Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski asks, Is Darwinism theologically neutral – at BioLogos (= Christians for Darwin)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.

Those who embrace Darwin and his ideas regard him and Christ as compatible. Those who don’t, regard them as incompatible. Now compatibility and incompatibility are funny notions. They’re not like strict logical consistency or inconsistency, which admit of proof. At the hands of human rationalization, compatibility and incompatibility have the disconcerting tendency to become infinitely malleable. We’ve already seen how some Christians, by reading Genesis as teaching the special creation of living forms, conclude that Christ and Darwin are incompatible.

On the other hand, Michael Ruse (in Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?) argues that Christ and Darwin are eminently compatible. Sure, as Ruse puts it, “Darwinism is a theory committed to the ubiquity of law.” But, in Ruse’s mind, that’s not a problem for Christian faith. He continues, “Even the supreme miracle of the resurrection requires no law-breaking return from the dead. One can think of Jesus in a trance, or more likely that he really was physically dead but that on and from the third day a group of people, hitherto downcast, were filled with great joy and hope.”

“Southern Baptist Voices: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?”, April 30, 2012

So Darwinism is compatible with a Christianity where churches rise again – as some really nice condos with an airy central atrium, very hot real estate-wise.

Comments
As always, the problem is the protean definitions of evolution/Darwinism on the one side and (as has been pointed out above) Christianity on the other. Over on BioLogos (and amongst many of the leading TEs) a common view is of a Creator God whose active role in the world seems to be largely through creating a self-creating system. Evolution is thus self-directing (comfortably to naturalistic science) yet leaves room for a Creator (albeit with massive repercussions for God's sovereignty, providence, the nature of sin, the nature of man etc). Biologists and physicists seem to love it, not being overly troubled about theology not dependent on science. Whether that fits comfortably, or at an awkward tangent, to what Jason describes above is hard to pin down. Sometimes I think that rather than discuss malleable terms and end up with a fudge, we ought to proceed as the ancient Church Councils did: "Whoever says that God's role in creation is such-and-such, and denies this-and-that, let him be anathema." The problem is, therere would be hardly anyone left in the discussion.Jon Garvey
May 2, 2012
May
05
May
2
02
2012
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
I will comment here rather than at biologos. I am remembering back to my youth, when I was a member of an evangelical (but not fundamentalist) Church. At the time, I was undecided about evolution, but that was because I was undecided about the evidence. I never saw a theological problem. As I would have seen it at that time, a perfect God would have a perfect method for maintaining biology, and would not be going around magically poofing things into existence from time to time. Any magic would have been preserved for special occasions, not for routine use. I would not have had any problems with (C1) through (C4) at that time. Dembski's (D4) seems to me to be philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. So I think that needs to be removed from the list of requirements. His (D1) needs to be modified to common descent from a small number of ancestors. I don't think Darwinism requires that there be only a single tree. A separate tree for each major phylum would be within the constraints of Darwinism. I don't think this change much affects Dembski's argument. For (D2), I don't see the problem with randomness. My pastor, at that time, used to say "don't say chance, say God" (and not specifically about evolution). So I don't see the randomness as a problem. And I don't see (D3) as a problem, for human exceptionalism would refer to the spiritual rather than the physical.Neil Rickert
May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Nor, for that matter, could it be compatible with science. --Mervmerv
May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
It really depends what you mean by "Darwinism". If you mean the sort of thing that Dawkins and Dennet like to trumpet that has as a fundamental axiom that the process is not guided at any level and that it is absolutely nothing more than chance variation combined with some sort of sorting mechanism to favor "fitness", then absolutely that is incompatible with Christian belief because it is a fundamental part of Christian Orthodoxy that God is the creator of "life, the universe and everything", and this denies that. If you mean by "Darwinism" something that allows room for a creative intelligence, either in determining initial conditions or via ongoing direct action of some sort, basically some sort of "guided evolution" or some such, then actually there is no strong problem with compatibility. Depending on your exact theology and exactly how you cash out all of the finer points. Although it seems this should be sort of obvious. Any position that demands God not be the creator and rules his action out in an a priori fashion could never be compatible with orthodox christian belief.Jason Rennie
May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Ruse is employing a ruse. Naturally, Darwinism is compatible with a Christianity that has been stripped of its essence. Allow me to choose my heresy, and I can make Christianity compatible with anything.StephenB
May 1, 2012
May
05
May
1
01
2012
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply