Behe’s first book – the bacterial flagellum
Keith Fox: Here are a couple of papers that show how parts of the flagellum evolved
They are possible pathways.
Michael Behe: No, those are studies that show that there are similarities between bacterial flagella in multiple organisms
Similarities of proteins between different organisms do not necessarily imply a developmental pathway Read More ›
At Evolution News & Views (May 31, 2011) science historian Michael Flannery reviews James Hannam’s The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, which mostly tells us what Christians should be ashamed of not knowing:
The standard rendering that the medieval Church stood in the way of scientific advance and spent its time persecuting the leading intellects of the day like Galileo until free and open inquiry was rescued by the Renaissance humanists is shown to be utterly false.
Flannery and Hannam (who ends up falling in later, unfortunately) are quite right to say what they do. But one gets the sense that something is missing from these scholarly discussions. How about the role of, for example, Christian Darwinists in fronting the idea that any Christian who does not believe in the ape Adam and Eve depicted recently in Christianity Today is actually causing the hostility of materialist atheists? That, of course, may be true. But if so, what about it? Why is Karl Giberson allowed to feel humiliated about the Christians he feels superior to, because he is prepared to believe in such disgusting follies? Why are the BioLogians willing to alter any timeless Scriptural teaching in order to cater to them? But more, why tolerate their arrogance?
As a hack, I first smelled a rat a decade ago Read More ›
This had to happen, of course: John R. Schneider at Calvin College, according to “The Search for the Historical Adam” (Christianity Today, June 2011 ) Vices we associate with consequences of the Fall and original sin, such as self-serving behavior, exist in lower primates ad would have been passed on via evolution to humans. Thus Eden “cannot be a literal description of how things really were in the primal human past.” (p. 26)0 So does the Evolutionary Agony Aunt chair the psychology department at Calvin? Yes, the Aunt’s real, just as real as the Christian profs getting in on the act.
From my notes on Christianity Today’s June 2011 “Darwin ‘n Jesus ‘n me” article. The article offers a look at Christian Darwinist think tank BioLogos: Biblical exegete Daniel C. Harlow, along with theologian John R. Schneider, are being investigated for violating doctrinal standards at Calvin College, for their work in ASA’s Perspectives. BioLogos (Christian Darwinist think tank) has as its biblical expert Peter Enns, whose Old Testament theorizing led to his suspension from Westminster Theological Seminary (p. 26). Similarly, Tremper Longman III found that he was no longer an adjunct faculty member at Reformed Theological Seminary, due to an article he published at BioLogos, saying that nothing insists on a literal understanding of Adam. So, if this is the new Read More ›
Here. This link works. Thanks Mung. Notes on the article here.
Johnson meant that real Darwinists say what Darwinism entails (materialist atheism) and then Christian Darwinists rush in to announce that we can somehow harmonize it with Christianity by not taking seriously what Darwinists actually say. Explained in detail here. The analogy is to American football.
In The Moral Landscape, for example, new atheist and PhD neuroscientist Sam Harris tackles free will: In The Moral Landscape, for example, new atheist Sam Harris tackles free will:
Many scientists and philosophers realized log ago that free will could not be squared with our growing understanding of the physical world. Nevertheless, mny still deny this fact. … The problem is tat no account of causality leaves room for free will … Our belief in free will arises from our moment-to-mement ignorance of specific prior causes. (Pp. 103-5)
Are we clear about this yet? If not, dozens of examples from other Darwinists are available. And then
Read More ›
Oh, call them “Christian evolutionists” if you want. Terminology wars are fun but let’s talk about facts.
In “Karl Giberson Has a Problem With Bill Dembski’s “View of Science”, Anika Smith (ENV, May 13, 2011) responds to Giberson’s article at Patheos,
When he finally does get around to addressing Dembski himself [after a side trip into young earth creationism], Giberson objects to Dembski’s use of marketing metaphors as an ad hominem attack, which is strange considering that Dembski wrote that this is something that scientists and people with ideas generally ought to communicate and advance them, with nothing cynical or slimy about it. Either Giberson is hypersensitive and looking for an excuse to display his lofty umbrage, or he is working to avoid the actual questions raised by Dembski’s review. Most likely it’s both.He does, however, give us a nice quote for giggles:
The scientific literature is not filled with growing concerns about the viability of the theory; scientific meetings do not have sessions devoted to alternative explanations for origins; and leading scientists are not on record objecting to the continuous and blinkered embrace of evolution by their colleagues.
Has he never heard of Jerry Fodor? Lynn Margulis? The Altenberg 16?
That’s a question I too have wrestled with, while writing a book, and here’s my assessment. Read More ›
In The Language of Science and Faith Karl Giberson and Francis Collins admonish us,
Most working biologists today actually have little interest in Darwin himself, and few have read The Origin of Species. In fact, most scientists do not use the label “Darwinism” any longer. The modern theory of evolution has contributions from many scientists over the last 150 years and has become the core of biology. (P. 21)
Okay, but how about this from the Discovery Institute: “We’d love to take credit for Darwinism, but can’t.”: Read More ›
Any “God” that can be believed in or not believed in is a trivialized notion of the divine, and certainly not what we’re discussing here. Like life, reality simply is – no matter what beliefs one may hold about its nature, purpose, direction, and so forth – is open for discussion, and differences among those choices are unresolvable. But who can deny that there is such a thing as “Reality as a whole” and that “God” is a legitimate and proper name for this ultimacy? The transparency of this point is surely one reason why, as I share this perspective across North American, it garners the assent of theists, atheists, agnostics, religious nontheists, pantheists, and panentheists alike.
– Michael Dowd, Thank GOD for EVOLUTION! (San Francisco/Tulsa: Council Oak Books, 2007). p. 123.
Hmmm. Read More ›
Will Provine, history of biology prof, has won the first-ever awarded David L. Hull Prize for
his “extraordinary contributions to scholarship and service in ways that promote interdisciplinary connections between history, philosophy, social studies and biology, and that foster the careers of younger scholars.” – Krishna Ramanujan, Cornell Chronicle May 4, 2011
Hull was a famous Darwinian evolutionist. In a world where Christian Darwinists struggle to convince Christians to jettison deeply held beliefs in order to embrace Darwin, Provine has done his best to tell the truth. To make clear that 78% of evolutionary biologists, following in Darwin’s footsteps, believe not only that there is no God but that there is no free will. Like himself. Read More ›
That’s by design, as chance would have it. Giberson and Collins tell us in The Language of Science and Faith (IVP 2011, pp. 19-20): The BioLogos idea is not radically new, but the novelty of the word gives us a chance to talk about something that has long been disturbing to Christians without having to be constantly reminded of a long negative conversation. Most importantly it gives us a chance to talk about evolution. [ … ] Theistic evolution is the belief that God created life using natural processes, working within the natural order, in harmony with its laws. So, why don’t we simply use the term evolution to describe our view? We don’t use the term, at least not Read More ›
If so, maybe you are a Christian Darwinist and didn’t know it.
Michael Dowd, impresario of the thirty-three ring circus around Christian Darwinism, describes his own position as “creatheism”:
CREATHEISM: a concept introduced in the early 21st century, grounded in an empirical understanding of the nested emergent nature of divine creativity. For creatheists “God” is a holy name for Ultimate Reality—the all-encompassing Wholeness—that which includes yet transcends all other realities. Creatheism regards Nature as a revelation or expression of the divine, particularly in its emergent creativity. Creatheism understands humanity as a self-reflective aspect of Creation that allows the Wholeness of Reality, seen and unseen, manifest and unmanifest—i.e., God—to be honored in conscious awareness and to guide our own deliberate manifestations of that divine creativity.
What does all this mean exactly? He explains: Read More ›
No, we don’t know why, but neither does this person. Not short of an opinion about Uncommon Descent, though:
In typical fashion, Uncommon Descent are hoping for the worst: The “Darwinism” killed his faith. (Must. Control. Rage. Must not stoop to their level…) Let’s hope their just being despicable and there’s nothing to their speculation other than malice. Giberson is a good man and we need him in this fight.
Hard to say why “public theology” student Arni Zachariassen, who is supposed to favour “Thoughtful Theological Reflection” (blog’s title), should be in a barely controlled rage. Did Uncommon Descenters say that Darwinism had killed Giberson’s faith? The consensus here is that he was “a bridge too far” for – that is, not a good fit with – the BioLogos organization.
(Note: – AZ has since clarified his position. See this comment.)
Put another way: Giberson was way better for us than for them. Read More ›
The most recent Stephen Jay Gould prize has been awarded to anti-ID Catholic biochemist Ken Miller of Brown University:
Through his writings, teaching and appearances in court, Dr. Miller has proved an eloquent and passionate defender of evolution and the scientific method.
Some Miller comments:
The argument for intelligent design basically depends on saying, ‘You haven’t answered every question with evolution,’… Well, guess what? Science can’t answer every question. – Kenneth MillerThe new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design. – Kenneth Miller
There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory. – Kenneth Miller
Bradley Monton, atheist philosopher and author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), who thinks carefully about intelligent design, has some thoughts on Miller’s arguments:
Now, Miller thinks that naturalism is an essential part of science. He holds that if one drops the constraint of methodological naturalism, then science will stop, because one can imply appeal to God as an explanation of any scientific phenomenon. Miller writes:
A theistic science … will no longer be the science we have known. It will cease to explore, because it already knows the answers. Read More ›
This was the question: For a copy of The Nature of Nature , explain why either Richard Dawkins or Francis Collins is the cuter poster boy for selling Darwinism.
The question was first asked (that I ever heard of) by a prominent Canadian cosmologist, who wrote to a number of peers asking for feedback. He wanted a pollster to do a study too, but surely that would be a waste: We should only poll people on matters that will lead somewhere. Essentially, both these men are going to go away and do what they want, no matter what the tally, so why bother?
The winner is StephenB at 21, for clarity of analysis and precision of expression:
So, who is the better con man? In terms of gaining new recruits, I think Dawkins inspires more passion, but Collins probably gets better numbers. So, I give a slight edge to Collins. Whenever possible he avoids clarity of expression and practices the crafty art of “strategic ambiguity,” allowing potential supporters with widely divergent world views to read their own convictions into his message. Notice how, with maddening imprecision, he informs his listeners that there is “no conflict between religion and science,” prompting them to fill in the missing spaces with Christ and Darwin.
StephenB, write me at denyseoleary@gmail.com.
Incidentally, among those who cast a definite vote, it was a tie (not just Dawkins’ “nicer tie”). More below, but watch for the next contest. Read More ›