BioLogos claims not to be Darwinist after all … and it’s not April 1 either.

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 29, 2012

Atheism, Christian Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Well, at least one of the two title statements is true.

In “Southern Baptist Voices: An Ongoing Series” (February 27, 2012), BioLogos, founded by NIH head Francis Collins, is publishing an article by Bill Dembski and Richard Land:“Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral,” adding as an editorial comment:

BioLogos does not subscribe to Darwinism, but Dr. Dembski has chosen this title and we will respond to it.

What? After all the spouting at the BioLogos site about how Christians must change their theology to accommodate Darwin?

Or that a theory of evolution explicitly promoted by atheists to rule out design is in some way compatible with Christianity, a faith whose creed begins, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth, … ”?

Darwinism: natural selection, acting on random mutation, produces the complex life forms we see around us, so that an amoeba of sorts gradually transforms itself over many generations into a man.

Let me put it like this: If someone informs me that the Catholic Church must change its theology to accommodate Marxism – and then denies he is a Marxist – why should I not send him packing? Who but a Marxist or his useful idiot would demand such a thing?

Or is BioLogos trying to back away from its Darwin-happy roots now? Fair enough, we all make mistakes and some of us admit them. But that raises the question:

What, exactly, is their point? Does BioLogos exist simply to be an airborne plop on the growing ID community?

Folks, the ID community is only one of an increasing number of voices insisting – among other things – on accountability from Christians who flirt with the creation story and all the other stories of materialist atheism and accept the latest materialist nonsense as evidence.

Currently, the atheist creation story is Darwinism, but – to give BioLogos its due – the atheist elite might well come up with a more believable packet in a few years. Given the dismal evidence for Darwinism coming back from the field, it’s no secret that many evolutionary biologists would be glad to exchange it for some other -ism as long as these principles stay intact: No God and no free will.

That won’t happen for a few years though. Darwinism is now one monster of a garbage scow, and it takes a long time to turn a big ship around.

But then won’t BioLogos be right in there – as I suspect – promoting the atheists’ next big thing? Is that what this is about? Repositioning? Stay tuned.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Note: As usual, the atheists are way ahead of the Christian Darwinists (or whatever they are). Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor, commenting on this “we are not Darwinists” claim as made by materialist atheists, says,

They told us, ‘no one is that kind of Darwinian any more.’

He adds,

We’d be happy if that were so, but there is good reason to doubt that it is.

(sound of rube whistling)

PS: Dr William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy and Richard Land, Director for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Comments

StephenB, nullasalus: Looks as if Gregory has decided to opt out of further discussion. This is rather frustrating. He asks us probing questions, and we give him very careful answers, and we ask him questions in return, and the most important of the questions, he doesn't answer. It makes me wonder if the time spent crafting a careful reply is justifiable. Anyhow, I don't see how we can get further with Gregory until he gives some very clear statements about (1) Whether he endorses the Darwinian understanding of evolution (i.e., that random mutations plus natural selection are sufficient to produce all the biological forms we see, including man); (2) Whether he thinks God guided, steered or planned evolution so that man was inevitable; (3) Whether he believes that all human beings today trace back to a single primordial couple (as Christian tradition teaches), or whether he goes with Biologos in ruling out the existence of that couple.Timaeus_{March 8, 2012
March
03
Mar
8
08
2012
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Are you really saying that ‘imago Dei’ is *entirely irrelevant* for ID according to ID leaders? I’d suggest it has to do with much, much more than nothing.
Please explain why you think that ID methodology is relevant to ‘imago Dei?’StephenB_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Gregory: I thank you for the information on the Wheaton conference. I doubt I will be there, but it looks like a good one. Your answers to my major questions are disappointing because they are either nonexistent or evasive. I asked you to explain your apparently self-contradictory position on Adam and Eve (angrily attacking Biologos for its religious unorthodoxy on the Biologos site, while appearing to completely accept the evolutionary biology on which the Biologos position is based). You have said nothing. I'll ask one more time: Gregory, were Adam and Eve (or some other primordial fully human couple, whatever names you give them) the exclusive ancestors of all human beings now living, or not? If yes, then what is your objection to creationism on this point? And if no, how can you condemn Biologos for unorthodoxy on this point, without condemning yourself? I won't ask the question a third time. If you don't give a clear answer with straightforward exposition explaining your answer, I will infer that you wish to duck the question. Here's another place where you fail to answer my question. Please look at this exchange: “Do you believe that God either guided or preprogrammed the evolutionary process so that it would produce man? Or do you take the Biologos view that he did neither, but relied on “randomness” to get the job done?” – Timaeus [Gregory's answer] As to “what I believe about creation, evolution, and design,” I’ve published several papers in academic journals and conference proceedings on this. They include papers on science, philosophy and theology that raise the topic, albeit sometimes tangentially, of intelligent design/Intelligent Design. Do you wish me to blow my cover, covered Timaeus? As I wrote to you in another thread (https://uncommondescent.com.....ent-418277), I attended the DI’s Summer Program for students and met many leaders of the IDM, so I’ve learned what they mean by creation/Creation, evolution and design/Design firsthand. And I also learned about the secrecy precautions that (young) IDists are encouraged to take." If you've written so many papers on the subject, it should be easy for you to summarize your view in one or two paragraphs here. You've deliberately avoided doing that. And no, you don't need to "blow your cover" in order to do it. I don't care in the slightest what your non-superhero identity is. Just tell me what "Gregory" thinks. Does Gregory think that God guided and/or planned biological evolution so that it would produce certain definite results? If so, what were the means God employed to guarantee the results? If not, then is Gregory an "open theist"? And does Gregory pretend that "open theism" is orthodox? Inquiring minds want to know. You wrote: "Please name them if you see instances of dictation [by Biologos] from natural science." I've already indicated one obvious instance. Traditional, orthodox Christianity has always held that there was a primordial fully human couple and that from them, and only them, all human beings who have ever lived are descended, and that from them all human beings have inherited original sin. Biologos has said that "science" rules out that belief. Therefore, Biologos gives "science" veto power over the contents of Christian theology. That example alone suffices to establish my point. And you cannot find a single example of a Biologos-TE giving theology veto power over a scientific conclusion. At Biologos, "science" is in the driver's seat, and theology is the passenger. By way of contrast, what orthodox, traditional Christian doctrine does ID veto? No matter what school of Christian thought you adhere to, ID is compatible with all of them; and with Jewish and Muslim thought, too. The science of ID can be taken on board, as passenger, by a driver of almost any theological persuasion. It doesn't dictate any theological conclusions. If you disagree, name me a single Christian theological doctrine which would have to change if ID is accepted. You wrote: "Is this ‘idea of a creator/Creator’ comparable to what you now conclude as an ‘idea of a designer/Designer’ or do you have no ideas about designer/Designer? It leads me to wonder how you distinguish ‘creation/Creation’ and ‘design/Design,’ and whether it could be orthodox or not. It is a chicken and egg question, isn’t it; does ‘design/Design’ come before ‘creation/Creation’ or ‘designer/Designer’ before ‘creator/Creator’ or vice versa? Or can a creator/Creator/designer/Designer (possibly) both create and design simultaneously?" This is a very confusing cluster of questions. It also seems to make difficult what every simple, uneducated Christian knows without complicated reasoning: the Creator of the world is also the designer of the world. No one can read the story in Genesis 1 without seeing that. There is nothing tricky or difficult about it. As for whether the creation and the design could be simultaneous, since we are dealing with God who is not subject to our time-bound constraints of causality, surely they could be. But that is neither here nor there. The question is not whether God first designed, then created, or did both together. The question is whether God designed at all, or left nature to its "freedom" to produce whatever it would. ID Christians say the former, many TEs, especially at Biologos, say the latter. I'm pleased to note that nullasalus agrees with ID on this. You asked me about YEC and Creation Science. Yes, I still believe that Creation Science is (mostly) bad science. Yes, I still oppose YEC and the Biblical hermeneutics that animate it. But I refuse to join hands with any of the organizations that I know of which attack YEC. They are all tainted by bad motivations. The NCSE is a front for secular humanism which employs a few Christians as useful fools. Its web site is loaded with anti-YEC arguments, some of which I agree with, but I don't wish to dignify the NCSE by being seen in its company. Biologos attacks YEC, but it does so partly for Freudian reasons (as some Biologos folks are YEC apostates themselves), and partly to promote liberal theology, and I don't condone either motivation. The atheist sites like Panda's Thumb etc. attack YEC, but I won't join hands with them, as I don't want to seem to endorse their atheism, their childish rage, and their foul language. If some YECs try to take over my school board and push Genesis in the science classes, I will stand up an oppose YEC as vigorously as anyone else. But I have no interest in carrying on a crusade against YECs. I regard them as sincere, good Christians who contribute much to the moral and social fabric of the country, but just happen to have some erroneous ideas about science and theology. Well, we all have some erroneous ideas, and unless such ideas infringe upon the freedom of others, I don't think anyone should worry about it. You wrote: "Goodness, you’re not suggesting Plato as a precursor to ‘intelligent design theory,’ are you?!" Obviously you have not read the Platonic dialogue which bears my name. You wrote: "Should I understand, Timaeus, you’d accept that inferences of big D-ID, if not small d-ID do in fact “need to be motivated by faith”? That is, without faith, big D/Design could not be posited." No, you should not understand that, especially since I said exactly the opposite. No design inference, whether it comes from inside or outside of the Discovery Institute (which I gather is what you mean by big D-ID), requires prior religious faith. Ever heard of Antony Flew? You wrote: “is it not astonishing to you how many US citizens proclaim to believe in a ‘young’ earth”? Yes and no. In the abstract, it is astonishing that anyone should take a text like Genesis and use it to derive scientific conclusions. But in historical context, understanding the Protestant sectarian origins of America, it is not surprising at all. America was colonized and later extensively populated by people who for the most part did not partake in high intellectual culture; the popular religion of America, then, will reflect that origin. From farmers and hunters and merchants who have not studied Shakespeare or Plato or literary criticism or ancient history, from circuit riders who often have only a hairsbreadth (if even that) more theological education than their congregations, you're going to get a fairly crude literalism. And once those interpretive grooves have been dug, even later generations of Americans, with much more formal education, will tend to stick to such interpretations, because they will have been taught from the cradle to identify that particular interpretive tradition with the substance of faith itself. You seem to find this a big problem. I don't. So what if someone thinks that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago? As long as that person can splice a gene, build a bridge, program a computer, analyze a chemical solution, interpret atmospheric data, etc., what difference does it make what that person believes about the past? Some of the great scientists of the 20th century, e.g., Damadian, have been creationists. I might think they are wrong about the origin of the earth, but that doesn't take away from their scientific achievement. And throughout the whole time of America's scientific and technological dominance in the world (i.e., about the past 75-100 years) there have *always* been more literalists and creationists in America than in any other advanced country. YEC began its modern explosion at precisely the time NASA was putting America into space. So obviously the existence of literalism and creationism in the population are not incompatible with scientific and technological achievement. You see a problem where none exists. To nullasalus you said: "Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. BioLogos believes G-d ordered and guides biological evolution." Biologos has never said this. When the question was put recently to Falk and Venema, in direct and unambiguous terms, neither one of them said what you have said above. They stalled, dodged, feinted, evaded, qualified, footnoted -- did everything to avoid making the plain affirmation you have just given. If they believed what you say, they would not be so slippery. They would just say it, straight out. But they can't, because their commitment to neo-Darwinism means that they must see the evolutionary process as unguided and unplanned. So they fumble around, muttering phrases about "a high view of providence" (the meaning of which they don't understand), as if that somehow squares randomness with planning. This ploy has been seen through and exposed by Crude, nullasalus, Jon Garvey, and many others. But you don't need to imitate Biologos, Gregory. You can be straight up. You can say if you think the evolution was either guided or planned. You can say if you think that God subtly steered evolution by planting certain mutations, or if you think that God front-loaded evolution so that man was an inevitable result. So I ask you again, is it your personal view that God intervened, subtly or bluntly, in the normal course of nature, to guide evolution in certain directions, or that he set up evolution by the way he designed the first life, so that the emergence of man was inevitable? Or is your view the Biologos view, that he left nature to its "freedom" (which implies that he could not have guaranteed the emergence of man)? Ball's in your court, Gregory. Answer or duck the question, as you please. But if you duck, you know the interpretation I will put on it.Timaeus_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Gregory, Are you really saying that ‘imago Dei’ is *entirely irrelevant* for ID according to ID leaders? I’d suggest it has to do with much, much more than nothing. Insofar as ID itself goes? Yes, I stand by my words: the imago Dei has exactly nothing to do with ID. Include theology, philosophy and metaphysics with ID, and then absolutely the imago Dei has something to do with the topic - but that's due to what's being added to ID. Not ID itself. You say you suggest that. Fair enough: connect the dots for me. Show me where Dembski or Behe or, etc, make the direct connection between the imago Dei and ID. It won't do to just point out the fact that ID proponents believe that God is the designer of life, anymore than you can connect evolutionary theory (considered purely scientifically) with theism just because Stephen Barr believes God guided evolution. To infer ‘design/Design’ *in biology* (or other natural sciences), as you contend, may not infer God exclusively, but it infers a designer/Designer and a mind/Mind, as far as I understand Stephen C. Meyer’s argument for informational design/Design. The ‘small id’ could very well be aliens or…, but the ‘big ID’ is pretty much exclusively G-d, Allah, YHWH (however one calls the Divine in their own language and identity/relationship), wouldn’t you say? It's not at all clear. What's the difference between 'small id' and 'big ID'? Because as far as Behe, Dembski and the rest have ever said - consistently - ID is incapable of getting one beyond 'a designer/designers'. Dembski has flat out outlined the possibilities among everything from 'aliens', 'advanced civilizations', 'a matrix-like setup', 'demiurge' to, yes, the God of the Bible. So no, your charge seems incorrect. Ayala is an easy foil; so is Howard van Til. Last I checked these are not ‘BioLogos’ evangelical Christians, but rather called ‘liberal Christians.’ Theodosius Dobzhansky is a much more difficult nut to crack, as is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. There is an Orthodox and Catholic feature to the latter two, which is not present if one sticks only with Protestant Christians, especially with those like Ayala and van Till whose position is questionable wrt to ‘orthodoxy.’ Questionable? Ayala won't even state outright he believes in God, and his position is more than 'questionable' with regards to creation specifically, and orthodoxy generally. He denies God knew the outcomes of evolution. He does this explicitly. Michael Ruse said flat out on Biologos' site that to believe God knew the results of evolution in advance, to believe God guided evolution, is at odds with science and 'Darwinism'. Ayala was lauded on Biologos. Neither man was criticized in any major way, certainly not by Biologos' stewards. You say the problem isn't "Biologos" Christians, but "Liberal" Christians. Draw a Venn diagram, and there's going to be tremendous overlap there on the subject of creation. Maybe not total - in fact, I know not total - but man, tremendous overlap all the same. Personally, when I ‘infer intelligence,’ I infer human intelligence. What other ‘Kinds’ or ‘Categories’ of ‘intelligence/Intelligence’ do you have in mind? Here I surely agree that Timaeus’ ‘small ID’ vs. ‘big ID’ distinction is valid. Most of ASA (including Ted Davis and Randy Isaac, if memory serves correct) and BioLogos agree with this valid distinction too. Do you accept it? Insofar as the topic is ID, no, I don't accept it. ID, right or wrong, infers 'intelligence', period. Not 'human intelligence'. Nor do I personally infer just 'human intelligence' when I infer it - however, I don't believe inferring intelligence or its lack is at all scientific (I have a much narrower view of science's scope and utility). Now, the ID argument is that there are traits of intelligence's products that we can roughly generalize. Cue the SETI example where we're looking for examples of non-human intelligence in space. Cue the (in philosophy) Scotists who accept univocity with regards to God's intelligence and man's (which seems to open the door to inferring God's intelligence directly). So no, I don't think your distinctions hold, or at least they don't obviously, automatically hold. Is it possible that the IDM could have been born without ‘inherently theistic’ principles about the ‘logic’ or ‘rationality’ of the Universe? Did Francis Crick turn theist when he surmised an intelligent cause being involved with the origin of life on earth? Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. BioLogos believes G-d ordered and guides biological evolution. Pardon my bluntness but: bull. Bull, bull, bull, bull, bull. Take my wager. Contact Falk. Ask him. See what his response is. I can practically guarantee you Biologos does NOT believe what you're saying. Do you think it was accidental that Ruse's "God had zero idea what evolution would turn up" speculation ended up on Biologos? Do you think it's a mere oversight that Biologos keeps their collective traps shut when it comes to Ayala? Do you think the lack of a clear statement of the like I'm asking for here was an 'oops' moment, going on a year or more? Biologos does NOT, manifestly does NOT, take the position that God guided and knew the results of evolution. The closest they get is vague talk of God 'sustaining creation yet also granting it freedom', with 'freedom' meaning 'God doesn't determine, or even know the results of, evolution'. I made you a fair wager. You refuse to take it. Why not? Wouldn't it be great to have a post on here praising Biologos for a position like that? I'm a TE - I'd be delighted at the news. I defended Barr to the hilt on this site within the past month. Yet my view of Biologos is low. Take my wager, Gregory. You say you've contacted Falk? Contact him again. Let's settle this. I stand by my words. Natural science by definition *cannot* demonstrate extra-natural ‘guidance’ or ‘tinkering’ when it studies things ‘in nature.’ One needs theology and/or philosophy to make such a ‘design-like’ suggestion. What's "extra-natural" again? John Gribbin believes in a multiverse where advanced civilizations are responsible for the vast majority of universes in the spread. Is that a extra-natural belief? Brian Greene recently wrote a book outlining various types of multiverses including one that supposes we live in a simulation. Did Brian Greene highlight an extra-natural theory? Francis Crick believed live on this planned was seeded by an alien civilization. Was he dabbling in extra-natural understanding? Again: I am no an ID proponent. I do not think ID is science. But the extra/super-natural talk is a load, and always has been. It's a bluff. And finally, Biologos does not fail to affirm God's guidance or knowledge of evolution's outcomes due to any worries about the division between science and theology - they demonstrably have zero problem talking all day about theology. They fail to affirm it because it's not a core belief of Biologos. They leave the door open to an utterly, Ayala-style/Ruse-style utterly unguided creation which is not merely 'unorthodox', but sounds flat-out ridiculous once put into words. One more time: prove me wrong. Write Falk. Ask him yourself. See if he gives you a direct answer, or if he dodges the question as if you threw a hot potato at him. And if you won't ask him - hell, if you know he's going to do exactly what I say he'll do - I say that's yet more reason for me to say exactly what I'm saying here about Biologos.nullasalus_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

When I asked Timaeus: “Are you supportive of anti-YEC education?” the response was “Not as Biologos does it.” Well, that is fine as a negative answer, but I’m looking for something positive. Whose anti-YEC education do you then support, Timaeus; if not BioLogos, then who/what organisation? Or have you given up thinking that ‘Creation Science,’ what you called the “deformed offspring of YEC,” is still worth opposing? “I have no idea what your reference to Wheaton College means. Perhaps you could let us all in on whatever you are talking about.” – Timaeus http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Departments/Biology/Biology-News/Science-Symposium-2012 If it was happening local, I’d well be interested to attend. “...‘science’ has veto power over theology, whereas theology has no such veto power over science. Yet Biologos claims to respect both fields equally.” – Timaeus This is worth exploring. What makes you think that BioLogos does not privilege theology over science; just because they allow their theology to be informed by, but not dictated to by natural sciences? Please name them if you see instances of dictation from natural science [not just using a contested ideological meaning of ‘Darwinism,’ please!] and capitulation of their evangelical Christian theology. There are of course claims by various persons demonstrating ‘scientism’ and ‘naturalism’ linked to *both* BioLogos and the IDM. On the ID side, this is ironic because P. Johnson wrote specifically to challenge ‘naturalism,’ as an ideology. On the BioLogos side (notice the big ‘L,’ Timaeus – you’ve continuously forgotten the capital letter); there is a tendency toward ‘biologism’ that I do not observe (at least, not in the same way) on the ID side. “I was raised in a church, and therefore was exposed to the idea of a creator.” – Timaeus Is this ‘idea of a creator/Creator’ comparable to what you now conclude as an ‘idea of a designer/Designer’ or do you have no ideas about designer/Designer? It leads me to wonder how you distinguish ‘creation/Creation’ and ‘design/Design,’ and whether it could be orthodox or not. It is a chicken and egg question, isn’t it; does ‘design/Design’ come before ‘creation/Creation’ or ‘designer/Designer’ before ‘creator/Creator’ or vice versa? Or can a creator/Creator/designer/Designer (possibly) both create and design simultaneously? “I learned the heart of rational thought from the study of Plato. After that, it was inconceivable to me that design was not in some way operative in living things and elsewhere in the universe.” – Timaeus Goodness, you’re not suggesting Plato as a precursor to ‘intelligent design theory,’ are you?! Would you share some Plato ‘design’ quotes then, please, Timaeus? “Obviously belief in design facilitates faith, in the sense that it removes the objection to faith that the existence of life is just an accident. But inferences of design do not need to be motivated by faith. That is where I completely disagree with Biologos.” – Timaeus Belief in angels facilitates faith too. Such beliefs presuppose that ‘life is not just an accident.’ Should I understand, Timaeus, you’d accept that inferences of big D-ID, if not small d-ID do in fact “need to be motivated by faith”? That is, without faith, big D/Design could not be posited. “Do you believe that God either guided or preprogrammed the evolutionary process so that it would produce man? Or do you take the Biologos view that he did neither, but relied on “randomness” to get the job done?” – Timaeus As to “what I believe about creation, evolution, and design,” I’ve published several papers in academic journals and conference proceedings on this. They include papers on science, philosophy and theology that raise the topic, albeit sometimes tangentially, of intelligent design/Intelligent Design. Do you wish me to blow my cover, covered Timaeus? As I wrote to you in another thread (https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/has-the-american-scientific-affiliation-forgotten-their-stated-identity/#comment-418277), I attended the DI’s Summer Program for students and met many leaders of the IDM, so I’ve learned what they mean by creation/Creation, evolution and design/Design firsthand. And I also learned about the secrecy precautions that (young) IDists are encouraged to take. As it is, I’ve written a short book on the topic that is soon to be released. Would you be interested to read it, Timaeus? There you may find what you call a ‘positive doctrine’ involving the notion of ‘intelligent design.’ I will post the link here if any persons are interested. And, simply because it is also a fair question to ask to those who promote ‘scientism’ while misunderstanding how it impacts people in one of the most ‘scientistic’ societies on Earth today (e.g. Dawkins & Dennett have expressed confusion at this fact), I’d like ask to Timaeus again: “is it not astonishing to you how many US citizens proclaim to believe in a ‘young’ earth”? In such a climate where people don’t care what ‘natural science’ says because they will simply believe what their local Pastor or Priest, Rabbi or Mullah says anyway, is this a welcoming environment for the ‘natural science of ID’ to take root?Gregory_{March 6, 2012
March
03
Mar
6
06
2012
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

nullasalus, Thanks for answering about YEC in the negative. Sorry to ask you such a silly question; perhaps it was just that I’ve been provoked by 2 YECs here at UD recently that made me ask it. I had thought that ID is predominantly an OE movement; for which I do have some direct confirmation via university-aged ID supporters. “What’s imago dei got to do with anything?” – nullasalus Are you really saying that ‘imago Dei’ is *entirely irrelevant* for ID according to ID leaders? I’d suggest it has to do with much, much more than nothing. To infer ‘design/Design’ *in biology* (or other natural sciences), as you contend, may not infer God exclusively, but it infers a designer/Designer and a mind/Mind, as far as I understand Stephen C. Meyer’s argument for informational design/Design. The ‘small id’ could very well be aliens or…, but the ‘big ID’ is pretty much exclusively G-d, Allah, YHWH (however one calls the Divine in their own language and identity/relationship), wouldn’t you say? Here I am reminded of what Timaeus wrote: “I was already a believer in ‘intelligent design’ (small id) before I ever heard of Behe or Intelligent Design (big ID).” That is, ‘belief,’ even in small id. In your view, nullasalus, does Timaeus not link ‘big ID’ with Michael Behe, and also big ID with ‘exclusively divine,’ e.g. Behe is a Catholic Christian theist? nullasalus wrote: “You may want to ask Ted Davis if Biologos and the ASA are intellectually united on this question…” For me, it’s not a question of ASA’s unity about ‘design,’ but rather about ‘Creation.’ The ASA statement “We believe in Creation” seems fairly united to me. ASA is broadly non-creationist, and totally for Creation (In the beginning...). Most ASA members accept small id (apologetic argument from/to design), but reject big ID, which they interpret as meaning that “science can prove (or give super-duper-strong implications towards) Divine/Intelligent Design.” Ayala is an easy foil; so is Howard van Til. Last I checked these are not ‘BioLogos’ evangelical Christians, but rather called ‘liberal Christians.’ Theodosius Dobzhansky is a much more difficult nut to crack, as is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. There is an Orthodox and Catholic feature to the latter two, which is not present if one sticks only with Protestant Christians, especially with those like Ayala and van Till whose position is questionable wrt to ‘orthodoxy.’ “you can infer intelligence in various cases ID does, and not automatically get God, much less the God of the Bible, as a result.” – nullasalus Personally, when I ‘infer intelligence,’ I infer human intelligence. What other ‘Kinds’ or ‘Categories’ of ‘intelligence/Intelligence’ do you have in mind? Here I surely agree that Timaeus’ ‘small ID’ vs. ‘big ID’ distinction is valid. Most of ASA (including Ted Davis and Randy Isaac, if memory serves correct) and BioLogos agree with this valid distinction too. Do you accept it? “ID is not inherently theistic. TE/EC is. ID is viewed by its most prominent proponents as being scientific. TE/EC proponents do not consider their views to be scientific, as much metaphysical, philosophical, or theological.” – nullasalus This is a complex statement. Is it possible that the IDM could have been born without ‘inherently theistic’ principles about the ‘logic’ or ‘rationality’ of the Universe? Did team prayers occur at the Pajaro Dunes meeting (1993)? From what I’ve seen and heard, ID is equally – neither more nor less – infused with philosophical and theological presuppositions as TE/EC. Actually, in many ways I would call it philosophically superior; at least it is speaking about information and pattern recognition. “Are you telling me that Biologos unequivocally is committed to the idea – even with the qualifications that science cannot demonstrate this…That God guided [and guides] evolution?” – nullasalus Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. BioLogos believes G-d ordered and guides biological evolution. Though they can’t ‘scientifically’ prove this, nevertheless, that is what they appear to believe. If you want a debate about divine foreknowledge, that seems to sometimes be outside of ID’s sphere of interest and sometimes within it, depending on the person. I have contacted Darrel personally, though did not ask him this question. You mistake your wager; I am not a “defender of BioLogos.” I fully concede that “BioLogos’ position on these matters is problematic and could reasonably merit criticism from orthodox Christians.” Imo, they merit criticism from orthodox Jews and Muslims also. But they are putting religion forward, which the IDM is not doing. Natural science by definition *cannot* demonstrate extra-natural ‘guidance’ or ‘tinkering’ when it studies things ‘in nature.’ One needs theology and/or philosophy to make such a ‘design-like’ suggestion. So, in this case, it is surely understandable why BioLogos is, as you say, “very, very thin on any affirmation of design in nature;” though they wish to speak (even if rarely) of ‘guidance’ rather than ‘design’ using ‘natural science’ + philosophy + theology.Gregory_{March 5, 2012
March
03
Mar
5
05
2012
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

Gregory: I thank you for your courteous reply. You wrote: "Personally, I don’t see Darwin’s main contribution as offering a ‘design substitute,’ as Timaeus does, but rather as convincingly showing that a ‘special creation’ of *each* and every species “just as we see it today” is less probable than there having been a long history of mainly natural change-over-time" It's not either/or. It's both. And he didn't think that the changes were "mainly natural" -- he thought they were "all natural." That is why "designer substitute" is the right phrase. Nature, which in Darwin's understanding acts without intent, and purely in accord with contingencies and laws, can shape the most elaborate and exquisite organic systems, which seem (but only seem) to have been designed for the functions they exhibit. You wrote: "Do you accept the power of this argument against ‘fundamentalist’ biblical literalists, young earthers & special creationists, some of whom are present & active on UD’s blog? If so, then Amen to Darwin’s contribution toward over-taking the pre-Darwinian worldview held by some theists that the earth is just a few 1000yrs old and that there were no ‘pre-Adamic humans!’ But of course, ID theories are conspicuously *silent* about A&E, right, while BioLogos is taking that topic head-on?" There is much to be said here. First of all, as I've said here before in a number of contexts to a number of different people, my Christianity is Platonist, and I'm not a "creationist" as that term is generally understood in popular discourse, i.e., a literalist who thinks science should be constrained by narrative statements from Genesis. You have probably already discerned that, so I'm not sure why you want me to say it again, but there, I've said it again. Second, because ID is a broad tent -- defined by rejection of chance and affirmation of design, not by any particular stance toward the Bible or any particular Christian theology -- I am neither able to nor wish to exercise any control over what individual ID supporters think about Genesis. If this were a theology web site, not an intelligent design web site, I might choose to debate some of the theological beliefs of some of my ID compatriots. But that is not the goal of this site, to settle which is the correct theology. The goal of this site is promote design against chance. (That having been said, I have ventured into theology from time to time, criticizing certain views of God's arbitrariness and violence, for example.) Third, I find your stance on "pre-Adamic humans" puzzling. If you are the same Gregory who has posted on Biologos, you seem to have changed your position. If I recall your criticism of Biologos on Adam and Eve, it was that Biologos is unorthodox for toying with non-historical notions of Adam and Eve, when Christian tradition is very clear about their centrality to the Fall and Redemption. But now I hear you seeming to agree with Biologos, i.e., accepting that there were pre-Adamic humans, something you seem to think that Darwin and Co. have established. Could you clarify your beliefs in this area? If you think there were pre-Adamic humans, i.e., physically human beings who were not in the image of God and who were not involved in the Fall, then what is your beef with Biologos, which says the same thing? And if you think there were no pre-Adamic humans, i.e., if you think that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of the entire human race, then what is your beef with the creationists? You wrote: "I doubt they are as ‘muzzled to Darwinism’ as you make it appear, Timaeus. (Soon shall we see at Wheaton College?)" Well, in the four years or so that they have been running, they have never showcased any view of evolution other than that of traditional neo-Darwinian population genetics, and they have never responded to any of the criticism of Darwinian mechanisms that have been appearing in the scientific literature with increasing frequency. I judge people's thoughts by their deeds, and their deeds indicate that they are wedded to neo-Darwinism. I have no idea what your reference to Wheaton College means. Perhaps you could let us all in on whatever you are talking about. You wrote: "Falk is not a ‘practising biologist,’ but he is an openly evangelical Christian with some knowledge of biological sciences, which is why he’s now BioLogos’ President. That said, Falk knows much more about biology than Timaeus does!" The reason that Falk is Biologos's President is that Francis Collins had to resign to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest with his NIH position. Were it not for the scientific prestige of Francis Collins, Biologos would never have received the Templeton grant which allows it to exist. Falk and Giberson, neither of whom, it seems, had published any refereed scientific paper in years (perhaps decades) at the time when Biologos got started, rode in on Collins's coattails. Does Falk know more general biology than Timaeus? I freely grant it. Has Falk paid as much attention to Margulis, the Altenberg group, Shapiro, etc., as Timaeus has? I doubt it. Having a Ph.D. in genetics from 35 years ago is not the same thing as regularly monitoring the cutting-edge debates over evolutionary mechanisms of the past 15 years. I see no evidence that Falk is even dimly aware of these debates. You wrote: "I’m supportive of BioLogos ‘correcting’ the ‘bad YE science’ of such persons. Are you supportive of anti-YEC education, Timaeus?" Not as Biologos does it. One doesn't need to throw out large parts of the Bible and the Christian tradition in order to expose the excesses of YEC. I don't agree with much of what YEC people say, but their religious attitude is much more admirable than that of Biologos. They have some non-negotiables. I don't see any non-negotiables at Biologos, other than "Jesus is my Savior and I know that through faith, not science." Everything else in the Christian tradition is open for debate. And Christian theology is only allowed to say things that "science" (meaning the reductionist science accepted by Biologos) will permit; "science" has veto power over theology, whereas theology has no such veto power over science. Yet Biologos claims to respect both fields equally. A much better model for trying to relate evolution to Christian theology is provided by one of the commenters on Biologos, Jon Garvey, who does not embrace YEC but has much more respect for traditional Christian theology than Biologos does. I commend his web site (Hump of the Camel) to all ID people, and to all TE people who don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You wrote: "Can I ask then, Timaeus: before ‘doubting Darwin’ were you at any time in your life already a Church-goer or ‘religious’ in the sense of believing in a Divine Mind/Heart/Spirit *before* you accepted ‘design/Design’? And likewise, does accepting/believing in ID in any way strengthen or validate your “Church connection” today; do you promote ID at your local church?" I was raised in a church, and therefore was exposed to the idea of a creator. In that sense, I was predisposed to think in terms of design. But I certainly drifted away from the church after childhood. I did not acknowledge any of its teachings as authoritative, not even the basic teaching of creation. I read widely in popular science, and from that imbibed the teaching that the universe and life arose out of the blind concatenation of atoms, with no role for God other than perhaps to start the ball rolling. I had scorn for YEC and its deformed offspring, Creation Science. I resented any attempt by religion to dictate to science. What undid my attitudes was not "conversion" or any dramatic religious experience; what undid my attitudes was reason and study. I realized that the Darwinian account was theoretically dubious and largely unsubstantiated, and I learned from the history of science that "scientific truth" was always governed by non-scientific assumptions which change from age to age. Finally, I learned the heart of rational thought from the study of Plato. After that, it was inconceivable to me that design was not in some way operative in living things and elsewhere in the universe. But I lacked the detailed scientific knowledge to relate this insight to particular scientific fields. Behe and later others, including Denton, provided this knowledge. Obviously belief in design facilitates faith, in the sense that it removes the objection to faith that the existence of life is just an accident. But inferences of design do not need to be motivated by faith. That is where I completely disagree with Biologos. I do not believe in design because I am a Christian Platonist; rather, my Christian Platonism and my belief in design, which were reached independently, harmonize. I don't count that harmonization as a proof of Christianity, however. An orthodox Jew might also accept design inferences. They are not faith-specific. Now let me ask you a question, Gregory: Do you believe that God either guided or preprogrammed the evolutionary process so that it would produce man? Or do you take the Biologos view that he did neither, but relied on "randomness" to get the job done? I ask you this because you generally take the stance of a critic, but rarely offer any positive doctrine of your own. I think we would all understand you better here if you were more generous in your exposition of what *you* believe about creation, evolution, and design.Timaeus_{March 4, 2012
March
03
Mar
4
04
2012
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Gregory, 1st question: are you a YEC? Nope. And never have been. I'm a TE, and the resident skeptic of ID, though sympathetic with the project and what I think drives it. Do you think the earth is ‘young’ or (‘medium’ or) ‘old’? Or are you un-committed on the topic? Does it matter as a scientific hypothesis the age of the Earth? The earth? Roundabout 4 billion I believe. Seems reasonable for me - I don't look into it much, and have little reason to question it personally. On the flipside, I don't think the question is the stuff of supreme importance. I used to be a tremendous ass to YECs - no longer. I think that was an improvement on my part. If you accept imago Dei, does this not follow? What's imago dei got to do with anything? I'm taking a minimalist view here, one divorced from Christian reasoning or much (but not all) metaphysical presupposition. And I'm pointing out the obvious - to infer design is not to infer God exclusively. Dembski himself says this flat out. BioLogos accepts what ASA accepts; ‘design’ in the universe, Mind, Creation. “We believe in Creation,” says ASA. Is this scholar-Christian unanimity meaningless? You may want to ask Ted Davis if Biologos and the ASA are intellectually united on this question, because all signs point to no - he's in a better position to comment, but I'll certainly back that negative assessment. Go ask Falk whether he thinks God even knew what the results of evolution would be. Go see what they think of Francisco Ayala's "God didn't know what evolution would produce therefore He's off the hook regarding the Problem of Evil" move. Go see Biologos hosting a guest post - without criticism by them that I've seen - by Michael Ruse arguing that if one wants to be in tune with science or "Darwinism" one has to conceive of God as creating multiple universes in a kind of cosmic crap shoot, because the very idea that something remotely 'in the image of God' likely arising in a *single universe* runs counter to science and Darwinism as he defines it. Sorry man, this sounds persuasive only to people who haven't been following Biologos for so long. What ‘intelligence’ did Crick ‘infer’? Please define it. Transcendental intelligence…embodied or unembodied? Is this far from what ‘Intelligence’ BioLogos accepts? Yeah actually, considering even Crick's inferred intelligence would be regarded negatively by Biologos. My point was that you can infer intelligence in various cases ID does, and not automatically get God, much less the God of the Bible, as a result. Crick is a great example of that. He's not the only one I can offer. Links please. Go get 'em. Type those names into the on site search engine and you'll get your links. I've been on and off reading this site since the heyday of Davescot. I've personally interacted with MacNeill on this site, discussing his criticisms of the modern synthesis. How does ID surpass the inability of TE/EC to scientifically ‘measure’ the guiding of ‘evolution’ compared to the ‘desigining’? First of all, "TE/EC" and ID are distinct categories. ID is not inherently theistic. TE/EC is. ID is viewed by its most prominent proponents as being scientific. TE/EC proponents do not consider their views to be scientific, as much metaphysical, philosophical, or theological. Second, not all proponents of TE/EC regard science as having an "inability" to "measure" the guiding of evolution. Indeed, not all of them agree that evolution was guided, or that God knew what the results of evolution would be. Some, like Stephen Barr, hold this. Others are silent on the question. Biologos has certainly entertained the notion that God had zero idea what would evolve in this universe (even if He, I suppose, really hoped He'd get certain results.) Hence so much emphasis on God granting nature "Freedom", aka, "the ability to develop in ways not even God foresaw, much less planned or guided". Are you telling me that Biologos unequivocally is committed to the idea - even with the qualifications that science cannot demonstrate this, even if this is taken as either the stuff of philosophical inference, even if this is taken purely as revealed Christian teaching - that God knew the results of evolution in advance, and chose said results? That God guided evolution? If so, would you care to make a friendly wager? Darrel Falk is the President of Biologos. A contact email for him is prominently displayed on the Biologos website. You can email him, or contact him in a thread, and ask, "Does Biologos unequivocally affirm that God knew and chose the outcomes of evolution, and that God guided the process towards particular ends known in advance, even though science is silent on this issue?" If Falk says yes - if he clearly affirms this, rather than punts to something like "We affirm God is the creator, but God granted Nature some freedom, who's to say how much, this is a difficult question, I can't give you a straight answer" - I'll write a post up on this site not only reporting on his affirmation, but praising both him and Biologos straight up for (finally!) boldly taking such a stand. If Falk says no, or if he punts, you concede that Biologos' position on these matters is problematic and could reasonably merit criticism from orthodox Christians, whether YECs, OECS, TEs, or Christian ID proponents. Two fair warnings: one, this is a win-win for me, because I'd be delighted at Biologos taking that position (if they could stand up to the hell they'd catch in the inevitable aftermath). And I suppose I'd take some small pleasure from having an apparent defender of Biologos concede to the very real problems with their approach. Second, while I'd win either way, I can pretty much guarantee you'll lose this wager. Falk won't take that position. He's been asked before, and he's hedged. Others, like Dennis Venema, have hedged. Now and then I'll find someone on Biologos making a broader affirmation of God's design and guidance, or even possible design and guidance, in natural history. It's similar to how, now and then, a person can find a needle in a haystack. I just got done with a protracted defense of TE Stephen Barr on this very site, arguing that Barr's views were commendable precisely because he took a very clear, bold, and orthodox stance, even while being critical of ID. And part of my reason for defending Barr was because I see what passes for TE representation on Biologos, and it's pathetic - most of that site is dedicated to hammering ID proponents and skeptics of evolution, and is very, very thin on any affirmation (philosophical or otherwise) of design in nature. I wish this wasn't the case. I had high hopes for Biologos at first. I would love for them to take far bolder, stronger stands on this subject. With extraordinarily rare exception, they haven't. I don't expect this to change in the near future.nullasalus_{March 4, 2012
March
03
Mar
4
04
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Hello nullasalus, 1st question: are you a YEC? Do you think the earth is 'young' or ('medium' or) 'old'? Or are you un-committed on the topic? Does it matter as a scientific hypothesis the age of the Earth? "I don’t think identifying human design...in and of itself gets one to big-G God." - nullasalus If you accept imago Dei, does this not follow? BioLogos accepts what ASA accepts; 'design' in the universe, Mind, Creation. "We believe in Creation," says ASA. Is this scholar-Christian unanimity meaningless? What 'intelligence' did Crick 'infer'? Please define it. Transcendental intelligence...embodied or unembodied? Is this far from what 'Intelligence' BioLogos accepts? "I’ve seen discussions of Dobzhansky at UD before, as well as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis." - nullasalus Links please. & de Chardin, Laszlo, Luhmann, Runciman...? "ID doesn’t, as far as I’m aware, attempt to answer the question of the ultimate origins of biological information. At best, a particular origin whose originator may or may not be ultimate." - nullasalus Perhaps not 'ultimate,' at best 'particular,' please then do tell what 'explanatory power' the signification of 'design' + 'intelligence' carries? How does ID surpass the inability of TE/EC to scientifically 'measure' the guiding of 'evolution' compared to the 'desigining'?Gregory_{March 4, 2012
March
03
Mar
4
04
2012
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Some quick comments of my own. Gregory, This is contestable. *Everyone* at BioLogos already believes in ‘intelligent design’ (small id) regardless of Behe’s existence too. Only if 'small id' is redefined radically, to the point where it can mean "God had absolutely no idea what the results of evolution would be, nor did He get involved in any way to design those results beyond a cosmic throwing of the dice". At which point 'small id' is being watered down to the point of near meaninglessness. It would be difficult, however, either to be an atheist or to *remain* an agnostic after having concluded ‘design’ by a ‘Mind,’ don’t you think Timaeus? On what level? In what way? Francis Crick inferred intelligence as having played a role in the origin of life on earth. Did he ditch his atheism? At least, once one concludes a ‘designer/Designer’ mind/Mind was involved in e.g. ‘the origins of biological information,’ they have in principle admitted to ‘knowing’ or ‘believing’ something ‘transcendental’ (to human or earthly existence), wouldn’t you agree? First, Crick's aliens (and he's just one example of a number I could bring out) were 'transcendental to human or earthly existence'. Did he, therefore, forsake his atheism? Second, maybe you mean the ultimate origins of biological information - actually you'd have to mean that, because otherwise your claim wouldn't add up. Humans engage in plenty of design of our own. I don't think identifying human design, or even many kinds of alien design, in and of itself gets one to big-G God. Third, let's say I was right about the second. But ID doesn't, as far as I'm aware, attempt to answer the question of the ultimate origins of biological information. At best, a particular origin whose originator may or may not be ultimate. Conversely, where is discussion of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ervin Laszlo, Niklas Luhmann, W.G. Runciman and for that matter, the Modern (evolutionary) Synthesis, which is broader than simple ‘Darwinism’, at UD? I've seen discussions of Dobzhansky at UD before, as well as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Evo-Devo as well - in fact a professor who was a major advocate of that, and ID critic, used to be a regular around here. Allen MacNeill I think? It certainly was discussed in the past.nullasalus_{March 4, 2012
March
03
Mar
4
04
2012
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Only short time, not enough to do justice to the responses… Thanks to Gil for confirming the order of his ‘design detection’ sequence. First conversion, then visible/haptic design. “I’ve said that his Origin is a classic which every educated person should read. I just don’t happen to think that he was correct in his main contention...” - Timaeus Confirmed that you give supportive words for Darwin’s ‘classic’ contribution to natural science; one’s anti-Darwinism should imo be tempered by respect for the ‘good science’ that Darwin did. This includes, as Eric suggests, “there is variation in nature…geographical isolation significantly impacting populations…RM+NS has some influence…[and] we shouldn’t think that every organism was specially created just as we see it today.” This last point is crucial, make no mistake. Personally, I don’t see Darwin’s main contribution as offering a ‘design substitute,’ as Timaeus does, but rather as convincingly showing that a ‘special creation’ of *each* and every species “just as we see it today” is less probable than there having been a long history of mainly natural change-over-time [which of course could have been ‘transcended’ by a Designer/Creator/Maker as ‘intervention’ or ‘tinkering’ at any moment in ‘natural’ history], whether it happened in gradual or punctuated periods. Darwin slam dunked on literalistic-special creationists (cf. YECs), while being supported by many mainstream Anglican Christians in England, many of whom had already accepted ‘old earth’ geology by Darwin’s time. Do you accept the power of this argument against ‘fundamentalist’ biblical literalists, young earthers & special creationists, some of whom are present & active on UD’s blog? If so, then Amen to Darwin’s contribution toward over-taking the pre-Darwinian worldview held by some theists that the earth is just a few 1000yrs old and that there were no ‘pre-Adamic humans!’ But of course, ID theories are conspicuously *silent* about A&E, right, while BioLogos is taking that topic head-on? “what applies to Darwin applies to the neo-Darwinists who believed the same thing” – Timaeus Well, Dobzhansky, one of the architects of the ‘neo-Darwinian’ Modern Synthesis called himself a ‘creationist.’ I don’t recall Darwin using that term to refer to himself. What applies to Darwin does not always apply to neo-Darwinists. We are agreed, Timaeus, about the Darwin Day ‘overkill.’ At the same time, is it not astonishing to you how many US citizens proclaim to believe in a ‘young’ earth, even now in the 21st century, using ‘biblical literalism’ or bibliolatry as a shield? Do you reserve some of your criticism of Darwin to also criticise them? “When Biologos denies being ‘Darwinian,’ it means that it denies holding to a materialistic, secular, anti-Christian philosophy that is often called ‘Darwinism.’ And so it does. But as far as the conception of evolutionary mechanism goes, Biologos adopts the classic form of mid-20th century Darwinian theory, i.e., neo-Darwinism.” – Timaeus The so-called ‘mechanism’ seems to be less important than the ‘worldview’ here. It would be interesting to engage a dialogue with BioLogos, say, with K. Applegate about ‘non-Darwinian’ views of biological evolution. Would she speak openly? I doubt they are as ‘muzzled to Darwinism’ as you make it appear, Timaeus. (Soon shall we see at Wheaton College?) Falk is not a ‘practising biologist,’ but he is an openly evangelical Christian with some knowledge of biological sciences, which is why he’s now BioLogos’ President. That said, Falk knows much more about biology than Timaeus does! It seems, however, that ‘biologism’ should be discussed among BioLogos leaders; too often do they defer to biology or genetics on topics (e.g. A&E) that require more anthropological and philosophical rigour. ID may be more skilled wrt philosophy of science than BioLogos, but it is just as deficient in terms of anthropology. James Kidder is at least BioLogos’ anthropologist; who is the IDM’s? “You’ll never see a column dedicated to the evolutionary ideas of the various members of the Altenberg group, or of Lynn Margulis, or of James Shapiro, on Biologos, the way you do here.” – Timaeus Conversely, where is discussion of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ervin Laszlo, Niklas Luhmann, W.G. Runciman and for that matter, the Modern (evolutionary) Synthesis, which is broader than simple ‘Darwinism’, at UD? The main target (opponent) of the IDM is focussed on Darwin, Darwinism, naturalism and reductionism, at potentially the cost of missing a broader critique of ‘evolutionism,’ an ideology which it (surprisingly) tacitly supports through Dembski et al.’s (blanket?) acceptance of ‘technological evolution.’ Thus, it seems there are cross purposes in the processes vs. origins foci between BioLogos and the IDM. “One doesn’t need to be a Christian, or even a theist, to decide that the world looks pretty darned designed.” – Timaeus This is contestable. *Everyone* at BioLogos already believes in ‘intelligent design’ (small id) regardless of Behe’s existence too. It would be difficult, however, either to be an atheist or to *remain* an agnostic after having concluded ‘design’ by a ‘Mind,’ don’t you think Timaeus? At least, once one concludes a ‘designer/Designer’ mind/Mind was involved in e.g. ‘the origins of biological information,’ they have in principle admitted to ‘knowing’ or ‘believing’ something ‘transcendental’ (to human or earthly existence), wouldn’t you agree? The Flew-Denton-Berlinski triad is convincing to a certain degree, but not of a clinching kind. “So I was already a believer in “intelligent design” (small id) before I ever heard of Behe or Intelligent Design (big ID), and before I resumed contact with the Church.” – Timaeus A believer? Sure, one needn’t be a Christian to accept ID. This is exactly how BioLogos distinguishes itself from the IDM; it unequivocally aims its TE/EC at Protestant Evangelical USAmerican Christians, a disproportionately large number of which believe in a ‘young’ earth, which you have called ‘bad science.’ I’m supportive of BioLogos ‘correcting’ the ‘bad YE science’ of such persons. Are you supportive of anti-YEC education, Timaeus? “The biographical order for me was: doubt Darwin, infer design, resume Church connection, discover Behe.” – Timaeus Can I ask then, Timaeus: before ‘doubting Darwin’ were you at any time in your life already a Church-goer or ‘religious’ in the sense of believing in a Divine Mind/Heart/Spirit *before* you accepted ‘design/Design’? And likewise, does accepting/believing in ID in any way strengthen or validate your “Church connection” today; do you promote ID at your local church? p.s. no worries about your misreading re: Gil's design order...Gregory_{March 4, 2012
March
03
Mar
4
04
2012
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

"My basic question to Timaeus: what did Darwin get right? Iow, which aspects of Darwin’s thought, discoveries, framework, should we keep (i.e. call ‘legitimate’) today?" Sorry to butt in, but I'd have to answer "Not much." Let's see (just glancing through some of the chapters of The Origin): - Because domestic husbandry is able, by careful selection, to produce some noticable physical differences in traits, natural selection must be able to do much more. (Inference without empirical support.) - The Malthusian struggle for existence will drive a relentless struggle for survival in which the "slightest variations" can play a decisive role. (Completely wrong in many cases. Way overstated in most others.) - The geological record, which did not support Darwin's theory well in his time, will eventually come to support the pervasive march of slight, gradual, successive variations. (Wrong. In general, just the opposite.) - The history of life can best be represented by a tree, with the larger categories (kindoms, phyla, etc.) coming on the scene later. (Completely backwards.) - Embryology recapitulating phylogeny. (Do we need to even mention what is wrong with this?) - Successive, slight variations filtered by time and the vagaries and hazards of life can eventually result in new species, genera, etc. and inded in all the diversity of life we see around us. (Wrong.) ------ As one of the relatively small number of folks who have actually waded through The Origin cover to cover (present company probably have as well), I will say that I was hugely disappointed. At the time, notwithstanding Darwin’s polished writing style, I concluded it was one of the worst books I had ever read, possibly the worst. Thinking about it later, I have come to understand that the reason I found it so wanting is that I had approached The Origin looking for a scientific case supporting evolution. Instead, what I was treated to were speculations, ruminations, complaints about how God would not have done it this way, etc. Yet later I have come to appreciate Darwin as a skilled rhetorician — able to weave a small collection of mostly-superficial observations into what is largely a philosophical and religious argument about how God wouldn’t have done it. Darwin was a skilled rhetorician and a decent naturalist. Perhaps as decent as most anyone of his time. But in terms of what we would consider "science," it isn't too impressive. No calculations, no numbers, no attempt to quantify. ----- What did Darwin get right? Well, there is variation in nature. There is also evidence for some geographical isolation significantly impacting populations. RM+NS has some influence in certain circumstances; there are real examples, such as the things Behe explores in The Edge of Evolution. There is a general history of life that needs to be taken into account (I think this is a very valuable underlying point Darwin makes in The Origin); we shouldn't think that every organism was specially created just as we see it today. What else? OOL? No, not much there other than an occasional unsupported speculation. The white race being superior to the negro race? Nah. Man descended from an ape-like creature? Some would argue it is a correct hunch, but still hotly debated. Almost certainly incorrect in terms of the "how" being RM+NS. So what did he get right? A couple of worthwhile things, but it is a pretty short list . . .Eric Anderson_{March 3, 2012
March
03
Mar
3
03
2012
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

My mistake, Gregory. Because Gil's original words were posted under another column, I didn't remember that he had dated his conversion at 1994. So my question about your motivation was unnecessary. My apology for the confusion. OK, so strike my last paragraph out as irrelevant. However, the rest of my remarks are still perhaps useful, as a stand-alone testimony of how even a non-Christian might come to doubt Darwinian theory and incline toward the view that living systems are designed, even if Phil Johnson or Mike Behe had never written anything. As for Darwin, I believe that I have on more than one occasion praised him. I've said he was an assiduous empirical biologist, tireless and careful about detail, a good scientific writer, and a fair and gentlemanly debater (granting possible objections, admitting unsolved problems, avoiding ad hominem remarks, etc. -- unlike many of his modern defenders). I've said that his Origin is a classic which every educated person should read. I just don't happen to think that he was correct in his main contention, i.e., that tiny changes in the genetic material, acted upon by natural selection, could serve as a designer-substitute and create radical biological novelty. And what applies to Darwin applies to the neo-Darwinists who believed the same thing (but supported it with a much more accurate understanding of inheritance). However, outside of his main contention, Darwin contributed much to natural history -- his discussions of biogeography, of species and varieties (and hence of microevolution), of volcanic islands, orchids, barnacles, etc. I have no problem with praising Darwin. (Though all this pious Darwin Day nonsense is ridiculous overkill: Clerk Maxwell and Boyle and Newton and Faraday and Galileo and Archimedes and Pasteur don't have days of their own, and their accomplishments were more substantive.) When Biologos denies being "Darwinian," it means that it denies holding to a materialistic, secular, anti-Christian philosophy that is often called "Darwinism." And so it does. But as far as the conception of evolutionary mechanism goes, Biologos adopts the classic form of mid-20th century Darwinian theory, i.e., neo-Darwinism. Falk, I believe, did his post-doc in Ayala territory at Irvine, and Ayala was a disciple of Dobzhansky. And Venema is mainline population genetics stuff, all the way. You'll never see a column dedicated to the evolutionary ideas of the various members of the Altenberg group, or of Lynn Margulis, or of James Shapiro, on Biologos, the way you do here. Biologos's conception of evolutionary mechanism is narrowly Darwinian, and dated. Can there be good evolutionary science that is not Darwinian? Of course. I've already named some people whose evolutionary ideas are to my mind in some respects more plausible than Darwinian ideas. Unfortunately, the popular debate about evolution has tended to be dominated by figures like Dawkins, Coyne, Miller, Scott, Falk, etc., who trade exclusively or almost exclusively in the Darwinian brand of evolutionary theory. The public is thus getting a false choice, i.e., between an outdated brand of evolutionary theory on the one hand and "creationism" (i.e., Bible-controlled science) on the other, when it should be informed that some forms of evolutionary theory do not necessarily exclude notions of design. Your last question is puzzling to me. I already explained that I seriously doubted Darwinian theory, on non-religious grounds, long before I read Behe, and that Behe just confirmed with more detailed science what I had already come to think on more general grounds. One doesn't need to be a Christian, or even a theist, to decide that the world looks pretty darned designed. So I was already a believer in "intelligent design" (small id) before I ever heard of Behe or Intelligent Design (big ID), and before I resumed contact with the Church. The biographical order for me was: doubt Darwin, infer design, resume Church connection, discover Behe. Does this reformulation answer your question? Again, my apologies for misreading your question to Gil. Best wishes.Timaeus_{March 3, 2012
March
03
Mar
3
03
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Gregory was “design in living systems and the universe” obvious to you before 1994? Gil Dodgen 19 No. But prior to 1994 some stuff didn’t seem to make much sense to me. I figured that the really smart guys had it all figured out about how there was no design in stuff that seemed obviously designed to me. Upon further investigation it turned out that my skepticism was justified. Timaeus 20 I had a similar experience... Some time during my university years, doubt started to creep in. The source of the doubt was not religious, because at the time I had no religion to speak of... The study of the history of evolutionary ideas, and of philosophy, only increased my doubt. It seemed to me that Darwinian thought was as much philosophy as biology, and that insofar as it was philosophy it was reminiscent of ancient Greek and Roman materialism, which was a philosophy I rejected... I was in this state of mind for probably 20 years before I ever heard of “intelligent design” as a body of thought. Gregory 21 What Gil calls ‘reasonable intelligence’ depends (entirely?) on his religious conversion. Would anyone ask to differ? Tell us please, Timaeus, was Behe’s book (1996) what supposedly convinced you of ‘design’ and was it after or before you were already (once again) a religious Christian? Former militant, Dawkins-style atheist, now born-again Christian. I changed my mind to a great extent because of ID arguments. ~ Gil Dodgen Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God, The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But It is not science alone that has guided me…Over the last two decades, my whole frame work of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. ~ Antony Flew Now, suppose that it’s not only the case that ID’s negative attacks have been refuted, but also that ID itself has been refuted. Even so, this doesn’t make ID unscientific. Consider Newtonian physics – this is uncontroversially a scientific theory. Note that it counts as a scientific theory even though it has been refuted. (For example, Newtonian physics predicts that clocks in differing gravitational fields will run at the same rate, while it has been empirically shown that clocks in stronger gravitational fields run slower.) One might be tempted to say that under the supposition that ID is false, we can at least conclude that it shouldn’t be taught in public school. But even that doesn’t follow: Newtonian physics is false, and yet that is the theory that everyone is taught in high school physics classes. ~ Bradley Montonbevets_{March 3, 2012
March
03
Mar
3
03
2012
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Timaeus expressed curiosity: “I don’t know what the motivation of Gregory’s question was. I’m not sure why he zeroed in on the year 1994…” Here is the simple answer: “My life has been indescribably and profoundly enriched since my conversion from atheism to Christianity in 1994 …” – Gil Dodgen My question was directed to Gil – whether or not he became a design theorist before or after becoming a Christian. The main point is this: by history, first Gil became a Christian and second he ‘saw design.’ Is there now any debate about this? No. “Design in living systems and the universe is so obvious to me that I can’t begin to comprehend how anyone with reasonable intelligence can deny its existence.” – Gil (after his 1994 conversion to Christianity) What Gil calls ‘reasonable intelligence’ depends (entirely?) on his religious conversion. Would anyone ask to differ? If Timaeus has legitimate training in a philosophy program (which I doubt), he will know that ‘order’ is the core concept. Does the universe have ‘order’ or is it a simply a matter/case of finding order in chaos (POGG)? Here is the notion of chaos that Dembski faced wrt Prigogine and Stengers & the ‘systems approach’ to reality. Personally, as a monotheist I believe in ‘order’ as a feature of the Divine Creation. Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky were both Christians and both accepted the contribution to natural science that Darwin made. Obviously, they were not ‘materialists’ but believed in reality beyond matter-alone. Why does Timaeus not cite their acceptance of Darwinian/Wallacean ideas in his blanket condemnation of ‘Darwinism’ &/or 'natural selection'? Dobzhansky never claimed to be a ‘Darwinist’ or ‘Darwinian,’ yet he (properly?) credited Darwin’s contribution to natural sciences, e.g. botany, comparative biology, etc. My basic question to Timaeus: what did Darwin get right? Iow, which aspects of Darwin’s thought, discoveries, framework, should we keep (i.e. call ‘legitimate’) today? This is not a negative question; I am only asking for positive remarks. What I find too often amongst the ‘anti-Darwinists’ (including both YECs & OECs) is no (read: zero) concession of actual ‘good science’ done by Darwin. Shoveling it off to ‘mere philosophy,’ when Timaeus indicated he personally has studied philosophy, is convenient, but not satisfactory. Perhaps because Timaeus has not studied biology at the PhD or Masters level, he feels it is appropriate to philosophically challenge the ‘scientific purity’ of (neo-)Darwinian biological explanations, which includes the Christians Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky, among others more recent such as Francis Collins? On the other side, we see at BioLogos no willingness to embrace what some people call ‘Darwinism.’ I recall asking people at BioLogos directly on several occasions: are you or do you consider to be a ‘Darwinist’? Never was I given a straight answer. Iow, I think it is true that BioLogos does not embrace ‘Darwinism’ but rather ‘good evolutionary science.’ They even (summer 2011) removed discussion of 'Darwinism' from their Questions section, where previously it equated Darwinism with natural selection and biological evolution. The question for Timaeus and Gil: can there be ‘good evolutionary science’ that is not ‘Darwinian’? Fisher’s ground-breaking book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection was dedicated to Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, who supported Fisher. Fisher considered L. Darwin as his mentor. Of course, Timaeus already knew this, so his argument for ‘design’ in biology must be above reproach mainly because it is ‘anti-Darwinian’? Tell us please, Timaeus, was Behe’s book (1996) what supposedly convinced you of ‘design’ and was it after or before you were already (once again) a religious Christian?Gregory_{March 3, 2012
March
03
Mar
3
03
2012
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Gil: I had a similar experience. I grew up accepting the Darwinian narrative, and assumed that behind the broad generalities of the popular presentations of evolution there was real technical knowledge about how evolution happened, tucked away in museums and universities and libraries by learned scientists. I inferred that any objections to Darwin must be religious, since all the scientific evidence seemed to be on Darwin's side. Some time during my university years, doubt started to creep in. The source of the doubt was not religious, because at the time I had no religion to speak of. My problem was that the Darwinian explanation for evolution depended far too much on chance. I began to doubt that random mutations could ever become coordinated, even over millions of years, into anything useful. I wondered why scientists were so sure about such a speculative mechanism. The study of the history of evolutionary ideas, and of philosophy, only increased my doubt. It seemed to me that Darwinian thought was as much philosophy as biology, and that insofar as it was philosophy it was reminiscent of ancient Greek and Roman materialism, which was a philosophy I rejected. I was in this state of mind for probably 20 years before I ever heard of "intelligent design" as a body of thought. I then heard some row about Michael Behe, and from what I oould make out of his arguments secondhand, they sounded quite reasonable. So I sat down and read Darwin's Black Box, which I took to be a work not of theology but of science. I saw nothing in it that seemed religious, no arguments from the Bible, no quarrels against radioactive dating, no talk of fossils "planted" by God in the wrong strata to test our faith -- in a word, none of the argumentation I had come to expect from fundamentalism and creation science. I saw instead mathematical, chemical and engineering concepts applied to criticize a biological theory. And the conclusion Behe came to supported both common human intuition and the results of the rational tradition of philosophy: random mutations and selection alone, without design, could not have done the job. Here was science, not undermining the perennial human perception of order (as in Darwinian theory), but strengthening it. I don't know what the motivation of Gregory's question was. I'm not sure why he zeroed in on the year 1994, either, since Behe's book came out in 1996. But if he was suggesting that after 1994, ID writings "planted" religious, scientifically illegitimate anti-evolutionary thought into the minds of credulous people, I would dissent. I would argue that ID writings struck a chord in many thoughtful people, including thoughtful non-religious people, because they voiced in precise scientific terms the healthy rational skepticism which many already had for Darwinian explanations of biological origins.Timaeus_{March 2, 2012
March
03
Mar
2
02
2012
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Gregory, was “design in living systems and the universe” obvious to you before 1994? No. But prior to 1994 some stuff didn't seem to make much sense to me. I figured that the really smart guys had it all figured out about how there was no design in stuff that seemed obviously designed to me. Upon further investigation it turned out that my skepticism was justified.GilDodgen_{March 2, 2012
March
03
Mar
2
02
2012
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

to reiterate, primarily it has to do with the way you will not allow empirical evidence to influence your interpretation of scripture.
Yes, we do have fundamentally different approaches to and probably different views of Scripture, but I don't see why that is a reason not to discuss our views together. That is probably what the Darwinists think about you as well. I appreciate the fact that you believe in the global flood. Most old earthers do not. But that creates another problem. How to maintain belief in an old earth if most of the rocks were laid down recently in the flood as opposed to millions of years ago by slow geological processes. I'm simply interested in how you solve this problem and I'm sure many others are too. In this case, it seems that you are the one not allowing empirical evidence to influence your interpretation of Scripture. You maintain an old earth position in spite of all the empirical evidence you gave for a global flood that contradicts an old earth position. You start with the Bible when it comes to the flood, as opposed to most old earthers. Why not start with the Bible when it comes to the age of the earth as well? OK, I'll shut up now and let you off the hook, but I feel like you are saying that you won't discuss anything with me simply because I have a different view of Scripture than you. It seems like this is simply an excuse to avoid the discussing the difficult problem that your view presents.tjguy_{March 2, 2012
March
03
Mar
2
02
2012
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Gil, still awaiting your response here: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/gallup-poll-of-676000-shows-the-most-religious-americans-have-highest-well-being/ In kind, a recent look at i+d/ID: http://donhoward-blog.nd.edu/2012/02/29/wheres-the-intelligence-in-intelligent-design/ Thanks for the J. Lennox link, Gr.Gregory_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

tjguy, my reasons were already stated in the previous post. But to reiterate, primarily it has to do with the way you will not allow empirical evidence to influence your interpretation of scripture. I have no desire to create conflict in this area since it will not do any good, apologetically, nor change anyone's mind, theologically. Besides, as you somewhat alluded to, we already share the most important thing in common for human beings to believe and share, our belief and common salvation in the redeeming work of Christ on the cross.
John 8:23-25 And Jesus said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning” Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU
bornagain77_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Ba77, You won't reply - I guess that means you have no justification for holding to self-contradictory views. I have asked this question 4 times now! Come on. We're mostly on the same side here. If you do have an answer, I would really love to hear it. Why refuse to answer a simple question?tjguy_{March 1, 2012
March
03
Mar
1
01
2012
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

I like to cut through the fluff and get to the point, which in this case is obvious to me. If Francis Collins were to admit that ID proponents have a point -- that there really is evidence of design in biological systems -- he would immediately lose all credibility in the "scientific" community and his career would be over in an instant. He therefore finds himself in the extremely awkward position of being required to somehow reconcile two hopelessly incompatible propositions: 1) His Christianity dictates that the universe and living things are the product of design. 2) Darwinism (and its philosophical offshoots) dictates that the universe and living things are not the product of design. I'm a just a simple aerospace-engineering/software-engineering dude with elementary reasoning power. But even with that abysmally inadequate reasoning power I can detect rational inconsistency when I encounter it.GilDodgen_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

tjguy, I thought I made it clear to you that I was not going to respond anymore.bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

OT: Seems Jacobovici is trying to stir up more controversy with another false Jesus tomb claim. This following video and article reveals his just how bogus his first claim was, and should rightly cast doubt on this subsequent claim of his:
The Jesus Tomb Unmasked (1 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d78xdHLR3Y&list=PL79FBAC16BD4A15DB&index=1&feature=plpp_video The Jesus Tomb Math - William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Bottom line: when the math is done correctly, probabilities that might be cited in evidence for the Talpiot tomb being the final resting place of the New Testament Jesus are not very impressive and would not even achieve a minimal level of significance as gauged by conventional statistical theory. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2007.07.Jesus_Tomb_Math.pdf
Perhaps Jacobovici, instead of chasing after sensationalists headlines, should take some time to soberly consider, and reflect on, the Shroud of Turin:
Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462
As well, leap day is today, February 29th, which brings up this amazing tidbit: It may surprise some to learn that the biblical ‘prophetic’ calender is more accurate than our modern day 'scientific' calender. The Gregorian calender uses a fairly complex system of leap days to keep accuracy with the sun, whereas, on a whole consideration, the prophetic calender uses a simpler system of leap months to keep accuracy to the sun. When these two systems are compared against each other, side by side, the prophetic calender equals the Gregorian in accuracy at first approximation, and on in-depth analysis for extremely long periods of time (even to the limits for how precisely we can measure time altogether) the prophetic calender exceeds the Gregorian calender. i.e. God's measure of time exceeds the best efforts of Man to scientifically measure time accurately.,, But why, as a believer in God, am I surprised about this? :)
Bible Prophecy Year of 360 Days Excerpt: Is the Biblical 'prophetic' calender more accurate than our modern calender? Surprisingly yes! Excerpt: The first series of articles will show the 360-day (Prophetic) calendar to be at least as simple and as accurate as is our modern (Gregorian) calendar. In the second part of our discussion we will demonstrate how that the 360-day calendar is perfectly exact (as far as our 'scientific' measurements will allow). http://www.360calendar.com/
bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

BA77 & Jon, Aren't you guys are both right? Don't we all think there is enough evidence without looking at things scientifically to see that the universe and life has been designed and created? I doubt we need "science" per se for this verse to be true else it would be meaningless until science was invented and meaningless to those out of the reach of science. That being said, modern day science done properly should also verify this design and intelligence and supernatural creative work. I doubt any of us would argue with that either. That is the whole point of the ID movement - to show that there is intelligence behind the design that we see. It's true also, philosophically speaking, that you need God to do science also. Oh, they certainly cna do their science without a belief in God, but they can't validate their presuppositions and assumptions from their own worldview. They have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview to do that. Only the existence of God and man created in His image makes sense of logic, truth, free will, trusting your thoughts to be accurate, etc. By the way, BA, I'm still waiting for some answers in our previous thread. Mainly I want to know how you reconcile belief in an old earth with belief in a global flood. Thanks for the link to Dr. Lennox' talk at Duke.tjguy_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

link correction:
Dr. Michael Denton on Complexity and the Failure of the Machine Metaphor - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-29T15_14_31-08_00
bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

OT:
Dr. Michael Denton on Complexity and the Failure of the Machine Metaphor - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-08-05T14_45_44-07_00
bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

OT: New video of John Lennox was just loaded by Veritas:
God: Rendered Irrelevant? An Oxford Professor Discusses Science and Faith - John Lennox http://vimeo.com/37670839
bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Well Jon, logic happens to be another proof of God! :) I hold that what was self evident to Paul in Roman's 1:20 of God's handiwork being plainly evident in creation,
have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
at the time he wrote it, is exponentially more self evident today because of science. I really don't want to argue scripture as that really accomplishes nothing as far as I've seen, but the plain meaning of the text surely would make clear that 'what has been made' is what leaves men 'without excuse'. You can disagree if you want. But I will not get into a theological argument over the text. And thus will respond no further if it is just a disagreement over interpretation of the Bible.bornagain77_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Their defintion of Darwinism in the OP is as much a statement of faith as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." From a amoeba (of sorts) to a man with only random mutations and natural selection? Really?Barb_{February 29, 2012
February
02
Feb
29
29
2012
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply