Readers may vaguely recall: If anyone cares, Biologos (Christians for Darwin) will now actually review Darwin’s Doubt, which shows why the Cambrian explosion can’t be explained by the theory that guides their lives and work.
Author Steve Meyer responds to their attempts to defend Darwinian naturalism here:
In any case, it is not at all clear that BioLogos has declined to take an official position on methodological naturalism. In their description of the theory of intelligent design on their website, BioLogos affirms its commitment to explaining all natural phenomena (including presumably the origin of life and novel forms of life) by reference to strictly natural causes. As the website explains:
[Intelligent Design] 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. [Emphasis added.]
Indeed, BioLogos writers have repeatedly affirmed the principle of methodological naturalism — as the preceding statement surely does — in numerous contexts.4 Bishop critiqued my book precisely because it repudiates “methodological naturalism.” All this would seem to make it entirely fair to question the extent to which a priori commitments to this principle disincline the BioLogos reviewers from considering the evidence for, and the logical basis of, intelligent design as an explanation for various classes of evidence. By denying that these commitments, or at least intellectual proclivities, played a significant role in the judgment of her team of reviewers, Haarsma denies the obvious and, in so doing, reverses some of the progress that her reviewers had made in clarifying the real issues that separate our two groups. More.
By “natural explanations,” they mean the ones Darwin’s followers would approve of.
Oh, by the way, at 1:00 am EST March 5, 2015, Darwin’s Doubt stood at:
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #13,787 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Paleontology
- #5 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
- #5 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism
Must have been some other God then.
Follow UD News at Twitter!