Christian Darwinism News

Dawkins becomes theistic evolutionist? … Hmmmm.

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Okay, we are just passing on what philosopher and photographer Laszlo Bencze heard from a bearded turtleneck at the local Ice Ball, wrapping up the New Year’s festivities:

Turtleneck: Yes, it finally happened—but not like we’d expected. Move a little to the side, okay; you’re blocking my line of sight on the vodka… … Oh, look, … here …

He then shoved a crumpled piece of paper into Bencze’s hand and rushed out to wait in the Horton’s for the last westbound bus.

The paper read,

[FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1/2/2016]

WHY I AM NOW A THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST—Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL

Those of you who have read my many books and articles may find it strange that I have modified my stance on evolution so I feel obliged to explain.

Francis Collins, director of the NIH, and I met for dinner on New Year’s eve at the Bombay Club in Washington D. C. After an exchange of pleasantries, Mr. Collins began to explain the advantages of a god who refrains from poking his finger into the natural evolutionary process. This was a god so different from the one I had read about in the Bible as a youth that I began to be interested.

Francis spelled out many other powers this god did not have and how it was impossible for him to influence our world. As the waiter poured the Lafite-Rothschild, it began to dawn on me that a god that cannot be detected and makes no demands on me is exactly the sort of nonentity I can believe in.

By the time we finished our Louis XIII brandy, I was with Frankie 100%. Belief in a god who does nothing has helped me understand the workings of evolution so much better. My future books will greatly benefit from the insights of theism. Also my self esteem is way up and I feel confident in entering my first half marathon. I am proud to be a theistic atheist.”

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Bencze doesn’t know. We don’t know. The flying horse has indignantly disclaimed all knowledge of the matter, and horses don’t lie.

We publish this as a public service, in the hope that someone can at least source the Lafite-Rothschild …

See also: Excerpts from biologist Wayne Rossiter’s new book contra Christian Darwinism Rossiter: Apparently, for these authors, there is a difference between an intelligent designer and an intelligent creator called God.

4 Replies to “Dawkins becomes theistic evolutionist? … Hmmmm.

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Francis spelled out many other powers this god did not have and how it was impossible for him to influence our world. As the waiter poured the Lafite-Rothschild, it began to dawn on me that a god that cannot be detected and makes no demands on me is exactly the sort of nonentity I can believe in.

    Wow. I had no idea that this kind of nonsense could come from grown men let alone grown scientists. So Collins and Dawkins think they have the authority and the wisdom to decide what kind of god God is? Are these two old fools going senile? Or were they always like this?

  2. 2
    Vy says:

    Mr. Collins began to explain the advantages of a god who refrains from poking his finger into the natural evolutionary process. This was a god so different from the one I had read about in the Bible as a youth that I began to be interested.

    Francis spelled out many other powers this god did not have and how it was impossible for him to influence our world.

    No surprise there, theistic Darwinism isn’t that far from pure Darwinism.

    The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray. – David Hull, The God of the Galápagos

    I am proud to be a theistic atheist

    And last year, he was a secular “Christian”.

    IMO, Collins is closer to Atheism than Squawkins is to theism.

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    This message from Dawkins is fictitious, no? Are people responding to it as if it were genuine?

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    Are people responding to it as if it were genuine?

    Of course it’s genuine!

    It didn’t just magically poof itself into existence you know.

Leave a Reply