Author: Thomas Cudworth

In response to our discussion, here and here, of divine action in evolution, Darrel Falk has briefly commented, under #70521 of Dennis Venema’s recent column: “Bilbo and Thomas have not accurately summarized our position.” As evidence for this claim, he provides two links, one to Part 1 of his response to Dembksi, and one to the Read More…

Dr. Dennis Venema, lead geneticist over at BioLogos, whose evasiveness regarding divine action in evolution we thoroughly documented here, here, here, and here, appears to have noticed our efforts. In his latest column over at BioLogos, he writes to Bilbo (70458): “I’ve appreciated your work to hold the feet of certain ID folks to the Read More…

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 Read More…

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 Read More…

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 Read More…

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 Read More…

Over on Biologos there is a new column, the first of a series on “science and scientism” by Dr. Ian Hutchinson.  Hutchinson is a nuclear physicist at M.I.T.  As Dr. Hutchinson has some impressive credentials based on a long and productive scientific career, his thoughts on the nature of science might be thought to carry Read More…

Dennis Venema, the “heavy hitter” of Biologos when it comes to evolutionary theory — hands up, professors of evolutionary biology at Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., if you have heard of Dennis Venema — has recently issued some remarks about ID in an interview.  The remarks can be found on the website of Read More…

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 Read More…

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.

I thank Professor Feser for his reply to my latest question. Feser’s reply appears to bring us much closer together, though I am not sure, so I must probe a bit more. First of all, let me clear some things out of the way: 1.  No, I do not expect Feser to agree to bad Read More…

Over the past several months, Dr. Edward Feser has been engaged in debate with various ID proponents, most recently Jay Richards and Vincent Torley, over the relationship between two types of argument for God’s existence:  on the one hand, arguments from design such as are found in Paley and in the writings of some ID Read More…

A couple of weeks ago, over on Biologos, Dr. Ted Davis, a fine historian of science (and one of the few TEs who does not misrepresent the ID position) ran an interesting column.  He invited all readers of Biologos to submit their “top five” books in the area of “science and religion,” i.e., the five Read More…

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 Read More…