Christian Darwinism Intelligent Design

Just askin’: Why don’t Christian Darwinists read the news?

Spread the love

Red Question Mark Circle Clip Art Why are they

?? fronting Darwinism to Christians “You can have Jesus and Darwin too”, apparently unaware of the fact that many once-virtuous, still faithful evolutionists  are checking out of Darwinism into the great unknown, due to evidence? Why doesn’t the evidence that Darwinian mechanism probably doesn’t work as  advertised mean anything?

= Why do Christians need to be the last people on the planet to believe in and defend the big Darwindunit?

?? refusing to acknowledge that Darwinism is part of a cluster of weirdness around, for example, unprovable multiverse theories?

?? refusing to notice the broomsticks that support it?

So that they end up sounding like people who just aren’t very smart. What’s the payload? I have a book to help write, and will credit anyone who helps me understand

11 Replies to “Just askin’: Why don’t Christian Darwinists read the news?

  1. 1
    Peter says:

    1) Power of the press. The liberal media elite in the news and book segments continually beat up the Pope over this Galileo thing, hundreds of years ago. So the church reacts by showing how they get science, at least the science most scientists support.

    2) There are a lot of Catholics that want to be in the science biz, to do so means taking an oath of allegiance.

    3) Religious insecurity. Many catholics see ID as a protestant thing. There is some history here. The church is wary of being friendly with the dog that bit its fingers.

    4) Some theologian said some time ago that it is best to appear knowledgeable for the respect of the church. That had meant going with the reigning scientific theory of Darwinism.

    But haven’t you heard, the Pope disavowed random processes as the origin of life. Can you understand how huge this is? RM is half of Darwinism! ID research is paying off. Keep up the good work everyone!!

    Peter Wadeck,
    MTS, Queens Theological College
    Kingston, On

    Anymore questions?

  2. 2
    Proponentist says:

    I agree with Professor Wadeck’s overview — its very thorough and insighful especially regarding the Catholic issues involved.

    But haven’t you heard, the Pope disavowed random processes as the origin of life. Can you understand how huge this is? RM is half of Darwinism!

    The Pope’s recent statement was huge, indeed — although I can’t imagine how he could fully accept Darwinian theory. I’d just object slightly … isn’t RM more like 90% of Darwinism?

    And one more comment on the OP:

    So that they end up sounding like people who just aren’t very smart.

    I think that’s a key point — and an ironic one. What they want to do is sound smart. All of the smart people, supposedly, are Darwinists — therefore, TE’s twist their minds (and the Faith) to reconcile Darwinian absurdities with logic, empirical fact and good-reasoning, and thus sound smart.

    Ridicule is probably the best weapon that materialists-atheists-Darwinists use. Certain academics fear ridicule more than anything.

    TE’s fear the term “creationist” so much that they’re willing to deny that God has any real creative power at all.

  3. 3
    Capt. Haddock says:

    I’m afraid this is all misguided.

    To start with, nobody but IDers seriously uses the unqualified term “Darwinism” any more, as it has had so many meanings over the years (see Wiki entry for example). So crowing over “faithful evolutionists checking out of Darwinism” seems pretty meaningless. Still, I suppose it does acknowledge that, whatever it is they have “checked out” of, they still believe in evolution. In which case, I struggle to see what there is for IDers to crow about.

    If, rather than dancing around alternative definitions of “Darwinism”, we speak of evolution, mainstream Catholic and Protestant Christians have progressively embraced this for over a century now, starting at the time of Cardinal Newman. However one may wish to interpret the various statements of the current pope and his predecessor, they emphatically do not reject evolution and do not support ID.

    There was a good reason why no IDers were invited to the Catholic conference on evolution in 2008.

  4. 4
    Clive Hayden says:

    Capt. Haddock,

    There was a good reason why no IDers were invited to the Catholic conference on evolution in 2008.

    Which is?

  5. 5
    NZer says:

    Capt. Haddock,

    Would “neo-Darwinism” suit you better?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45691.html

  6. 6
    NZer says:

    I am exposing my poor understanding of Catholicism here, but didn’t PJP II buy totally into neo-Darwinism?

    If this was the case, was he speaking ex-cathedra and if so doesn’t that mean speaking infallibly?

    And if that was the case, how can another Pope say something different?

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Capt Haddock:

    Please see UD Weak Argument Corrective no 14 on the term Darwinism.

    The “term X is derogative or not in acceptable use, etc” talking point is long since past its sell-by date.

    And, on this sort of subject, Wiki — dominated by evolutionary materialist radicals — is notoriously unreliable. (Contrast the Wiki discussion of ID with the NWE one here to see just how blatant this bias is. there are people who actually had to threaten Wiki with legal action to get groundless slanders removed from their biographies. And,t eh slanders are still there in the histories.)

    GEM of TKI

  8. 8
    Proponentist says:

    I am exposing my poor understanding of Catholicism here, but didn’t PJP II buy totally into neo-Darwinism?

    What the Popes have done over the past 100 years or so, is try ot salvage something of value from Darwinism. They gave more emphasis to whatever could be reconciled with Christian belief and only a quiet condemnation of its errors.

    So, evolutionists looking for some sympathy can select some Darwin-friendly quotes, and PJP II gave some of the best.

    But it really couldn’t be possible for any Catholic to fully buy into neo-Darwinism (Ken Miller hasn’t quite figured that out yet).

    Note the papal document below which condemns Darwinism as “incompatible with the Catholic faith”.

    Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu.....ip_en.html

  9. 9
    Proponentist says:

    Still, I suppose it does acknowledge that, whatever it is they have “checked out” of, they still believe in evolution. In which case, I struggle to see what there is for IDers to crow about.

    It’s a shell-game or a subtle deception, intentional or not. Let’s not forget that virtually every bit of research in biology for the past 100 years or so was directed at proving the truth of evolutionary theory (Darwinian or neo-Darwinian). Sweeping claims have been made about natural selection and mutations. Darwin is praised as a hero. Nothing in biology makes sense, supposedly, without belief in Darwinian theory.

    Now, however scientists are checking out of the theory.

    Ok, evolution is false, right?

    No, of course not. We have conveniently changed the definition of the term “evolution” so that it can now mean any number of diverse and contractory concepts.

    We can also claim that we didn’t check-out of anything. We still fully believe in evolution – and we always will, no matter what we actually discover.

    I think a fair number of people can see through this game by now.

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    NZ @6

    And if that was the case, how can another Pope say something different?

    He opens his mouth and words come out.

    C. Haddock @3

    To start with, nobody but IDers seriously uses the unqualified term “Darwinism” any more, as it has had so many meanings over the years…

    This is demonstrably false. I just came across it yestaerday in a book on Evolutionary Computing.

    Not only that, when IDers use the term we know what we mean by it, so we’re not using the term without qualification.

  11. 11

    Is Darwinism healthy for the Christian mind? Or does it do something bad to them? Let’s see…

    You Need a Root Canal, Mivart

Leave a Reply