Maybe we should put J.Warner Wallace on this one. What happened to these documents at the BioLogos Theistic evolution site? Their grand Search for Truth seems to include finding and deleting documents without explanation.
theistic evolution
Chance vs. Randomness: Another theological dance in Darwin’s defense?
Pardon the suspicion but some of us remember sneery “science-splains” at theistic evolution sites as to how there is a huge difference between chance and randomness—which sounded exactly like some scuzz claiming that there is a huge difference between taking money to keep quiet about wrongdoing and a bribe.
Douglas Murray: Is Darwinism toxic to Christianity?
And if Darwinism isn’t a correct statement of origins anyway, where does that leave all these theistic evolution fudgers in the cold light of the morning? They won’t come off looking any better than the creationists or the Darwinists, however they tried to position themselves.
Jon Harvey (“Hump of the Camel”) weighs in on the late Phillip Johnson
God can create ex nihilo. Claims like “God wouldn’t do it that way” are mere opinion. The question for a scientist … is, what did he do? And once we are forced back on the evidence, the theistic evolutionists’ darling, Darwinism, comes more and more to be seen as the toad who is not turning into a prince when we finally get the princess to kiss him.
Whatever happened to BioLogos (and “Christian evolutionism” in general)?
Maybe BioLogos is more interested in climate change now. National Center for Science Education appears to have gone the same route. A reasonable choice for both, given how Darwinism is faring.
Webinar: Jonathan McLatchie interviews Joshua Swamidass
On Michael Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves. Join here. Just a friendly reminder about the webinar I am hosting later today with Joshua Swamidass to discuss Behe’s new book [which Swamidass attacked in Science]. You are welcome to participate anonymously if you want — questions can even be submitted anonymously. We kick off at 3pm Read More…
New Pew Survey creates a huge middle on evolution
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue.
Trying to have a discussion when others want a diversion
Douglas Axe talks about a long-running dialogue he has had as a result of his 2016 book, Undeniable , where he can’t seem to get his dialogue partner to focus on what he is saying in his book and not what someone else is saying and what a fourth party is saying about them: But Read More…
Biologist Wayne Rossiter on non-religious doubts about universal common ancestry
Wayne Rossiter, author of Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, talks about predictable claims from theistic evolution: To catch people up to speed, in a facebook conversation, [Jim] Stump made the statements, “Common ancestry [here he means Universal Common Ancestry] is a multiply confirmed theory that explains the observable data in detail. Read More…
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Karsten Pultz reports from Denmark on efforts to suppress the idea of design in nature that are coming from the Danish church. Mr. Pultz is also the author of “Why I have a problem with theistic evolution,”: Intelligent design being suppressed in academia is old news. But in Denmark even a Christian newspaper participates in Read More…
Moshe Averick: When does a “gap” point beyond conventional science?
Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of The Confused World of Modern Atheism (Mosaica Press, 2016) addresses the “God of the Gaps” – the claim that the intersections between the material and the immaterial in nature are just “gaps” waiting to be filled in (with special reference to the origin of life): The first thing I would bring Read More…
Why do Catholic intellectuals claim Thomas Aquinas would cozy up to Darwinism?
Especially when it comes to a Darwinian approach to human beings? Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton* detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not Read More…
Must Christians believe in the Big Bang theory?
J. R. Miller offers a reasonable discussion of varieties of Biblical creationism: Maybe you have heard the accusation that biblical creationists are blinded by their ancient theology which forces them to reject the modern “scientific fact” of evolution. But what do people mean by this accusation? What is evolution? Is biblical creation a de facto Read More…
Does cancer disprove intelligent design? Two views
So thinks theistic evolutionist Joshua Swamidass at Biologos. It turns out that evolutionary theory is indispensable to understanding cancer. The link I offered above leverages evolution for just this purpose. … From this body of work, we can see the evolution of new functions (new information!), neutral theory, and the effectiveness of obtuse metrics like Read More…
Paper: “Dangerous tendencies” of Catholic theistic evolutionist included support for “racist eugenic practices”
Abstract: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin loved the world, but, theologically and spiritually, he often tried to leave it behind. This essay shows that from the 1920s until his death in 1955, Teilhard de Chardin unequivocally supported racist eugenic practices, praised the possibilities of the Nazi experiments, and looked down upon those who he deemed “imperfect” Read More…