Christian Darwinism

I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, in this video I talk about just a handful of the many books that attempt to refute ID. Again, I would be interested to know what others think are the best books that attempt to show ID is wrong. Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Read More ›

… talking about ID. From Zondervan Academic: We are now just several weeks away from the release of the Dictionary of Christianity and Science. We have been encouraged by the response so far—it has occupied the #1 New Release spot on Amazon in the category of Christian Bible Dictionaries & Encyclopedias for much of the past few months. More. Look for entries from Bill Dembski, Steve Meyer, Ann Gauger, Bruce Gordon, Michael Flannery, Mike Keas, Paul Nelson, Wayne Rossiter, Angus Menuge, Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Egnor, Cornelius Hunter, Rob Sheldon, Jonathan McLatchie, etc. Just think: Apparently, it is actually a reference work. It can tell you what is happening in these areas in newsmakers’ own words. At US$59.99, it is a Read More ›

One of the main pages on my new blog has a brief account of my journey towards accepting ID. I’ve taken a few different stances on the biological origins question in the past so it’s been a bumpy ride for me. This article is mainly autobiographical, but it gives me a chance to lay my cards on the table so I don’t have assumptions made about me and so readers know roughly where I’m coming from. Here’s a snippet: So, how and why did I become an intelligent design advocate? It’s a long(ish) story… I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, a Christian. I was raised in a Christian home and, with the exception of a period of ephemeral teenage agnosticism, I have Read More ›

BioLogos exists to reconcile Christians to evolution, which today seems to mainly mean Darwinism (“modern science” ). From their prez Deborah Haarsma: When people accept the AiG narrative that these scientific conclusions are essential to Christianity, then their faith is often shaken when they encounter the incredible explanatory power of modern science. In fact, we hear from individuals on a daily basis who have experienced a deep crisis of faith when their young-earth creationist beliefs were exposed as scientifically (and biblically) weak. While we are grateful that BioLogos has helped recover and strengthen the faith of these Christians, we mourn the fact that countless others have drifted away from the faith. Young-earth creationist teaching is causing unnecessary harm to the Read More ›

From “Intelligent Design: a Theological and Philosophical Analysis” by Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen the Journal of Analytic Theology Abstract: “The “God of the gaps” critique is one of the most common arguments against design arguments in biology, but is also increasingly used as a critique of other natural theological arguments. In this paper, I analyze four different critiques of God of the gaps arguments and explore the relationship between gaps arguments and similar limit arguments. I conclude that the critique of the God of the gaps is substantially weaker than is commonly assumed, and dismissing ID́s biological arguments should rather be based on criticizing the premises of these arguments.” Full text. Good luck with that. The main purpose of God Read More ›

Closing off our religion coverage for the week (a bit late), we hear from Filthy Monkey Men (an evolutionary anthropology blog by a Liverpool Student with Attitude): Lots of religious people accept evolution, but they typically only do so because they’re following religious dogma, not because they understand the subject So some researchers decided to test this hypothesis by taking trip to the Milwaukee Public Museum. There they conducted a survey, identifying visitors’ knowledge of evolution, their acceptance of the theory and their religious denomination. The goal being to identify whether or not religious denomination was correlated with knowledge and acceptance of evolution; indicating that some groups were indeed fostering scientific understanding. And as you might expect they found a Read More ›