Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies:
I know everyone at BL and hundreds of ASA members, and I can never recall any one of them endorsing metaphysical naturalism. Not one. In every single case, if Denyse were to ask someone ” whether scientific explanations require metaphysical naturalism,” the answer would be, No. So, Denyse, having pretended to ask a question on your behalf, I’ll now ask you one on my behalf: Who’s ducking that question?
Oh dear. This is one of those awkward situations. Of course no claimed Christian ever directly admits to metaphysical naturalism. Why would they? They would have to quit their jobs and their churches.
That does not mean they do not think the same way as Darwin’s followers.
Everyone hopes for an easy retreat when they fear defeat.
Ted Davis, I have been on this beat for maybe fifteen years, and seen just about everything that comes down the path.
I will answer your second question later.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I believe this accurately reflects the position of “Christians for Darwin”;
Pope Francis, Monday, 27 October 2014
podcast – Has Science Shown that We’re Related to Apes? – June 3, 2015
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin shows how the human fossil record contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution. Luskin takes a close look at the technical literature surrounding human origins and explains why the evidence does not, despite common claims to the contrary, indicate that humans evolved from ape-like precursors.
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....d-to-apes/
Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin – article
http://salvomag.com/new/articl.....atures.php
Because then they wouldn’t be a Christian. Or not a metaphysical naturalist.
True! The concept of evolution is irrelevant since it requires “the creation of beings” (creationism).
I keep wondering if the quest for “Natural Explanations” can have the conclusion – “There are None.” It seem there’s a law regarding that conclusion – and it seems the law is you cannot have that conclusion regardless of evidence. That, if true, appears to move the whole endeavor outside the realm of honest inquiry. So what is going on, really?
Denyse says that she has “been on this beat for maybe fifteen years, and seen just about everything that comes down the path.”
And I have been studying Christian (and other) views about God, nature, and origins (a rough equivalent to “this beat”) for forty years, Denyse. I am less confident that I’ve seen just about everything, but I doubt your field of vision is any wider than mine.