One way of looking at it: In light of the appalling treatment of infants under Collins’s regime, he is just the sort of individual that the New Yorker would want to represent evangelical Christians — or any other group that its staff despise.
On theological but not necessarily scientific grounds. Some of us would think that if theistic evolution fails a science test, one needn’t bother with the theology. But maybe we misunderstand.
Readers may know Collins from his role promoting theistic evolution and/or some ethical issues around accusations of the use of premature babies as guinea pigs. More recently, his recent and unexpected resignation from the directorship of National Institutes of Health has created expected questions around the Institute’s handling of COVID-19. … If Collins was confronted about that e-mail for the first time — after a year and a half — most U.S. media have way too cozy a relationship with science bureaucrats.
Muzzafar Iqbal: After one hundred and seventy years of sound and fury surrounding “Darwin’s dangerous idea”, one would expect everything has been said by all sides and there is no further need to write on the subject. Yet, what Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once said seems to hold true: “Truth, Sir, is a cow that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.” “Such people”, for Samuel Johnson, were the skeptics of his time, but in our protean world, “such people” are people of faith who are keeping the Darwin industry afloat…
What some of us find curious is that Christian evolutionists so seldom want to grasp the fact that the problem for most Christians is Darwinism, which is an explicitly materialist and naturalist theory of everything. The problem is not “evolution” as in antibiotics.
as, it is worthy of further consideration (which is not the same as an endorsement). I headline a comment: [[Kojonen develops his case further: I will . . . argue in this book that the teleological order of biological organisms can still, in a rationally permissible way, be understood as a sign of the divine Read More…
Casey Luskin: “When I was reading the rhetoric used by evangelical elites who advocated abandoning a historical Adam and Eve, I was struck by how much of it seemed driven by fear — fear of looking foolish before the world because you challenged evolution and were shown to be wrong.” Maybe being right, sticking with their tradition, would have been a bigger problem for them.
Long a defender of orthodoxy, Craig seems to want to prune the orthodoxies he is expected to defend. But the pruning process in which he is engaged can never really stop. The “sensible God” is most likely the one looking back at us from our medicine cabinet mirrors.
Casey Luskin: Craig continues to rely upon BioLogos arguments that pseudogenes are “broken” and non-functional junk DNA that we share with apes, thereby demonstrating our common ancestry. Those arguments are increasingly contradicted by evidence presented in highly authoritative scientific papers which find that pseudogenes are commonly functional, and they ought not be assumed to be genetic “junk.”
West: “Indeed, [Ken] Miller insists that ‘mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.'” Needless to say, Lewis did not subscribe to anything similar to this and might not have recognized it as Christian.
As now alleged? Some US legislators want answers. We’ve been warning for some time that “Trust the Science” is going to take a huge — and well-deserved — beating among intelligent people. This’ll help that along.
If Collins stands for “theistic evolution,” reading about it has made some of us feel better about atheistic evolution. At least the atheistic evolutionists don’t pretend that they think human beings have intrinsic value. You know where you are with them.
It’s good that First Things is sponsoring an honest and civil debate.
John G. West: The disclosures about the experiments followed Collins’s repeal earlier this year of restrictions on the use of aborted fetal tissue in NIH-funded research… researchers also sliced off skin from the scalp of the aborted babies and then grafted the fetal skin onto the mice. In the words of the scientists: “Full-thickness human fetal skin was processed via removal of excess fat tissues attached to the subcutaneous layer of the skin, then engrafted over the rib cage, where the mouse skin was previously excised.” The body parts used for these experiments were harvested from aborted human fetuses with a gestational age of 18-20 weeks. By that age, an unborn baby has brain waves and a beating heart. He can hear sounds and move his limbs and eyes …
We will print, at Uncommon Descent, whatever Dr. Swamidass wishes to say further on this interesting topic of disappearing articles. We’d also be happy to hear him address how he thinks Dr. Axe has misrepresented him. Hey, we’re listening.