Christian Darwinism Intelligent Design

First question: Are the Christian Darwinists at Biologos conscious fronts for atheism? Or unconscious ones?

Spread the love

The BioLogos ForumThe BioLogos Forum(Of a series of seven)

The Washington Post’s Paula Kirby unintentionally forces the first question. Kirby sounds like an utterly conventional legacy media journalist, a woman who would never have an idea that wasn’t trendy. She read a book by Dawkins and then one by Jerry Coyne and, guess what, she knows evolution is true. Period. Responding to Rick Perry’s claimed position on evolution, she explains (“Evolution threatens Christianity,”Washington Post, August 24, 2011) why she stopped being a Christian because of evolution (= Darwinism):

But of course evolution poses a problem for Christianity. That’s not to say it poses a problem for all Christians, since many Christians happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and declare that if God chose to create us using evolution, that’s fine by them. I used to be this kind of Christian myself; but I must confess that my blitheness was only possible because I had only the vaguest possible idea of how evolution works and certainly didn’t know enough about it to realize that unguided-ness is central to it.

While I welcome anyone who recognizes that the evidence for evolution is such that it cannot sensibly be denied, to attempt to co-opt evolution as part of a divine plan simply does not work, and suggests a highly superficial understanding of the subject.

It’s all most instructive, because she cannot imagine an alternative .. That most evolution is not about Darwinism.

One assumes she stopped being a Christian, because she believes wholeheartedly in Dawkins’ version of evolution, and “It is irreconcilable with a god of love.” Yes, and that is its central attraction too.

In the process, she makes clear the fatuity (or what?) of the BioLogos “Christian profs for Darwin” project, whose Dennis Venema has been a recent subject of discussion here, here, and here:

Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. … Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

Christianity is like a big, chunky sweater. It may feel cozy, it may keep you warm, but just let one stitch be dropped and the whole thing unravels before your very eyes. Evolution is that stitch. Evolution destroys the loving creator on which the whole of Christianity depends.

Substitute “Darwinism” for “evolution” and she has it exactly right.

So where does that leave BioLogos?: Promoting the one form of evolution that reliably produces atheism. And it’s the one they’re interested in too.

If you want to hear about real evolution (convergence, co-evolution, epigenesis, symbiogenesis, along with stasis and extinction), you’re better off at Uncommon Descent than BioLogos. Here, once we shut up Darwin’s fervid devotees, we found lots to talk about re evolution … and atheism just did not make the cut. Problem solved.

Which leads back to the original question: Other than adapting Christians to atheism before rampant new atheists resort to thuggery, it’s hard to see the purpose of the BioLogos project. Fellow travellers? You decide.

Next question: What about Francis “those embryos are not part of God’s plan” Collins? He started BioLogos. Let’s talk about him as the “model Christian scientist” next.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

4 Replies to “First question: Are the Christian Darwinists at Biologos conscious fronts for atheism? Or unconscious ones?

  1. 1
    bevets says:

    Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion. ~ William Jennings Bryan

    Our science of evolution won its greatest triumph when, at the beginning of the twentieth century, its most powerful opponents, the Churches, became reconciled to it , and endeavored to bring their dogmas into line with it. ~ Ernst Haeckel

    One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day! ~ Eugenie Scott

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Since the atheistic form of Darwinism absolutely depends on materialism being true for Darwinism to be true, should not she have seen if materialism was true in the first place before she declared her faith dead?

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    Max Planck – The Father Of Quantum Mechanics – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)

    Theism compared to Materialism within the scientific method
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    I postede a lot at biologos and accepted their agenda was to teach Christians that evolution is true and Genesis not true.
    In fact they question a lot of claims of the bible being the word of God.
    Recently I can’t blog and suspect I’m banned.
    I speculate they can’t stand my claim that the modern world is largely the creation of the Puritan/Evangelical British people and only distantly the rest of the protestant world.
    I say it was bible believing Christians that raised the moral and intellectual standard of Englishmen relative to the rest.
    I got a hunch they have strong words and reactions to such ideas.
    Not very Christian if so!!

  4. 4
    Observer_xyz says:

    #2 It is interesting your trot out a 67 yo comment from a famous researcher, and ignore the following 67 years. Why?

    A string theorist would say he anticipated their attempt to explain the part of the universe with which they are concerned.

    How does Henry get that theism is the only alternative to solipsism? He does not make an argument. He does a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand getting to mine exists outside of matter. That is absurd.

    I tracked down some other stuff he wrote which is pretty ill-conceived. In one example, he assails the symmetry arguments physicists use. Of course, a very successful precedent was used in the late 19th century to discern the atomic structure of minerals: crystallography. It was not until the advent of X-ray diffraction techniques that many structures were sorted out. Recall, X-ray diffraction was also used to help figure out the structure of DNA. Sadly, the LHC is several orders of magnitude more expensive than an X-ray diffractometer.

Leave a Reply