Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BioLogos’ former prez softens stance toward Darwin’s Doubt book

arroba Email

Over at Evolution News & Views, David Klinghoffer is pleased to note that Biologos’ Senior Advisor for Dialog Darrel Falk has some words of praise for Steve Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt. Klinghoffer is naturally pleased to know that people there have stopped trashing the book long enough to read and think about it.

Always a good idea when a book has often been found in the top ten in its field for over a year.

Anyway, Klinghoffer (who is a much nicer person than O’Leary for News) writes, re Falk here and here:

In inferring design, however, Falk writes, “I think [Meyer is] wrong, of course.”


So have I softened on Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor? I don’t think so, but I have grown to appreciate the skill and the sincerity of various individuals I have met in the ID movement over the last five years.

So he thinks Meyer and co. are competent and not deceiving anyone. Clearly he didn’t run that one past the Thumbsmen (Panda’s Thumb).

Nevertheless, for Dr. Falk at least, Darwin’s Doubt is a breakthrough. While still rejecting the evidence for design presented in previous books about ID by Meyer, Behe, and others, he warmly praises the scientific argument in the book, identifies no fault in its presentation of the relevant science, and, significantly, takes issue with his colleague Robert Bishop’s denial that biologists are having second thoughts about Darwinian theory. More.

Okay, but why are the BioLogians still even bothering with the opinions of someone who hasn’t noticed all the ferment around Darwin’s theory? Just the uproar around E.O. Wilson alone would take some unpacking. Then there was Dmanisi last October … And horizontal gene transfer

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG If the ID guys all retired and left no successors, the evolution industry built around Darwin would still be pretty shaky.

And I’ve never heard an intellectually satisfying explanation of why Christians in particular need Darwin to be right anyway? What’s it to Christians if he was wrong? Readers?

See also: If anyone cares, Biologos (Christians for Darwin) will now actually review Darwin’s Doubt

Follow UD News at Twitter!

It's a "no-review" because there's no evidence that McGrath ever read the book. Frankly I think BioLogos is fraudulent for including it in the series. Mung
Alister McGrath's "no-review" is up at BioLogos. Mung
Also, a successful anti Darwin book could be (and has been) written without ref. to ID. See Phil Johnson's Darwin on Trial, and Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth. Sirius
Denyse wrote: "If the ID guys all retired and left no successors, the evolution industry built around Darwin would still be pretty shaky." I agree. It would be VERY shaky. It proceeds by extrapolation. A small amount of variation is observed, between generations, therefore that variation goes all the way from bacteria to humans. QED (Not). Sirius
Falk: "Stephen is right, that none of the other [evolutionary] models fit the bill in a fully satisfactory manner yet, but it's pretty early to declare one to be the winner on the basis of an analogy to human-designed information systems." He doesn't get it. Meyer is saying that intelligent design is the hypothesis that best explains the evidence and deserves respect and further study, not that it is proved. Falk is projecting, assuming that Meyer is making the same mistake Darwinists make: calling a hypothesis a fact. Jim Smith
I have been following the sudden excess of articles at Biologos regarding Darwin's Doubt. I've made a comment or two as well. You can guess the topic. There is nothing there. No one even touches it. Upright BiPed

Leave a Reply