Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is apologist William Lane Craig a follower of Darwin?

arroba Email

Or is there some misunderstanding?

If so, why now, for crying out loud, when even atheists are checking out at various points?:

They are saying that Darwin’s theory (whether someone wants to call it neo-Darwinism instead or claim to not be “that kind of Darwinist” or whatever) has maxed out its value in the world of ideas.

Michael Flannery, writes to say,

I was very disappointed to see this exchange by William Lane Craig. Sadly, Craig claims that “most Christians have come to terms with Darwinian evolution” and then proceeds to describe a wholly unDarwinian process of evolution that any plain reading of Descent of Man would reject. Actually, the position that Craig outlined was much closer to Wallace’s, which earned him an “Ehue!, Ehue,Ehue! – Your miserable friend Darwin.” Craig’s whole response is an uncharacteristically jumbled mess.

Darwinism does that to people, especially now that the stench from the head is reaching the pectoral fins.

From philosopher/photographer Laszlo Bencze, who noted the same vid:

As soon as you say, “God used evolution…” as Craig does, you’re not talking about evolution as understood by any Darwinian. What you’re talking about is some form of creation. If you’re talking about creation, you are not a Darwinian and you have not “come to terms with evolution.” You are merely a muddled Christian who can’t see a contradiction staring him in the face.

The great mid-twentieth century apologist C.S. Lewis tried playing footsie with Darwin, and ended up regretting it. Worse, he ended up selectively quoted in order that Darwin’s truer followers could pretend he was really a supporter—of a system of thought that is in fact the creation story of an increasingly isolated and fanatical brand of materialist atheism.

Maybe Craig needs someone to put him in the picture about what’s been happening in the last few years?

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's apparent that WLC has not considered the biological evidence with the same rigor he has the cosmological evidence, the evidence of the resurrection, and etc. When I want to know something about cosmology, he's my go to. When I want to know something about biology, there's Meyer, Behe, Dembski, and etc. WLC is (obviously) a smart man. If he took a little time studying biology (I imagine it just doesn't interest him from what I've heard him say on the subject) he'd reach many of the same conclusions this site promotes (independently I might add). johnp
Sure, LarsTanner. He's a pushover for y'all. Ask Sam Harris. Axel
WLC is not a Young Earth Creationist. Therefore his theology is wrong. Therefore he is a danger to Christianity. If I were out to undermine the Gospel message I'd pose as an apologist myself. Mung
WGB, I don't think Dr Craig will be hurt by criticism not inspired by malice, or that a technical knowledge of biology is necessary, to learn from those who do have it, the fundamental issues concerned. Axel
'I’ve been disappointed with Dr. Craig of late in terms of his knowledge of biology (not to mention his recent very uncharitable dissing of YECs. I thought it was very rude coming from Dr. Craig, even though I am not a YEC myself, and even though I have chided YECs myself).' Same here, Philip. Surprised, too, that he could be so out of touch that he wasn't familiar with Darwinists' farcical claims that Evolution is absolutely established science, as certain as gravity! While deeply-impressed Darwinist biologists express their amazement at the endless cornucopia of surprises, seemingly(!) in the form of unambiguous counter-evidence, that their studies keep throwing up! 'O My! Isn't Evolution something! Always surprising us... (sotto voce) with its wretched, confounded, ornery, recalcitrance.. verging on truculence.' Axel
wgbutler I have to agree in some sense with you. We already know there are TE's out there. Anyway, there are arguably bigger fish to fry knowing that. Though disappointed with his apparent TE view, Craig is at least keeping atheists & anti-theists in check with arguments in other big areas - e.g. the basis of morality, the 'problem of evil' and the existence of God. But in defense of keeping the house clean. I'm still concerned that a TE view could throw him, and others that might follow his arguments, serious off balance... perhaps, somehow jeopardizing much that has been already successfully argued. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. JGuy
Really guys, aren't there enough militant atheists out there to go after instead of targeting people like Dr. Craig for not having the theologically correct views on Genesis 1 (whatever they are supposed to be)? Dr. Craig has been agnostic for the most part on the Genesis 1 issue because his whole strategy is to make it irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not God exists. That's why he specializes in the cosmological arguments for God's existence (which are extremely powerful), the moral argument, and the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It's impossible to be an expert on everything, and rather have the debate get quagmired into a discussion on biology, which Dr. Craig candidly admits that he is not an expert on, he circumvents this whole topic and makes it irrelevant. You are playing into the atheists hands when you focus on biological evolution. And for the record, I am not a Darwinist and strongly believe that the evidence of biology points to design. But don't criticize Dr. Craig for electing to focus the greater discussion on other areas that he is stronger in. wgbutler
LarTanner. Don't flatter yourself. The inconsistencies or issues one would have if believing Darwinism along with a Christian faith has been recognized by Christians since the inception of Darwinism. Regardless, Craig almost certainly isn't a Darwinist. He seems borderline with some other type of macro-evolution. And most Christians a century ago would have still considered any form of theistic evolution as problematic - especially when a literal interpretations of Genesis 1 was typical. No surprise when Craig said, once you get rid of that literal interpretation of Genesis 1, you can interpret it in many ways. This might be another argument, among Christians, for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. JGuy
Glad I’m not alone in noticing some of his inconsistencies.
Atheists have been pointing out these inconsistencies for years. Glad to see y'all catching up to the curve. LarTanner
I'd like to know what any theistic evolutionists(TE), that otherwise proclaim scripture as true, read this verse: Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” – KJV If man emerged from some ape-ish ancestor, where those ancestors were apparently, just like as today suffering death. How does the TE reconcile the above verse into their theology? Would the TE claim that once the dying ape ancestors evolved into the first man, some fuzzy line between man and apeness, that the "fisrt man" was somehow free of that death cycle?...only to rediscover it after he sinned?... ...or would the TE argue death only means death in the spiritual sense? (Which I think can be refuted.) JGuy
Craig needs to take a break, I think. Glad I'm not alone in noticing some of his inconsistencies. Brent
This is interesting to me. As a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), I have long valued Dr. Craig for his historical arguments but utterly rejected some of his scientific ones. It demonstrates the diversity of fabric within Christianity on this issue. Most - probably all - YEC take their position for theological reasons. I believe that the YEC position is most consistent with the scriptures, although understandably not consistent with a materialist culture. Theistic Evolution proponents usually aim to reconcile theology with science. I do not think they succeed, but they evidently disagree with me. I think Dr. Craig falls into this category, and it does not surprise me that he should do so. In terms of authority, he generally puts philosophy before theology. I do not dispute that philosophy is important, but some of his conclusions are at odds with biblical theology. Theology matters. Ultimately I do think our theology determines the position we take on these matters. CalvinsBulldog
As to death coming before the fall:
Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011). Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdf
But is there actual scientific evidence that a 'free will' choice can reach back in time billions of years ago so as to give Dr. Dembski's Old Earth position plausibility? Yes!
"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video http://vimeo.com/38508798 Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. via bottom layer delayed choice Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the "hidden-variables" approach. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori
In fact free will is found to be axiomatic to Quantum Mechanics:
What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html
Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! And please note that free will and consciousness are axiomatic to Quantum Theory in this notable experiment. As to free will and the problem of evil:
Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA
Also of note to the 'problem of evil', both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day and shared many strange similarities in their lives, but the one common thing they shared that separated the two men drastically was the way they choose to handle the evil that happened in their lives. Darwin, though drifting away from God for a long while, was permanently driven away from God because of what he perceived to be the 'unjust' death of his daughter, Whereas Lincoln, on the other hand, was driven from his mild skepticism into a deep reliance upon God because of the death of his son. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/#comment-443197 Thus it seems we all still have a very important choice to make for ours lives in how we shall choose to respond to evil. Do we blame God for it or do we seek God for help from it? Related video
Ravi Zacharias - How To Measure Your Choices - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Op_S5syhKI You must measure your choices by the measure of 1) eternity 2) morality 3) accountability 4) charity
Verse and Music:
Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, Held- Natalie Grant - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_y9204TBM
I agree with bornagain77. (O'Leary for News). Just muttering that Christianity is compatible with this or that does not cut it any more. Christianity is not in any way compatible with Darwinism, which explains Christianity as an adaptation for the survival of one's selfish genes, thus not even according it the dignity of possible truth that would enable a debate. The question isn't - as so-dim Christian Darwinists/theistic evolutionists put it: Might God not have done it that way? If Darwinism is right, there not only isn't a God; there can't be. It is an aberration of the brain that promotes the survival of selfish genes by creating such an illusion. All Darwinian research into religion is based on that or a similar premise. Which is why it is all so terminally stupid. If Craig does not know this he should read up on it before he opens his mouth on the subject again. News
Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." - KJV ------------ If God used evolution. Then death existed before man & sin. And with all the earth's strata filled with billions of dead creatures, how could God say of every thing that He made thus far, that it was very good? Unless, people want to read that verse as figurative along with the rest of Genesis 1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-074/refuting-compromise-death-before-sin ------------ Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" - KJV Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." - KJV JGuy
From the above video I linked, it seems Craig is NOT an advocate of Darwinism. And he's very skeptical of RM+NS as a creative process. Craig seems to maybe be in the same camp as Behe. JGuy
Christians are species and not a single species. Evangelical Christians don't accept evolution. Its not true or rather backed up by good evidence to overcome the great evidence that the bible is Gods word. Robert Byers
William Lane Craig On Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUaWiuR4TY JGuy
I've been disappointed with Dr. Craig of late in terms of his knowledge of biology (not to mention his recent very uncharitable dissing of YECs. I thought it was very rude coming from Dr. Craig, even though I am not a YEC myself, and even though I have chided YECs myself). Dr. Craig started out with such promise for ID when he defended Dr. Behe's basic thesis in 'The Edge of Evolution' against Dr. Ayala several years ago.
In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation (Theodicy) in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Entire debate can be viewed here;
Is Intelligent Design Viable? A Debate: Francisco Ayala vs William Lane Craig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfylw5okAag
But alas, it seems clear Dr. Craig has forgotten what he learned for that debate and has been consumed with keeping up with the cosmological arguments he is so well known for, and has fallen behind in the biological arguments for design that have gotten much stronger over these past several years since he had that debate with Ayala. bornagain77

Leave a Reply