to the harmonization of modern science – by which it means, mainly, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory – with Christian theology. One of the problems that has always bedevilled the BioLogos project is that its leading science-trained figures – directors and columnists alike – have displayed […]

Christian Darwinism Intelligent Design

Dennis Venema’s Vacuous Arguments Against ID

Thomas Cudworth takes issue with Biologos at Uncommon Descent: It is so typical of Biologos columnists to say things like: “On Page 259 Meyer misnames this chemical, and therefore he is scientifically incompetent, therefore ID is false.” “Overall, Dr. Venema’s series on why he abandoned ID is much like his series of articles on Signature in the Cell — an intellectual washout. It contributes nothing to the serious discussion of ID notions and ID arguments. If this is the best argument that Biologos can marshal against ID, its days are numbered.”

Intelligent Design

Why Jeff Shallit Doesn’t Attend Evolutionary Biology Conferences – And Why That’s Not the Point

Jeffrey Shallit has responded to my new column over at his blog, Recursivity. Shallit’s reply is interesting.  He starts out on the wrong foot right away, in his subtitle: “Thomas Cudworth asks why prominent evolutionary scientists did not attend the Evolution 2011 conference in Norman, Oklahoma this summer.” Actually, I didn’t.  In fact, I pointed […]

Intelligent Design

Why Were So Many Darwin Defenders No-Shows at the World’s Premier Evolutionary Conference?

I have often wondered whether the loudness and aggressiveness of many culture-war defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution bears any relationship at all to the actual scientific contributions of those defenders to the field of evolutionary biology.  As it happens, we have at hand some evidence, albeit of a rough and ready kind, relevant to that question.

Intelligent Design

When Is a Rejoinder Not a Rejoinder? The Disappointing Evasion of Karl Giberson

In my column of May 18, I sharply criticized Dr. Karl Giberson for an earlier column on Biologos, which in my view argued for a dangerous subservience to scientific consensus. Dr. Giberson’s article generated quite a lot of controversy on the Biologos site, where two posters named “Rich” and “gingoro” argued firmly (but politely) that […]