Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BioLogos hosts Stephen Meyer to talk about his new book, Return of the God Hypothesis

Denyse O'Leary
May 9, 2021
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers may recall Biologos as a theistic evolution confab, founded by, among others, genome mapper Francis Collins. Here’s both a podcast and transcript of an interview with Steve Meyer on The Return of the God Hypothesis. BioLogos Vice President Jim Stump is the host.

There’s also a guide to the episode.

David Klinghoffer observes at Evolution News and Science Today:

The tension makes the podcast particularly interesting. Their disagreements take some familiar forms, if you’ve followed the debate up till now. Stump advances the “God of the gaps” critique, which Meyer blunts. For his part, Steve notes “a default assumption of naturalism” in the BioLogos position and, as I said, in their very words.

For the armchair sociologist, the words take on an additional significance. While I’m not a Christian, I have the sense that BioLogos speaks to a very specific slice of the American Evangelical Christian community. That’s as compared with ID’s big tent, which is broad both as to other commitments (philosophical, theological) and as to geography. ID is a diverse, international phenomenon. I even detect a certain BioLogos manner of writing and speaking, which I think I would recognize anywhere.

David Klinghoffer, “Return of the God Hypothesis — BioLogos Hosts Stephen Meyer for a Podcast Discussion” at Evolution News and Science Today

Klinghoffer’s onto something there. Needing to defend Darwinism to evangelicals is kind of a specialty.

Comments
Good points in 4, Jerry. The presumption of design advances science faster than the presumption of random junk. How many discoveries reveal that something is junk after all compared to discovering unexpected function? Incidentally, I just got a copy of Meyer's new book. -Q Querius
ET: Jerry, by their “logic” archaeologists attempt to find areas within the natural world that scientists can’t quite explain. Uh, no. Not how archaeologists think nor how they find sites nor how they proceed when examining or excavating a site. JVL
Jerry, by their "logic" archaeologists attempt to find areas within the natural world that scientists can't quite explain. ET
Very tribal, very thin skin.
And also very disingenuous. He actually states in the interview with Meyer that
The intelligent design community attempts to find areas within the natural world that              scientists can’t quite explain,
This is actually a lie. Scientist are no where near explaining the issues that ID examines. Stump is supposed to be a Christian but for his audience he is lying about something critical, the science that ID looks at.      Why? jerry
every scientist who saw that virus under the microscope immediately knew it was designed. Now how might that work?
See comment from last week https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mice-from-opposite-coasts-of-north-america-show-same-the-changes-in-genes/#comment-729739 jerry
https://youtu.be/6Pk0wLN5uuU Collins and fauci are both suggested in this link to be possible instigators in the research that may have caused Corona virus. A connection here is it is mentioned that every scientist who saw that virus under the microscope immediately knew it was designed. Now how might that work? es58
playing pitter-pat about the age of the earth
One of the disingenuous arguments about ID is to immediately conflate it with YEC or religion in general. It is the standard attack used because they know it gets traction with the uninformed. Is there a page on UD that lists all the disingenuous arguments. I know the "God of the Gaps" is another frequent one. I like the comment above which illustrates the fallacy of this approach, "Naturalism of the Gaps" argument. jerry
. Stump booted me from Biologos post haste. He seemed genuinely exasperated that I would use science, logic, and history in my defense of ID, instead of, for instance, playing pitter-pat about the age of the earth. I didn’t know the latter was required. Very tribal, very thin skin. Upright BiPed
There is a transcript linked to above. In it Stump says that Biologos has positions that they believe are superior to Meyers. I have not seen anyone here take up these positions. Does not anyone think they are valid? Is Biologos’s audience even smaller than UD? jerry
"For his part, Steve notes “a default assumption of naturalism” in the BioLogos position and, as I said, in their very words." Right. And actually, they use a "Naturalism of the gaps" argument. Wherever science is unable to adequately test/explain a problem, naturalism is assumed and then evolution is the go to answer to explain it. But no one knows. This is just assumed and it is not a very logical assumption considering the kinds of things we need to explain. tjguy

Leave a Reply