Christian Darwinism News

Slate offers poster child for Christian atheism

Spread the love

Or something.

Maybe there’s never much religion news on Superbowl Sunday, so…

From Slate, we learn:

How an evangelical creationist came to accept evolution.

The article focuses on Kramer, 27, who would seem to be a Christian Darwinist: “Kramer found a way to have his faith and Darwin too.”

Interesting. Darwin didn’t find the way, but then what did he know?

Anyway, Kramer got a job at Templeton-funded BioLogos, which is currently trying to distance itself from the views of its living (b 1950) founder, Francis Collins, after barely a decade.

As Slate puts it,

Of course, Kramer’s view is not everyone’s. Most people who study evolution see no evidence of or need for God in the history of life on Earth. For them, something like BioLogos is a stopgap, the training wheels you put on your bike before realizing you can ride without them. But the fact that there is a group that considers itself both creationist and pro-evolution shows that America’s divide over evolution is not inevitable—that evangelicals, historically some of the people most resistant to a scientific worldview, can find room in their belief systems for evolution.

And that’s something worth rejoicing over. More.

Trust Slate to get BioLogos ultimately right. Training wheels for pure naturalist atheism. (They may be the last to know.)

Meanwhile:

See also: Darwinism? Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

It actually doesn’t matter to the United Methodist leaders what’s true

Dawkins becomes theistic evolutionist? … Hmmmm.

and

Excerpts from biologist Wayne Rossiter’s new book contra theistic evolution

Follow UD News at Twitter!

18 Replies to “Slate offers poster child for Christian atheism

  1. 1
    GaryGaulin says:

    It actually doesn’t matter to the United Methodist leaders what’s true

    Your hypothesis just tested false. In case you missed it:
    http://www.umc.org/news-and-me.....2499865149

    And here’s the church where I was trained to be a Methodist leader:
    http://chicopeeumc.org/

    Music and verse, for such a wonderful Sunday:
    Eurythmics – Missionary Man
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Q3cp3cp88

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Slate should clean its slate and retire to second rate pasture.
    Accusing Evangelicals of rejecting a scientific worldview is just ANTI-Evangelicalism. A real ‘ism in our day. A stupid profile of those who insist IF you don’t agree with on certain conclusions in certain subjects touching on origin issues THEN your not sciency wise like them.
    Thats all they got to put you in your place.
    They ain’t got knockout killer good points of evidence.

  3. 3
    tjguy says:

    Of course, Kramer’s view is not everyone’s. Most people who study evolution see no evidence of or need for God in the history of life on Earth. For them, something like BioLogos is a stopgap, the training wheels you put on your bike before realizing you can ride without them. But the fact that there is a group that considers itself both creationist and pro-evolution shows that America’s divide over evolution is not inevitable—that evangelicals, historically some of the people most resistant to a scientific worldview, can find room in their belief systems for evolution.

    “Kramer’s view is not everyone’s.”

    That’s the understatement of the year! And it is no surprise that it makes no sense to most scientists to add God to a process that works completely without God.

    Their view of creation – where God is totally uninvolved – makes God’s existence a matter of completely blind faith! That is the contribution of Biologos to the world!

    All evidence for design is removed and viewed as the result of random blind unguided evolutionary forces.

    So, it makes believers look even more foolish and the accusation of simply having blind faith really does fit the bill!

    I personally find this view very distasteful, illogical, and irrational. Why?

    1) It assumes that God created the world in a way that no one would ever know.

    2) It seems to assume that God doesn’t want people to see His hand in nature or know that He created the world.

    3) A follow up to that is that it makes it look like God is trying to deceive us into thinking that it all happened naturally without Him by purposefully hiding evidence of His involvement.

    4) It assumes that it is possible for God to create the world in a way that no one would ever know. Is that really possible?

    5) It is different from the picture of the Creator revealed in the Bible who claims that all nature reveals His glory, His wisdom, His power, etc. that it makes a mockery of Scripture.

    Why is God worthy of glory if He did nothing in the process of creating the universe – if it all happened by totally unguided random natural processes?

    It takes intention, planning, purpose, sovereignty away from God and puts Him at the mercy of these random forces.

    How many different universes did God have to create to get one that finally worked?

    What does it mean that God created the universe anyway in their minds? Did He miraculously create matter out of nothing at some point?

    Biologos has an allergy to all miracles in the process of creation. Why? How do they know? Why arbitrarily limit God in this way? If God is capable of miracles, – and I know that at least some of them do believe that – why do they assume that He did not do any miracles?

    I just cannot understand their views. Seem totally irrational to me!

    SLATE is happy for evangelicals to compromise their faith and accept evolution. They will still ridicule them. There is little respect shown here for these people. Why should they respect them? They believe in a Creator God and yet claim there is no evidence whatsoever for such a God. And yet they claim they are the rational ones among Christians.

  4. 4
    GaryGaulin says:

    I agree that Theistic Evolution is religiously boring. I certainly cannot accept it. But that’s what everyone gets stuck with when an institute makes a mockery of any scientific theory that pertains to what science would qualify as an “intelligent cause”, including my work that began long before the Discovery Institute existed.

  5. 5
    News says:

    BioLogos should never have got started.

    It was started to sell Darwinism to Christians, basically (as the writings of Collins and Giberson show).

    And now: Royal Society’s fall evolution rethink meet is progress in science: Dupre: I’ve interviewed many scientists about meaning of natural selection and they all have a different explanation, which makes it look like a political term

    Uh, yes, and WHOSE politics? And where now is BioLogos? What do they want to sell to whom now? Why? How does it relate in any way to the Christian tradition, if it ever did?

  6. 6

    Hmm,
    This theistic evolution stuff seems to lead in that direction. Howard Van Til was a big TE proponent (at a Christian college!) until he retired and then became an atheist. Giberson likewise was TE at a Christian college until he went to Biologos where he became an atheist. Kramer attends a Christian college and then at Biologos becomes an atheist. I think we have a trend here–if you want to stay a theist, stay away from Christian colleges and Biologos.

  7. 7
    GaryGaulin says:

    BioLogos should never have got started.

    BioLogos and similar entities like the Clergy Letter Project were started for the purpose of countering ID. Even where it led more to Atheism than anything else they still achieved their primary mission, while the ID movement failed and are now just preaching to the remaining choir.

  8. 8
    News says:

    Let the record show that GaryGaulin at 7 has gone on record as saying that BioLogos and the Clergy Letter Project “were started for the purpose of countering ID” but have (sometimes? often?) “led more to Atheism than anything else”?

    That is consistent with the new atheist view of such enterprises.

    I would call them opportunistic parasites on doomed churches.

    The witness may step down.

    Incidentally, ID is doing just fine, thank you. Never better, if we go by numbers reached.

  9. 9
    GaryGaulin says:

    News, I accounted for Robert Sheldon’s reply at 6 by saying “Even where it led more to Atheism than anything else”.

    I would not be overly surprised by Robert being correct. But I have no evidence that can confirm or disconfirm what they said.

  10. 10
    GaryGaulin says:

    News also says:

    Incidentally, ID is doing just fine, thank you. Never better, if we go by numbers reached.

    The Discovery Institute failed to get their “theory” to be taken seriously by scientists. The Kansas school board hearing did not work out as planned, the proposed changes to their standards were not adopted. The legal challenge of the Dover trial was a disaster that hurt many people who believed what the Discovery Institute was saying. Even United Methodist leaders had to reject it.

    Where you look at what the DI is promoting like “Fine Tuning” and what Michael Denton talks about it’s all stuff other groups are also promoting. The DI even threw away the chance to help develop the “theory of intelligent design” that they were supposed to be working on. But as far as numbers reached I’m doing very well with what the DI did not even want. So at least I’m able to be taken seriously by scientists, though it proves that the Discovery Institute is scientifically dysfunctional.

    Thanks to me, the “theory of intelligent design” is now doing fine. But the DI is now in big trouble that I’m glad I’m not stuck in.

  11. 11
    Virgil Cain says:

    Gary Gaulin:

    The Discovery Institute failed to get their “theory” to be taken seriously by scientists.

    And yet those same scientists don’t have anything else to offer (in the way of a scientific explanation). That means they are nothing but big cry-babies when it comes to ID. And no one should care about big cry-babies.

  12. 12
    jerry says:

    Gary Gaulin believes he has a new theory of intelligent design that is 40 years in the making. That is what his complaints are all about.

    But from experience, anyone who is serious does not go around mocking the little people like he does. Notice his claim about how well his theory is doing. If this were true, why would he spend a second here. We have a different type of anti-ID commenter.

    From his website


    [1] Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

    [2] Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

    [3] Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life, where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

    It looks like we are into self replicating molecules and the RNA world here and some worlds never dreamed of.

  13. 13
    GaryGaulin says:

    Gary Gaulin believes he has a new theory of intelligent design that is 40 years in the making. That is what his complaints are all about.

    From my perspecive the Discovery Institute suddenly appeared out of nowhere, then made a mockery of my origins related scientific work for explaining multiple level biological intelligent cause. Their not really having what they said they did caused many good people unexpected trouble that put them in the center of a national controversy.

    But from experience, anyone who is serious does not go around mocking the little people like he does.

    I do not consider the Discovery Institute to be “the little people”.

    Notice his claim about how well his theory is doing. If this were true, why would he spend a second here.

    I want “the little people” to with me have a science thrill of a lifetime, and share the glory. Even the most notorious elected representative of “the little people” ended up looking real good to science education peers. As you can see Kathy Martin and I had tons of historic Christmas science fun in Kansas:

    http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3/vie.....a1729eb935

    Our together having been there to introduce “self-assembly” to US science education was a terrible defeat to those who would have otherwise use it to mock “creationists”. After that the shaking of a bottle of salad dressing never quite looked the same, ever again. But the classroom demonstration did not test anyone’s religious faith. Self-assembly would have only become an issue where others introduced it using generalizations that make it seem like something other than a (now) common sense interaction we see daily.

    We have a different type of anti-ID commenter.

    If I were really anti-ID then I would not be developing the “theory of intelligent design”. Your statement is an interesting oxymoron.

    It looks like we are into self replicating molecules and the RNA world here and some worlds never dreamed of.

    I love the sound of “and some worlds never dreamed of”. That’s a good way to word it. Like the self-assembly demonstration it’s something new that requires no great leap of faith to accept. And it becomes what is ultimately taught in the US public schools, not something that has to stay out of its science classrooms.

    New knowledge adds to what we already know. What then makes no sense becomes a little thing, instead of being everything.

  14. 14
    GaryGaulin says:

    Virgil:

    And yet those same scientists don’t have anything else to offer (in the way of a scientific explanation).

    US public schools are required to do a good job of explaining the “evolution be natural selection” theory and it is in the best interest of the “theory of intelligent design” for that to be done well.

    It is now possible to say the ID theory provides a cognitive model that makes “natural selection” a generalization that has people pointing and exclaiming “selection” at what they see happening in the virtual world, but that does not change what will next happen in it.

    That means they are nothing but big cry-babies when it comes to ID. And no one should care about big cry-babies.

    That though depends on what you consider ID to be. If all it does is complain about the faults of an entirely different theory then defending it is similarly being big cry-babies, to not care about. The only way to avoid getting stuck in the playpen is to have something that the all ages mad-scientists of the world find awesome. What it had to be titled is no big deal anymore. And considering how it achieves total domination of the Discovery Institute’s “theory” makes it even more fun for Camp and other “little people” working on David Heiserman inspired creations, who likewise will settle for nothing less than “Total World Domination!” of the Discovery Institute’s “theory of intelligent design”. In case you missed that:

    http://www.camppeavy.com/

    What lurks in science has a power of its own, from the way it empowers other to think so big. But since the Discovery Institute is used to always being under siege it’s not overly out of the usual in that regard. The main difference is that this time it’s from theory they never dreamed of. And in a way like stuck in the Weird Science movie and series, where metaphorically there is a Lisa that even I must not mess with is created and everything. For someone like Larry Moran it’s something refreshing in the mix that maybe challenges him a little too but better that than not. In his forum it was best said as if there was no Discovery Institute then we would have to invent one. Things turning out this way is why. It’s in the end easy enough for the Discovery Institute to surrender to things going way better than expected for their theory. It’s not a personal agenda, just a how fate would have it sort of thing made possible by the very real power of science. May the force be with us.

  15. 15
    Virgil Cain says:

    Hi Gary Gaulin:

    US public schools are required to do a good job of explaining the “evolution be natural selection” theory and it is in the best interest of the “theory of intelligent design” for that to be done well.

    Making up sciency-sounding stories should never be passed off as science in any classroom and explaining “evolution by natural selection” involves nothing but made-up stories. Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity, ie whatever is good enough to survive and propagate in any given environment. It could be the fastest, the slowest, the tallest, longest, shortest, widest, better sight, less sight, no sight. ears, little ears, no ears, legs-> many, several, few, two- but they cannot include those facts in their stories.

    Natural selection tends to keep the norm by weeding out the outliers. It doesn’t have any power beyond eliminating whatever cannot make it.

    That though depends on what you consider ID to be.

    The framework from which all science should proceed. But I digress- ID is the detection and study of ID in nature. Early results have it that this universe was Intelligently Designed for scientific discovery and that some living organisms were Intelligently Designed to be those discoverers.

  16. 16
    GaryGaulin says:

    Please excuse my be=by typo I earlier made in the phrase that you below quote correctly:

    Making up sciency-sounding stories should never be passed off as science in any classroom and explaining “evolution by natural selection” involves nothing but made-up stories.

    I can agree by saying that’s sometimes the way it goes, when that’s the best theory around.

    Changing that situation requires explaining why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. This is exactly where the goalposts are, nowhere else. Fine Tuning and other things at best just bounce off the posts then out of bounds.

  17. 17
    GaryGaulin says:

    Kathy Martin emailed her words. In US science education they overrule whatever the Discovery Institute has to say. Please etch the following in stone:

    Science does & will lead us to God, if we are open minded & unbiased in determining & interpreting the observations & results. Truth is truth whether in the Bible or the lab.

    From my experience “Science does & will lead us to God” is even true for Atheists who discover or explain something that helps us get there. The only way to escape the journey is to stay out of science completely, by maybe joining those who only have excuses for not having any.

  18. 18
    GaryGaulin says:

    PDF for earlier mentioned self-assembly demonstration. As published by the National Science Teachers Association:
    https://sites.google.com/site/garysgaulin/home/NSTA2007.pdf

Leave a Reply