Intelligent Design

Here is How BioLogos Promotes the Warfare Thesis

Spread the love

The “Warfare Thesis” is an overly simplistic and downright mythological view of the relationship between religion and science. It models the relationship as one of conflict, with religion dogmatically resisting science’s inconvenient findings, such as evolution, while science objectively pursues the truth. But the Warfare Thesis is not opposed to religion. Early exponents such as Thomas H. Huxley and Andrew Dickson White were often friends with religion. Huxley was sympathetic to the Church of England and White spoke well of Christianity. Far from wishing to injure Christianity, White wrote that he hoped to promote it; at least, his favored version of Christianity. White’s target were those “mediaeval conceptions of Christianity.” Once this “dogmatic theology” is excised all would be well:  Read more

10 Replies to “Here is How BioLogos Promotes the Warfare Thesis

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    “The fact is, Epicureanism has arrived at Epicureanism.”


  2. 2
    StephenB says:

    Dr. Hunter makes an important point. Biologos embraces the warfare thesis in the name of peace and harmony. I have noticed this for a long time. It goes something like this: “There is no confict between faith and science” (so long as the faith is totally subordinated to the science).

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Biologos looks very much like a propaganda outfit with a hidden materialist agenda.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    No, Mapou, they are what the communists used to call “useful idiots.”

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Its indeed only a conflict between a small number of conclusions in a small number of subjects that science “bosses” say makes God/genesis wrong.
    Creationists only do better science and not reject science.
    Thats the whole reason for organized creationism.
    Its a dumb cheap stupid shot to say Christians, creationists etc are opposed to science if we reject evolution and company.
    If its against Christianity then yes tHAT science is wrong but it really means incompetence of the humans foing the research.
    We are not against science but incompetent science.
    They just demand serville obedience to their conclusions and competence claim.

  6. 6
    Ray Martinez says:

    Messages #3 and #4 are very good.

    And I’d like to remind that OP author C. Hunter recently wrote a piece that said Darwin obtained and extended evolution from previous Christian thought (which is ridiculous, completely false). Yet in the current piece, seen above, Hunter appears anti-evolution.

  7. 7
    Ray Martinez says:

    Contrary to the deliberate lies of Evolutionists, Christianity isn’t against science—Christian men invented science. Rather, Christianity is against Naturalism, Materialism, Darwinism or evolutionary “science.” Huge difference.

  8. 8
    Ray Martinez says:

    StephenB (#2): “There is no conflict between faith and science.”

    True, the conflict is between faith and evolution, not science.

  9. 9
    Ray Martinez says:

    Barry Arrington made a very astute and clever observation when he described BioLogos as “useful idiots” (msg #4).

    In other words Christians that defend and promote evolution can be used to show that idiocy ensues when evolution is accepted.

    Yet Barry Arrington appears completely oblivious to the fact that his observation can be applied to himself as well. Does not Mr. Arrington, presumably a Christian, accept conceptual existence of natural selection and species mutability just like fellow Christians William Dembski and Michael Behe?

    How is it that Behe, Dembski, and Arrington can, rightly so, condemn Materialism/Naturalism as pseudo-scientific interpretive philosophies but accept the main cause-and-effect claim of said philosophies? And how do these Christians explain acceptance of a claim produced by the assumptions of Materialism/Naturalism?

    Absent a repudiation of natural selection and species mutability, I see no way out of this idiocy for these three Christians.

    Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    Raymondo, surely it’s a matter of the trivial nature of the changes, as with the fabled finches. They all make it clear that changes never occur above a trivial level, e.g. no new body parts.

    Personally, I do find the notion that natural selection is proved even by, for example those finches’ beaks or the extra woolly fleeces invoked by Meier fall way short of a argument against design. The very nature of genetic inheritance bespeaks design, not to speak of adaptations!!!.

Leave a Reply