Christian Darwinism

Via this: Here’s what atheist evolution gurus think of Christian Darwinists: I, at least, think the NCSE shouldn’t take the theological position that faith is consistent with science. And the NCSE should limit its discussion about faith to saying that there are a variety of views about the consilience of science and faith and somebody in conflict should consult his/her minister. People like Larry Moran, P.Z., and I have been saying this for years, but it doesn’t seem to have penetrated Josh’s consciousness. “Josh” is a professional Darwin lobbyist who carries out boss Eugenie Scott’s dictum that a dog collar is worth two white coats, when working the crowd. The inimitable Jerry Coyne, attack by under-Darwin lobbyist Josh, roars back: Read More ›

Just received an email from the Templeton-funded Metanexus group. The big announcement is the unveiling of a new website: www.evolutionarychristianity.com You knew it was going to happen, and now it’s here. “Evolutionary Christianity” — a phrase that rolls off the tongue and inspires theological confidence. The gallery of people on the homepage features quite an assortment of thinkers making common cause — theological differences aside, the science of Darwinian evolution must be kept sacrosanct! It will be interesting to see whether this strategy to mainstream evolution among evangelicals succeeds. Granted, the Christian Colleges have by and large embraced “Evolutionary Christianity.” But “evolution” remains a dirty word among many evangelicals. Will the Templeton-inspired PR campaign that’s evident on this website succeed? Read More ›

This past Christmas, there was nothing new under the sun. The folks below, who make evolution their singular mantra, have not evolved the discussion of evolution to include and invite Intelligent Design advocates to the table to discuss science, evolution, or Christianity. I would’ve thought that, since the argument is always made by ID opponents (who are normally apologists for evolution) that ID is creation in a cheap lab coat, in other words, a thin cover for Christianity, ID advocates would’ve at least been invited to discuss Christianity. This co-option of evolution into Christianity reminds me of the co-option of Eugenics into Christianity in the early part of last century, a bad idea that will pass.

This Christmas, Christianity evolves

• Rev. Michael Dowd convenes diverse Christian leaders who see science as sacred
• EvolutionaryChristianity.com to host free podcasts and seminars

DECEMBER 22, 2010 – This Christmas season, bestselling author and evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd is having an online revival of sorts, and pitching what may be the biggest tent yet for fellow Christians who embrace evolution and honor science: EvolutionaryChristianity.com.

As a sequel to his breakthrough book Thank God for Evolution (Viking/Plume), Rev. Dowd is hosting and producing a living library of free podcasts and live panels with preeminent Christians on the leading edge of science and religion, where mythic beliefs and measurable reality collide.

» View schedule and bios
» View live panel schedule
» View speakers grouped by affiliation

“The New Atheists and scriptural literalists are not the only games in town,” says Dowd. “In contrast to Richard Dawkins’ God-less universe, tens of millions of us in the middle celebrate both Jesus and Darwin. For us, religious faith is strengthened by what God is revealing through science.”

Read More ›

It is Sunday, so I allow myself one religious story. One is informed by the Reverend Michael Dowd, and evangelist for Darwinism, that the “new atheists” are God’s prophets: According to Dowd, God is speaking pointedly to Christians today through some very unlikely messengers outside the church—namely New Atheists, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. These bestselling authors mock the biblical view of a God who, according to the U.S. Department of Defense’s definition of terrorism, is a cosmic terrorist. “The God that Richard Dawkins says is a delusion is a delusion!” asserts Dowd. “That way of thinking about God reflects an outdated, Bronze Age worldview that we have blindly believed for generations simply because someone said Read More ›

In response to Thomas Cudworth’s request, these are the five science-religion books that I would recommend, or at least has influenced me the most — and help to explain my distinctive take on ID. You’ll see that some of these are available free on-line. Since my explanations are long-ish. They are located below the fold. 

Read More ›

A friend offers observations about the Dover (Kitzmiller) decision (2005).

 I didn’t cover it, because everyone else did, and I was writing a book, under contract, about something else, basically. Just as well. Everyone else who cared seemed to be on the scene already, and I was otherwise occupied.

Essentially, modern American culture is biased toward atheism, and nothing suits atheism better than Darwinism, its creation story. That Darwin himself thought so can be determined from his own writings, so one does get tired of the various bible school profs, museum curators, and textbook writers who pretend otherwise.

If you believe it, fine. If you don’t, why suck up to it? Read More ›

1. Mayday mayday mayday SoS Darwin! Is it really that bad? Guess so, if you go by BioLogos.

The skinny:

… you have heard about the “massive evidence” for Darwinism, right? No, that is a confusion cleverly created by Darwinist tax and donor burdens.

What they do is they cleverly confuse two concepts: One is evidence for evolution. Few doubt that, in my experience. Does anyone doubt, for example, that the tyrannosaur is no longer among us? Well, a simple question would be, can anyone produce one?

But the Darwinist always conflates it into evidence for Darwinism: That time and chance alone can produce intricate machinery within cells, which accounts for the life we see around us. That is flatly unbelievable. “

The fat:

Guess so.

Professor Karl W. Giberson vice-president of BioLogos asks, in Saving Darwin Can you still be a Christian and support the idea of evolution? He argues that we can save Darwin and still be Christians or theists.

But that begs the question: Why should we? Why should we care about saving Darwin? Darwin is in eclipse scientifically, for good reasons, and the question is what to do now.

Darwinism is kept in place by people I can only describe as atheist tax and donor burdens. They do not hesitate to lavish sickening obsequies on the old Brit toff. Christian tax and donor burdens who support these atheist tax burdens support them and pay no attention, so far as I can see, to the fact that the vast majority of their compatriots are pure naturalists (= no God and no free will). Indeed, their constant refrain is, if we don’t accept these people’s views, ours will not be believed or accepted.

As if that would ever happen in an environment where such people rule. It would be quite the laff riot if it did not involve serious public policy issues.

Next segment: 2. Christian Darwinism is not in trouble? No? Want to put it to a real test?

Note: You can read the whole thing here, as per below. I placed links back to the Post-Darwinist because they were already embedded anyway.

2. Christian Darwinism is not in trouble? No? Want to put it to a real test?

Read More ›

I see where Evolution Weekend, brainchild of the Clergy Letter Project, has come and gone again: Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic – to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letters themselves, which have now been signed by more than 13,000 members of the clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion Read More ›

In the last year and a bit I’ve done a lot of work in trying to understand and then critique the approach of Dr. Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute in Cambridge (UK). I know that many readers of UD are familiar with Alexander’s big-selling work, “Creation or Evolution – Do We Have To Choose?”. This book is probably (alongside Francis Collins) the work with the most traction by Darwinists seeking to argue from a Biblical Christian viewpoint. I’ve previously drawn attention to IVP’s “Should Christians Embrace Evolution”. In this post I want instead to draw attention to my own response, “Creation or Evolution – Why We Must Choose”. If you don’t want to read the blurb and just want Read More ›

Can someone explain?

A friend directs me to this example, but you needn’t doubt I’d find more.

Who would want this individual managing their stock portfolio?:

If you crunch the numbers in relation to your own birth (i.e. the probability that a particular sperm united with a particular egg multiplied by the probability that your parents met and repeated the calculation back until the beginning of time), you will get a fantastically low probability.

And so? Look – I cannot bring my parents into this (O’Leary, b 1950), because they are still alive.

But Read More ›