Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

This was, I am told “Evolution Weekend” (should have been Evolution mega-Millennium, I suppose),


… and I presume that the elect are wending their way home from the “I do, I do, I do, I do, I DO believe in Darwin!” praise festival. Guitar chords, someone? I understand some Darwinists like to get folksy when fronting the message …

Why, exactly, they do believe in Darwin will be long debated by social historians. I’d just shrug and say “Darwin feeds their inner ape,” and – more practically – their many genteel endowments. The ol’ Brit toff understood that sort of thing precisely, if nothing else. He got rich off Wedgwood pottery.

Okay, well the (cue evil music!) Discovery Institute sent me this, about Wallace, Darwin’s co-theorist (remember, the theory could have been called Wallaceism, but Wallace was an abashed working man and a field biologist):

Intelligent Evolution: How Evolution’s Co-Founder Can Help Religious Believers Find Peace in the Evolution WarsBirmingham, AL – Just in time for “Evolution Weekend” (Feb. 11-13) when hundreds of churches will celebrate the birthday of Charles Darwin, a new Gallup poll shows that Americans are as divided as ever when it comes to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

But University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Michael Flannery hopes that a new book and educational website will help convince people that evolution and religion need not be in conflict after all.

The key, according to Flannery, is to disentangle evolution from Darwin’s view of the history of life as an undirected process and to embrace the alternative vision articulated by evolution’s co-founder, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Long acknowledged as the co-discoverer of natural selection, Wallace had a sharply different take on evolution than Darwin, one that might have prevented current hostility between faith and science according to Flannery.

“Darwin insisted that evolution is an undirected process,” says Flannery, “which set up the toxic conflict between evolution and faith that we see today. Wallace, on the other hand, came to believe that evolution is purposeful and required intelligent design.”

Actually, peace to Discovery Institute, there is no “toxic conflict” between evolution and faith.

Many “Churches That Nobody Goes to Any More” (in the words of a friend) are into their inner ape. Surviving churches are not. This I didn’t need to be an Institute to figure out. Just yer hack on the desk. Always glad to help.

…when hundreds of churches will celebrate the birthday of Charles Darwin… "What? Why in the hell would they do that?" asks Gil. VERY GOOD QUESTION! Why would any church want to celebrate the birthday of a man whose ideas attack the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself? Why would we want to work hard to find a way to twist God’s Holy Word to accommodate a hypothesis that comes out of a materialistic worldview? Why?! Did God create Adam from the dust of the earth and breathe the breath of life into him like the Bible says or not? If not, then trying to "save" the Bible won't fool anyone. Did God create Eve from a rib of Adam’s like the Bible says or not? Was Jesus the 2nd Adam like the Bible says or not? Did sin come into the world because of of the sin of the representative of the human race like the Bible says, or because of some imaginary person’s imaginary sin? Did God create the world in 6 days like the Bible says or not? Was there a worldwide flood like the Bible says or not? Will God one day restore the earth to it’s original perfect condition like the Bible says or was the earth’s original condition less than perfect - one of much suffering, death, bloodshed, disease, struggle, and extinction? When Jesus says that He created them male and female at the beginning of creation, does He mean in the last 2 million years of the 14+ billion years of the evolution of the universe? Was there a tower of Babel where the earliest languages were formed like the Bible says or not? If the answer to all these is negative, then how in the world do we know what we can and cannot trust in the Bible?! The task of interpretation becomes impossible without contemporary science to guide us. Contemporary science also tells us dead men don't rise from the grave. Why is it we can believe that, but not believe in God's creative ability and the historical record He has given us? Doesn't this call into question the whole of the biblical record? Also, it would mean that God is incapable of communicating accurately to us. It would mean that it took thousands of years, but that finally now, thanks to Charles Darwin, we finally have the right understanding of Genesis and creation. When we start changing God’s Word from page one, the ramifications continue all throughout Scripture and we are forced into ridiculous interpretations in order to try and make evolution fit into the Bible. It is futile. Someone in the comment section below said this: "No “theory” in science could be more vacuous, meaningless, pointless, or unenlightening." Agreed! SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE WANT TO FIND A WAY TO FIT SUCH A “VACUOUS, MEANINGLESS, POINTLESS, AND UNENLIGHTENING EVER-CHANGING MAN MADE IDEA INTO GOD’S WORD? tjguy
NeilBJ: Would I be able to show it at my church if I so chose? Yes you may, although my presentation also includes the personal story of my journey from militant atheism to Christianity, and you are certainly welcome to include that as well. In my presentation I tell how, at the age of seven, I came to the obvious logical conclusion that life is ultimately meaningless and pointless if atheism is true. This was trivially obvious to me even at such a young age. I retrospect, from my current Christian perspective, I realize that during my atheist days I hated the God I believed did not exist (but that my soul obviously knew all along must exist) for creating me and abandoning me in a pointless universe with nothing but death and oblivion to ultimately look forward to. This is why my atheism was militant; I wanted to drag down Christians into the same despair of the soul that I experienced. Misery loves company. I was a Saul of Tarsus. My only refuge during my atheist days was the piano and classical music, and this is why I am devoted to Christian praise music. It elevates, edifies, inspires, and speaks to the soul in a special way. This is also why I attend a semi-charismatic church. I was so constricted, so stifled, so indoctrinated, so shut off from the desires of my soul for so many years, that once freed, I wanted to enjoy the unfettered joy of uninhibited worship. This Darwinism idiocy is nonsense of a supreme order, and is easily defeated by simple logic and evidence. GilDodgen
Gil, I just finished presenting a 4 week series on Faith and Science at my church. I would be very much interested in downloading your presentation. Would I be able to show it at my church if I so chose? NeilBJ
BA77: I don't know if they are set up to do that, but I'll check into it. GilDodgen
Gil, I was wondering if it would be to much trouble to get a recording or video of the lecture, I would be very much interested in it if it is not too much trouble to arrange. bornagain77
P.S.: I am a former militant atheist, but now attend a semi-charismatic Christian church in Southern California, at which I'll be presenting a lecture concerning the logical, mathematical, and evidential deconstruction of Darwinian orthodoxy a week from Monday. If anyone is interested, I'll upload my PowerPoint presentation at my website: http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com and provide down-link information. GilDodgen
...when hundreds of churches will celebrate the birthday of Charles Darwin... What? Why in the hell would they do that? Has Darwin been anointed with sainthood? How bizarre. Yes, He has been anointed with sainthood, as the Grand Pseudo-Scientist who provided the long-awaited materialistic explanation for biological origins. Never mind the fact that His Holiness didn't have the slightest idea what He was talking about, except for the fact that things that are more likely to survive will be more likely to survive, and therefore reproduce themselves. No "theory" in science could be more vacuous, meaningless, pointless, or unenlightening. GilDodgen

Leave a Reply