Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FaithandEvolution.Org

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This just in:]

New Website on Faith and Evolution Explores
if the Two are Friends or Foes?

Find out at FaithandEvolution.Org

SEATTLE – In recent years, debates over faith and evolution have continued to intensify. On the one hand, “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins have insisted that Darwinian evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. On the other hand, “new theistic evolutionists” like Francis Collins have assured people that Darwin’s theory is perfectly compatible with faith and need have no damaging cultural consequences.

Who is right? And why does it matter? A new website being launched today at www.faithandevolution.org by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute explores the issue in-depth.

“FaithandEvolution.Org is for anyone who wants to dig deeper into the scientific, social, and spiritual issues raised by Darwin’s theory, but who is tired of the limited options they are currently being offered by the media,” says Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center.

“Increasingly, the only voices being heard in the faith and evolution conversation come from two wings of the evolution lobby: atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, and a handful of theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins. But there are a lot of thoughtful scientists and scholars who are skeptical of Darwin’s theory whose views aren’t being heard.”

“Thus, the first goal of FaithandEvolution.Org is to present the scientific information about evolution and intelligent design that is typically left out of the discussion,” says West. “A second goal is to tackle tough questions that are usually ignored about the consequences of Darwin’s theory for ethics, society, and religion.”

Visitors to FaithandEvolution.Org will find information addressing such questions as: Does evolution undermine belief in God? Are there scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution? What is the scientific evidence for intelligent design? And does Darwinism devalue human life?

FaithandEvolution.Org is packed with free tools and resources, including:

* Audio, video, and articles featuring leading scientists and scholars, including biologists Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, mathematicians William Dembski and David Berlinski, and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer.
* A questions page answering people’s top questions about evolution, intelligent design, and related issues; and topics pages addressing key topics such as theistic evolution, evolution and science, evolution and ethics, and evolution and culture.
* Curriculum ideas and discussion questions for small groups, Sunday School classes, adult educational programs, and private school science classes.
* A searchable database of thousands of articles about evolution and intelligent design, and a glossary of key scientific terms.

West notes that unlike most pro-Darwin sites dealing with faith and evolution, FaithandEvolution.Org contains a prominent section titled “Debates” highlighting the views of both supporters and critics of Darwin’s theory on a variety of contested issues.

“It’s ironic that many of the pro-Darwin groups that claim to be promoting ‘dialogue’ about science and religion are really offering only a monologue,” says West. “They do their best to exclude those who disagree with them. But we have nothing to fear from a free and open exchange of ideas. That’s why we decided to have a section of our site where people could explore divergent views on such issues as the evidence for intelligent design, the limits of Darwin’s theory, and the connection between Darwin’s theory and Social Darwinism.”

West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication, and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

For more information:
www.faithanevolution.org
www.evolutionnews.org
www.intelligentdesign.org

For Immediate Release
Contact: Anika Smith
Discovery Institute
(206) 292-0401 x155
asmith@discovery.org

Comments
Nakashima, I've met several billionaires, CEOs, etc., even worked for a billionaire closely. So what? I've found that being good in business does not translate to knowing if a Lemur is a missing link. Is Bloomberg clueless? No, but he's not well informed about the outrageous propaganda of Ida either, is he? He's simply jumping on the bandwagon as fanfare for his city. Just like being at Time Square for New Years. Simple as that. And the fact that he gives weight to this discovery as some missing link shows he's not aware of the controversy or does not care. I'm not sure which is worse; ignorance or knowingly hyping what is all but another small branch wilted on a dead tree. But in today's world of lies and deception, it is par for the course. Remember, only the richest 5% of the people will be taxed in America. I'm curious if such deception takes place so much in Japan? Do you really believe it is OK to hype a lemur as a missing link that is unproven? Are you really defending such propaganda for science?DATCG
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Mr Oramus, There are many examples of human altruism. Here I will reserve the word altruism for actions beyond the survival of our own genes. It is a wonderful triumph of our minds over our genes that we have been able to expand the "in-group", and constrain the inclination to kill which we sadly share with other primates. However, that is irrelevant to Mr Graham's original comment. Showing that we are sometimes better than other animals at sharing, doesn't negate the fact that other animals do sometimes share and support each other.Nakashima
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
Mr ab, I'm not sure if I qualify as a Darwinbot, but if you go back to the first thread on Drs Dembski and Marks' LCI paper you can see that I made several constructive suggestions for improving it.Nakashima
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
@ Alan Fox #27: On nature and self-interest. Is Christian charity altruistic? Surely, it is delayed self-interest, with the expected reward of salvation. Only the atheist can be truly altruistic, as there is no possibility of heavenly recompense. I think you have it backwards. Salvation is not a reward it is a gift! Charity is not necessary or sufficient for salvation(read Mathew 25). Christian charity is what I think something we do for the Lord and each other, not to deserve salvation, but to be more like Him or how we where supposed to be in the first place. So Christian charity is not reward driven, but selfless(though far from perfect). Atheistic altruism, or humanism, on the other hand is not necessarily selfless. Since we are just a cosmic burp there is no purpose to live other than enjoying live. So humanism is nothing more than a way of making yourself feel better by making others feel better and therefore not “truly altruistic”(whatever that means). I'm not saying Atheists can't be moral and Christians always are, but I just don't agree with your comment. (though when I read all 15 of Richard Dawkins' 10 commandments I really have trouble to control my laughter, http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/ecce-homos-commandments.html )critiacrof
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Alan, The Behe flagellum sparked a debate about how the type 3 secretory system came about. Behe argued that it was a degenerative trait where Kenneth Miller and other argued it was aboriginal to flegellum. I ma not sure who ended up with the stronger argument thought Stephen Meyer said Behe was probably right. But the point is in this case ID clearly sparked scientific interest and research. ID is to a science stopper. Now as far as SETI is concerned the whole project was basically an ID experiment or based on an ID theoretical framework. They looked for radio waves that had patterns in it- certain codes I think even as simple as a set of prime numbers. Funny how for Alien intelligence we will accept anything little thing but for transcendent intelligence even molecular machines in the cell aren't good enough.Frost122585
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
@ ab, Is not the site announced by Dr Dembski intended to furnish information about Intelligent Design? If so, would it not be an idea to respond to questions that actual critics of Intelligent Design ask. Otherwise, as another commenter points out, it is merely preaching to the choir. And if your questions are more than rhetorical, you could try asking them at a site that has some input from evolutionary biologists. Have you tried MacNeill's blog?Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Presumably in response to my question: "What useful contribution has Intelligent Design made to scientific endeavour?" Frost gives some specific examples where ID has spurred scientific endeavour. 1) SETI. 2) Newton's Laws of Gravity. 3) Behe's suggestions about the impossibility of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. 2) is unresolvable as Newton is dead and, as with Einstein, it is fruitless to speculate on his motives and inspiration. 1) What input from ID is/was there in the SETI project? 3) What research on bacterial flagella was done following suggested avenues from Behe? Perhaps some work resulted from an effort to refute his suggestions on IC. If so, perhaps you have a point.Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Since repetitive and annoying (as well as ignorant) questions are permissible here I thought I'd ask a few of my own (which are still probably much less ignorant). Have Darwinbots ever added anything meaningful to further the concept of Intelligent Design or to a discussion in general? Can Darwinbots ever realize anything beyond their Darwinian containment? (ie: their Darwinian "shoe box" fantasy world). Has Dr. Dembski, Robert J. Marks etc... ever relied on Darwinbots to investigate and further the concept of Intelligent Design? I have many more, perhaps these will do for now.ab
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
Frost:
Altruism is not really a Christian value anyways.
Well, no, that was rather my point.Alan Fox
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
excuse me, Correction: “ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of (Intelligence).”Frost122585
May 28, 2009
May
05
May
28
28
2009
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Alan, Altruism is not really a Christian value anyways. Christ choose who he would heal often based on their faith. As far as ID and science- it is important to understand what ID is about and what it is not claiming to be about. ID simply posits and tests of intelligent design in nature. Dembski likes the definition: "ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of design." Dembski has written about examples where inferences to design are very real- such as SETI and fraud detection regarding financial data analysis. The theories on probability theory and information theory relay primarily on quantifiable statistical analysis. There is however a very real qualification part to ID as well. However if you think about physics in terms on construction and engineering as opposed to random or indifferent natural processes you can go about doing science differently. Newton believed God designed the world and it was especially evident in the formation of the solar system which he thought was beautiful. This inspired him to look for laws within it. So a perspective on origins guides our meta-reasoning to a certain extent- that is the reasoning that helps lead us to choose our scientific starting points. Also Behe brought forth the flagellum as a possible IRC machine. This lead to hypothesis about how it may or may not have evolved. SO at the very least ID can bring a new and different perspective to science- it can also inspire some people to see further.Frost122585
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
On nature and self-interest. Is Christian charity altruistic? Surely, it is delayed self-interest, with the expected reward of salvation. Only the atheist can be truly altruistic, as there is no possibility of heavenly recompense.Alan Fox
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
As nobody has yet responded to how peoples' top questions were arrived at, maybe I could ask a question that occurs to me, that might have been my "top question", had there been somewhere on the site to ask one. What useful contribution has Intelligent Design made to scientific endeavour? More specifically, what avenue of scientific research has been proposed that would not have otherwise been undertaken?Alan Fox
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
Graham, Learned Hand, Beelz, Walking an old lady across the street is a 'nice' thing to do but has very little to do with supporting group survival. She is in the twilight of her years and my niceness has no power whatsoever to alter that reality. It will however help reassure her when she crosses over. Likewise, spending hours of my free time helping a neighbor build a house is a nice thing to do but has little bearing on group survival. That neighbor would survive with our without my nice effort. Niceness if qualitative, not quantitative.Oramus
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
Mr Tribune7, Interestingly, I did read Old Yeller as a child, but have never seen or read Bambi. But I have seen many Godzilla movies!! I'm not sure what your point is about it, though. Literature is a poor lens for nature. I think we should circle back to Mr Graham's point - helping other animals in your group can increase your own genes' survival. "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins." I would be wary of calling this "moral" or "good" behavior, when it occurs in animals. These words have too much excess baggage. Is it "good" when bees sting, killing themselves for the good of the hive? I think this is part of the problem of reading agency into nature.Nakashima
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Tribune7 writes:
But to think “nice” is the norm in nature means you should have have watching Bambi when you should have been watching Old Yeller.
Except that nobody has claimed that it is. We were just startled to see you make such a sweeping and obviously mistaken claim, so we corrected you. Nice is clearly not the norm in nature. There's lots of horrible waste and cruelty. It makes you wonder what the Designer was thinking.beelzebub
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san That should be: But to think “nice” is the norm in nature means you have been watching Bambi when you should have been watching Old Yeller.tribune7
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
And I'm amazed that someone who uses the handle the Lord of the Flies is defending "niceness" in nature. There is book you should read. Guess what the title is!tribune7
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san I guess my statement can be taken as nature is never "nice", so I'll clarify it. Nature can be nice. Mothers sacrifice their lives for their young. Fawns play together. Maybe even children can be raised by wolves. But to think "nice" is the norm in nature means you should have have watching Bambi when you should have been watching Old Yeller.tribune7
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Clive, No one here has denied that nature is nasty as well as nice. You need look no further than Darwin's example of the Ichneumonidae for that. We just can't understand why you and tribune7 would insist, in spite of massive contrary evidence, that being nice is "not natural". It's also amusing that in so doing, you undercut the many creationists who point to "nice" behavior in attempting to argue against Darwinian evolution. A bit of "friendly fire", eh?beelzebub
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
beelzebub, ------"I’m amazed that you’re even disputing this when the facts are so readily available, including on the Web." As am I amazed when the other side of the "truth" of animal behaviour is so readily available. And especially considering, not meerkats, not worker bees, not bats, but the alien behaviour of our "closest" relatives. They're not my closest relatives in relation to proximity, my dog is. They're not my closest relatives in relation to descendancy either.Clive Hayden
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Tribune7 and Clive, I'm amazed that you're even disputing this when the facts are so readily available, including on the Web. Parents of hundreds of species care for their young. Worker bees take care of the queen and her offspring. Ravens alert other ravens when they find food. Vampire bats share blood with hungry roost-mates. Meerkats stand guard while others forage. Is all of this news to you? lars writes:
Sounds like a worthwhile project. Hope it gets well visited by those who need it most. Admins, please note the typo,
For more information: http://www.faithanevolution.org
is missing a ‘d’.
It's no use, lars. I pointed that out yesterday, along with two errors (a misattributed and redacted quote) in the opening video at the new website. Both of my comments were deleted.beelzebub
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"Mr Graham was actually careful to state “in the group”, while your examples are of out-group violence. In general, I think you do a disservice to “materialists” by ascribing to all of them a belief that our minds are beholden to our genes." Actually, the scenario I was discussing, was within a group. The group of chimpanzees splits off arbitrarily, and becomes two groups, depending on how you want to define groups. It could still be considered one group, and the violence occurs. But, even more broadly, within a group before splitting, there is violence and rape and infanticide.Clive Hayden
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Mr Hayden, You are making the same mistake as Mr Tribune7. Sometimes selfish is not the same as proving always selfish. It is not true that every animal interaction is attemped murder or rape. Mr Graham was actually careful to state "in the group", while your examples are of out-group violence. In general, I think you do a disservice to "materialists" by ascribing to all of them a belief that our minds are beholden to our genes.Nakashima
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
tribune7, You're exactly right, nature is not nice. But what is left for these materialists to take their cues from? They have to extract some precept from nature on everything that they do and think. Our closest relatives (I say this with sarcasm) will raid other camps, kill the males and the young, and then the females will mate with the invading male who just filled her young. Ummm...that doesn't sound very nice to me, nor does it sound like survival is the paramount aim of the group. It's actually death as the end to which they fight. Besides, whatever the evolutionists deem "good" for survival, in reality, covers a multitude of sins.Clive Hayden
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Sounds like a worthwhile project. Hope it gets well visited by those who need it most. Admins, please note the typo,
For more information: www.faithanevolution.org
is missing a 'd'.lars
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Mr Uoflcard, I've met Michael Bloomberg, while he was merely a billionaire entrepreneur, not a clueless politician. Believe me, he is not clueless.Nakashima
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
I would say at least 99% of American adults don't understand what the actual problems are with Darwinian evolutionary theory. The NY mayor was visiting Ida, the recently unveileved (and much-hyped) fossil, and, I'm sure regurgitating some words he read in an article or bulletin on the way to the event, he said the findings "just cement the basic principles of Darwin's theory". I'd be fascinated to hear Bloomberg's account of how another fossil suddenly proves that filtered mistakes can produce wildly complex molecular machinery and genetic code (beyond the dreams of any human engineer or programmer). But we'd probably have to wait until he read the next "science"-backed statement, since he probably has no clue about any of that. Yet this is who informs the general public about this issue: Clue-less politicians and talking heads reading generic crap from teleprompters and regurgetating lies from bulletins. And of course a mayor is going to say this, and not just due to ignorance of the actual issues. How could he be relected if he questioned a dogmatically accepted and vehemently propogated pillar of materialism, err, I mean "science"? He wouldn't, hence his posing for pictures with innocent children, vain smiles and generic statements about issues he has no clue aboutuoflcard
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Did anyone else hear the fawning interview of Francis Collins on Laura Ingaham's radio show this morning? ID was bashed, of course, and the conservative, Catholic host reminded us that her religion doesn't have a problem with evolution.riddick
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Mr Tibune7, Showing that nature is sometimes not nice is not the same as demonstrating that it is always not nice (for reasons x, y, and z...). Even within your male with a harem example, there is the care and protection that the male is giving the harem females. You haven't answered the question at all. It is just not true that every encounter between creatures of the same species and same sex is attempted murder, and same species and different sex is attempted rape. Eusociality, altruism, sharing of resources occur at all levels and scales in nature.Nakashima
May 27, 2009
May
05
May
27
27
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply