Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BioLogos: Wayne Rossiter’s successful prediction of theistic evolution’s attack on fine-tuning


In “BioLogos: One shouldn’t use fine-tuning as an argument for God’s existence, Wayne Rossiter was quoted as saying that he had predicted hat theistic evolutionists would go to war against fine-tuning. So, we naturally asked, where? Where’s your sealed, time-stamped, notarized envelope?

Turns out, it’s in his book Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, and he helpfully provided us with some quotations:

After unwrapping the anthropic argument from ‘fine-tuning,’[Bruce] Glass [a theistic evolutionist] crosses the finish line with, ‘It should not go unnoted that there are plausible alternatives to the idea that our universe was specifically designed for the purpose of producing life. None of these alternatives, however, do anything to exclude the possibility of God as the ultimate Creator.’ It’s not often that someone willingly jumps into a logical regress fallacy, but Glass seems more than eager to. He is quite content to play the childish game of ‘my argument’s better than yours, double stamped, no erases, to infinity plus one.’ If the multiverse theory proves a viable explanation for the universe we find ourselves in, he’ll simply say that God made that, and when another theory attempts to explain the underlying laws and mechanisms that give rise to a multiverse, he’ll retract another step. And theistic evolutionists criticize the ID community for God-of-the-gaps arguments! (pg 26)

Theistic evolutionists have hitched themselves to a wagon that is rapidly moving towards even less directed or predictable evolutionary mechanisms (that is, they’ve only just begun to abandon the detection of God’s hand in our lives as the roles of stochasticity and contingency expand).” (p 106)

[Theistic evolutionists] have hitched their wagon to a horse running away from the Judeo-Christian God. Again, Dennett accurately portrays the nature of this slow decline. He discusses what he calls, “the cosmic pyramid,” which begins with God on top, and descends in order through Mind, Design, Order, Chaos, and ends with Nothing. Classic evolutionary theory has loomed between design and order (both of which it attempts to explain). But, as we’ve seen, the scientific community has now descended to these lower rungs for ultimate answers. (153)

Another safe prediction: Theistic evolutionism will go on as long as it is funded. The customers presumably know what they are getting. The promotion of evidence-free faith in Nothing.

See also: At BioLogos: One shouldn’t use fine-tuning as an argument for God’s existence

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I fail to see what is "helpful" (regarding the claim that TEs are attacking fine tuning) about that passage in Rossiter's book in which Bruce Glass is apparently used as an example of this alleged new trend. Glass has corresponded with me, and I confirm the description given of him in his author page at Amazon, which identifies him as "a layman and an agnostic." See https://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Glass/e/B00B5ZYKLY/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Since Glass is openly not a theist, by definition his views do not represent those of a TE. I'm afraid there's some sloppy work here, either by Rossiter or Denyse. Ted Davis

Leave a Reply