David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views , who is way more charitable than me (O’Leary for News), says better late than never.
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #45,733 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
So quite honestly, at this point, who really cares if Christians for Darwin have decided to consider Meyer’s arguments honestly and seriously? Given that the book is #6 in paleontology, we can be sure a lot of people are considering it, even if many daren’t admit it.
By the way, why is Darwin’s Doubt even a problem to the BioLogians?
It’s easy to see why Darwin’s Doubt is a problem to people who have devoted their lives to promoting and celebrating Darwin’s mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutations) as able to produce increasingly complex information.
But why is it a problem to a Christian group if it turns out that natural selection on random mutations simply cannot do that?
Whenever I ask members of BioLogos’ natural constituency, I get an earful about fundamentalists’ beliefs and how Christians can [heart] Darwin.
This much I know is true: Whenever I ask a simple question and get a complex, evasive answer, I suspect something.
Also, we learn from the Introduction, “As you will read in these posts, these scholars are carefully considering the evidence and explaining the findings to those outside their field of expertise. This kind of attention to evidence counteracts another misconception about BioLogos, namely that we uncritically accept the consensus of mainstream science simply because it is the consensus. ”
So where, exactly do they differ from the consensus? Well, never mind, let’s see what they have to say about Darwin’s Doubt.
Here’s the first installment, by the editors, featuring Calvin College’s Ralph Stearley, who is “ultimately” not persuaded. He feels that Meyer makes more of the problems than they warrant. Really? Did Meyer invent the Cambrian problem?
Anyway, as Paul Nelson notes at Evolution News & Views, Stearley keeps going back and forth between naturalism and design. Always hoping (Biologians are always hoping) to somehow be rescued—or at least to be able to make the case that they have somehow been rescued—by pure naturalism.
But mother nature is a bitch.
Anyway, like I said, who really cares at this point? The real issues have moved on. Who cares whether Calvin College’s God would design anything? Or could? Nothing depends on that, as it happens. – O’Leary for News
See also: Christianity Today online piece tries to meld neuroscience and Christian spirituality. And both come off looking like clunkers.
Follow UD News at Twitter!