theistic evolution

From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz: I simply reject this notion that the entire discussion can be cast in the framework of what is and what is not science, or what science can and cannot do. If a TEist believes in a supernatural Jesus, they’re not anti-science. But neither is a Christian who believes that angels fought alongside Elisha. Such claims are not rejections of the fundamental laws and mechanics of nature. They are claims that our history is more than this. To say that there are things science cannot explain is not to say that science is to be rejected. What if it’s not a war between science and faith, but a shared partnership between the natural and Read More ›

Astrophysicist and neuroscientist Casper Hesp wrote a piece at BioLogos, reviewing physicist Peter Bussey’s Signposts to God. Hesp thinks that fine-tuning of the universe is not a good argument for theism. After all, despite massive evidence and the utter improbability of other approaches, we could find out some day that we are wrong. From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz: Last week I posted on what I see as a growing (and concerning) trend among BioLogians: the gravitation towards full-on naturalism (even beyond cosmology). I also speculated that Bussey’s arguments had been badly misrepresented. I decide to ask Dr. Bussey directly about some of the Hesp’s claims. In a really splendid way Bussey has offered a response. I am cut-pasting Read More ›

Wayne Rossiter,, author of Shadow of Oz offers a response to Casper Hesp’s concern that we not take fine-tuning of our universe to be evidence for God: It’s odd to review a review, but a few things came up in Casper Hesp’s review of Signposts to God (by physicist Peter Bussey), and I felt they needed to be pointed out. First let me say that it is apparent that Hesp’s views are not that representative of BioLogos in general (which begs the question, why is he writing for them?). Namely, if his views are correct then both Francis Collins and Robin Collins, and a good many other BioLogians, are wrong. In fact, most Christians are wrong, because most of us Read More ›

In “BioLogos: One shouldn’t use fine-tuning as an argument for God’s existence, Wayne Rossiter was quoted as saying that he had predicted hat theistic evolutionists would go to war against fine-tuning. So, we naturally asked, where? Where’s your sealed, time-stamped, notarized envelope? Turns out, it’s in his book Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, and he helpfully provided us with some quotations: After unwrapping the anthropic argument from ‘fine-tuning,’[Bruce] Glass [a theistic evolutionist] crosses the finish line with, ‘It should not go unnoted that there are plausible alternatives to the idea that our universe was specifically designed for the purpose of producing life. None of these alternatives, however, do anything to exclude the possibility of God as Read More ›

From Casper Hesp at BioLogos: I believe it is unwise to turn fine-tuning into an argument based on the gaps in our understanding, because the properties of the universe could become more amenable to scientific explanation in the future. Watchful readers will have noticed that the pitfalls discussed here have almost one-on-one equivalents in common arguments of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. ID proponents have used arguments from probability, entropy, and gaps in our current understanding of nature to make inferences about the existence of a “designer.” More. Has the author any reason to expect that more discoveries will lead to fewer perceptions of fine-tuning? Has that been the pattern so far? If not, what is his basis for thinking it Read More ›

That is, if you write a realistic evolutionary simulation, instead of a simplistic one. From Kirk Durston at Contemplations: A Response to Matlock and Swamidass on the Astonishing Improbability of Protein Families … In their simulation, they began with a perfectly ordered repeating sequence and then mutate it to see if the estimated functional information for non-functional sequences would converge on the actual value of zero bits of information. It did not, producing estimates that were significantly in error from the known value of zero bits. They provided no analysis as to why their results were so badly off. I wrote a more realistic simulation that began with the same, highly ordered repeating sequence. From that seed sequence the program Read More ›

… talking about ID. From Zondervan Academic: We are now just several weeks away from the release of the Dictionary of Christianity and Science. We have been encouraged by the response so far—it has occupied the #1 New Release spot on Amazon in the category of Christian Bible Dictionaries & Encyclopedias for much of the past few months. More. Look for entries from Bill Dembski, Steve Meyer, Ann Gauger, Bruce Gordon, Michael Flannery, Mike Keas, Paul Nelson, Wayne Rossiter, Angus Menuge, Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Egnor, Cornelius Hunter, Rob Sheldon, Jonathan McLatchie, etc. Just think: Apparently, it is actually a reference work. It can tell you what is happening in these areas in newsmakers’ own words. At US$59.99, it is a Read More ›

Waynesburg biologist Wayne Rossiter, reviews Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, at his blog: Part I: Venema really only has two things he wants to accomplish in his portion of the book: 1) to demonstrate that there could never have been two original progenitors of humanity and 2) that ID is wrong. I think, biologically speaking, Venema is decidedly wrong on the first point. The second point, as I’ve mentioned, is really rather irrelevant to the discussion. At no point does Venema actually engage any ID arguments for the literal Adam and Eve (if any exist). His attacks on ID have essentially nothing to do with the question of whether or not Read More ›

Part two of my series looking at Jeffrey Koperski’s paper ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones’ is now up on my blog. This one is quite in depth, but a couple of interesting issues come up along the way. I examine the concept of soft and hard anomalies in scientific theories and how they might affect theory change. I then look at the claim that ID’s scientific core is too meagre to be considered serious science. The final objection I analyse is the claim that ID violates a metatheoretic shaping principle known as scientific conservatism. In part one of this series looking at Jeffrey Koperski’s paper, Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Read More ›

Reviewing Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, at Gospel Coalition: The book is well-written, informative, engaging, and relentlessly provocative. Despite these strengths, however, the book failed to convince me. It exemplifies what many Christians on the sidelines find concerning as they watch these science-theology debates unfolding. And once again—to borrow a Mark Twain misquote—rumors of Adam’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. We shouldn’t miss the deep irony. One of the authors’ main motivations for writing this book is to remove a stumbling block for young people. McKnight goes on to tell us, repeatedly and insistently, that most lay believers consider the “historical” Adam central to the faith. As we’ve seen, his main thesis is that there is Read More ›

From Wayne Rossiter, author of Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, at Shadow of Oz: Swamidass surprises us with a very counter-intuitive statement: “Did you know that information = entropy? This means the 2nd law of thermodynamics guarantees that information content will increase with time, unless we do something to stop it.” … Of course, he is arguing much more than just the observation that entropy = information. He’s arguing that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics guarantees an increase in information. This seems very sloppy to me. Yes, if we consider time as a variable, then the universe will develop pockets of increased information (complexity?), while still experiencing a global loss of information and complexity. The universe Read More ›

From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz blog: Today, I would like to deal with a couple of classic stances espoused by most theistic evolutionists, and then detail some very specific views and opinions that have come up recently. Perhaps most important among these items is the apparent shell-game at play when a theistic evolutionist excuses God’s direct intervention by pointing to His immanence as the sustainer of all things. For example, in a recent discussion with Doug Axe, Keith Fox offered an oft-used reason for rejecting the idea that God might directly act in the world: … Fox rejects “a God who finds that things aren’t just the way they should be and has to invent the miraculous, because Read More ›

Theistic evolution: Darwin was right and we defend Darwinism from critics from whatever quarter. But we feel that God did it somehow anyway (even though Darwin and most of his followers do not think that)… In a time of such ferment around evolution, theistic evolution attracts lazy people with theology credentials and a gift for easy sloganeering. In my line of work (O’Leary for News), one learns to spot these types, whether one wishes to use, abuse, confuse, or refuse them. Put simply: If I belonged to a church that wanted to “take a position” on evolution, I would ask, “Why? Even the Royal Society isn’t sure what its position should be. If we haven’t already gone and said something Read More ›

In response to our Steampunk Darwin, David Klinghoffer observes, at Evolution News & Views, a classic example of the way in which mediocrities know they are right: Because they can attract a consensus of, mainly, themselves to end discussions of problematic new information: Shutting Down the Evolution Debate, the “Mainstream Science” Way We noted the other day our biologist colleague Cornelius Hunter’s online adventure, parachuting into a discussion with theistic evolutionists over at the BioLogos website. The debate in a thread at their Open Forum, “What is Universal Common Descent?,” is long and discursive. It runs to 212 entries so far. I can’t claim to have read every word, but this struck me as telling. At comment #203, Washington University’s Joshua Read More ›

From Wayne State biologist Wayne Rossiter at his blog: A critique of Plantinga’s argument for the compatibility of Darwinian evolution and Christianity. Plantinga’s principle concern (stated in the first line of his first essay) is “Are science and religion compatible?” After some meandering, he refines the search a bit, offering, “Theistic religion endorses special divine action in the world—miracles, for example—but such action would contravene the laws promulgated by science. There is such a thing as the scientific worldview, and it is incompatible with theistic religion.” If it were true that “science” as a practice rightly conforms to this “scientific worldview” (read: naturalism), then I suppose we could stop here (on page two of the essay) and say that Plantinga Read More ›