Pultz: They agree that God designed life, but if you are able to see evidence for design in nature, you are wrong.
Strandness: Richard Dawkins famously said that Charles Darwin made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but I found that ID made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
He was always very much their sort of guy; one wonders what took them so long. It seems as though Templeton is returning to an earlier approach here. Collins is definitely a God Squad type, having held the right positions. There was a middle period when some of their awards gave pause for thought
If you liked the raw feed from the debate, you’ll love this cleaned-up version.
Here’s vid from the Ratio Christi Facebook page of Joshua Swamidass vs. Michael Behe. at the LIVE Veritas Forum 2020: God and/or Evolution.
In the real world, this is not the time to be buying into “consensus” but to be advocating reform.
Are these claims really being made to help the theology or to help theistic evolution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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…