Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Memo re BioLogos: We are waiting for answers that will likely never come …

/Laszlo Bencze

Because some things just do not allow themselves to be said?

Much thanks to Barry Arrington for calling out (here) some excellent posts in the combox here, asking what exactly do the Biologos contributors believe.

Timaeus defended his position quite well, I thought, making clear that what is wanted from the BioLogians is more clarity about critical issues.

Predictably, one BioLogos sympathizer thought that the solution is more communal hollering for Jesus. In asking for this, he is revealing precisely the problem I have long feared with the BioLogians: They really think science is about facts and religion is about faith. In short, to them religion is not about facts.

To the extent that BioLogians believe that (if they do), they can get along in uneasy but viable tension with Darwinists, at least for now.

ID sympathizers – whatever position we take on religion – agree that it could, in principle, be about facts. That is, there can be actual fine-tuning of the universe, actual irreducible complexity, actual revelation. If BioLogians waffle on such points, we are in inevitable conflict with the BioLogians.

And lack of forthrightness on such a critical topic on their part feels suspicious.

Of course, the reason they are not forthright could be as simple as this: The moment they reveal that they do think that religion is about facts, they forfeit any hope of acceptance in an evolutionary biology community where 78% are pure naturalist atheists.

And that is probably the main reason the 78% are ardent Darwinists.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse, Are you suggesting that "actual revelation" is "about facts" (that are 'scientifically verifiable,' using 'probabilistic resources')? Silly me, and I thought the Roman Catholic Church, which Denyse not long ago joined, was engaged in "communal hollering for Jesus" too! When News (also Denyse?) questioned if BioLogosians believe religion was/is a revelation from God, I answered that this is nonsense. The flag on their ship and their personal faith, down to a man or woman, is that of Christianity. Thus, they *all* believe religion was/is a revelation from God. Why not ask them instead of presuming you know, based on stereotypes and exaggerations (like Timaues' talk of "what all TE's try to do")? Denyse requested: "what is wanted from the BioLogians is more clarity about critical issues..." Let me finish her thought: "...about topics chosen to be most important by IDers, but not by BioLogosians". As a bystander who's watched TE/EC and ID people going at it for several years, the irony in this request is ripe for exposure. ID = interested in origins, almost not at all in processes; there is no 'designing' in ID theory. Mainly about 'transcendental' design (Dembski 1999), by an external (unnamed) 'designer,' (supposedly) discovered 'scientifically'. The contradiction: 'evolutionary design.' TE/EC = interested in processes, not as much in origins; there is no 'origins' in evolution (cf. quote below). Mainly about 'immanent' guidance by God who governs and/or sustains the Creation, (supposedly) discovered 'theologically'. The contradiction: 'guided/governed randomness.' “Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.” – T. Dobzhansky (an evolutionist/creationist) On the one hand, it is no surprise that IDers and TE/ECs continue to speak past one another given their considerably different foci. However, on the other hand it is counter-productive to continue to verbally attack ('Christian Darwinists') people who are carrying the same 'Bigger' flag as they are, this can be easily seen once one elevates themselves beyond tribal Tent parties. A new way forward, beyond the ID vs. TE/EC/BioLogos log-jam, and 'courage to face this challenge' is long overdue. Gregory Gregory
Ah, the Biologians. Always lukewarm and trying to get comfortable (but never quite succeeding) while sitting on the fence. Mapou

Leave a Reply