Christian Darwinism Naturalism News

Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies:

Posted on Author NewsComments(6)
Spread the love

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!

6 Replies to “Further to “How BioLogos describes the intelligent design community, commenter Ted Davis, a Biologian, replies:”

  1. 1
    rhampton7 says:
    June 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    I believe this accurately reflects the position of “Christians for Darwin”;

    Pope Francis, Monday, 27 October 2014

    You are addressing the highly complex subject of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into the scientific complexity, which you well understand, of this important and crucial question. I only want to underline that God and Christ are walking with us and are also present in nature, as the Apostle Paul stated in his discourse at the Areopagus: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings. The beginning of the world was not a work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big Bang theory, which is proposed today as the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of a divine creator but depends on it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:
    June 3, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    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

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:
    June 4, 2015 at 3:46 am

    Of course no claimed Christian ever directly admits to metaphysical naturalism. Why would they?

    Because then they wouldn’t be a Christian. Or not a metaphysical naturalist.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:
    June 4, 2015 at 7:16 am

    … evolution presupposes the creation of beings …

    True! The concept of evolution is irrelevant since it requires “the creation of beings” (creationism).

  5. 5
    arkady967 says:
    June 6, 2015 at 7:19 am

    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?

  6. 6
    Ted Davis says:
    July 31, 2015 at 11:43 am

    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.

Leave a Reply