Intelligent Design

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 to God’s absolute sovereignty and to the “freedom” of nature which he thinks is implied by his “non-Calvinist” position. And we discovered that, rather than being much distressed by the incoherence of his position, he excused it on the grounds that “mystery” is allowable in his theology. Such a position renders the entire BioLogos venture pointless, since its goal is to convince the public, especially Read More ›

I particularly enjoyed Denyse’s comment here about how, according to some evolutionary theorists — who should be more accurately depicted as evolutionary storytellers — Darwinian evolution programmed us to find Darwinian evolution difficult to believe. This is called science? A much more reasonable explanation is that our minds were programmed to invent computer programs, and to find Darwinism difficult to believe because it makes no rational sense. But I digress from the theme of my post. I enjoyed Jonathan’s presentation about junk DNA at the link provided above. Let us presume that the genome does include junk. What does this have to do with the evidence for design found elsewhere, such as in the highly sophisticated, functionally integrated, information-processing machinery Read More ›

Morality, as Kant pointed out, hinges neither on success nor on failure. The moral law transcends the material world. The evolutionist’s sophomoric response is that morality evolved and so therefore is not absolute, but rather is relative. That’s like saying water is not wet. And while they’re at it, evolutionists, at least those in the atheist wing, not only deny values, they also deny truth. That’s right, evolutionists—who are constantly making religious truth claims and casting judgments on those who don’t go along with their mandate that evolution is a fact—deny the existence any real morality and truth. You can see the obvious dilemma they have constructed. If there is no morality or truth, then how can evolution be known Read More ›

The evolutionary hypothesis that the species arose according to a combination of random events and natural law—chance and necessity—is more than just the dominant paradigm of the life sciences. For about a century now evolution has been nothing less than biology’s over arching dogma—a fact to be accepted by all. Life scientists think in lock-step and no skepticism or doubt is allowed. This narrowing of view is not just an after effect, it is a powerful constraint and influence on the science, for all findings are interpreted according to the dogma. That recent study on the evolutionary origin of turtles is a typical example.  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 that process – He chose what would result. So you’d hold evolution to be – ultimately, and not necessarily in a way that requires intervening miracles – guided and purposeful. Do I have you correct?” Again, a set of clear statements to which it should be easy to respond. Yet, when Venema returns, he again refuses speak to the word “guided” (nor will he speak 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 can be found at: http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-is-there-junk-in-your-genome-part-3 On this thread, a poster named “Crude” ventured to ask Dr. Dennis Venema – the leading columnist at BioLogos on matters of genetics and evolutionary theory – for his view on the role of God in the evolutionary process. The exchange that followed illustrated many of the typical features of discussions on this subject with BioLogos personnel, including the final 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 a combination of philosophical ineptness and historical ignorance regarding Christian theology. Their discussions of Christian doctrine tend to be sporadic, brief, and undeveloped; their historical documentation for theological claims is generally non-existent, and only rarely amounts to more than proof-texting (with two endlessly repeated quotations from Calvin and Augustine-via-Galileo constituting almost the entire primary-source case for their arguments); their theological reasoning about matters of creation, Read More ›

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busily promoting the writings of a man he describes as “The First New Atheist”: the acclaimed writer, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956). Professor Coyne promised his readers one week of daily posts featuring quotes from the great essayist, on the follies of religion, and he’s kept his word: he’s just completed Day Seven of his postings. When I first read of Professor Coyne’s choice of patron for the New Atheist movement, I quietly marveled. Professor Coyne is a very well-read man, and when he makes a choice, you can be sure that he has given it a lot of thought. It was he who officially declared Aratina Cage’s logo of Read More ›