Intelligent Design theistic evolution

New anthology from Crossway critiques theistic evolution

Spread the love

Theistic Evolution Crossway is publishing a mammoth (over 600-page) anthology critiquing theistic evolution , with a wide range of contributors from science to theology. From the publisher:

The debate about biological origins continues to be hotly contested within the Christian church. Prominent organizations such as Biologos (USA) and Faraday Institute (UK) insist that Christians must yield to an unassailable scientific consensus in favor of contemporary evolutionary theory and modify traditional biblical ideas about the creation of life accordingly. They promote a view known as “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation.” They argue that God used—albeit in an undetectable way—evolutionary mechanisms to produce all forms of life. This book contests this proposal. Featuring two dozen highly credentialed scientists, philosophers, and theologians from Europe and North America, this volume provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced. It documents evidential, logical, and theological problems with theistic evolution, opening the door to scientific and theological alternatives—making the book essential reading for understanding this worldview-shaping issue.

Here is Bill Dembski’s endorsement:

The “evolution” in “theistic evolution” denotes a scientific theory that sees only material factors (“chance and necessity”) as playing any role in the origin and subsequent development of life. The adjective “theistic” is here merely a throwaway, a weak gesture to try to affirm that somehow, in a way that has no scientific or conceptual bearing, God is behind the evolutionary process. Essentially, theistic evolution says Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins got the science right, but that God is still somehow involved. Putting this view into the crosshairs, this book argues convincingly that the science of evolution is in fact wrong, and that any theistic gloss one puts on it is thus doubly wrong. No Christian should want to affirm theistic evolution. This book shows why no Christian need affirm it.

See also: BioLogos gravitating to “full-on naturalism”?

14 Replies to “New anthology from Crossway critiques theistic evolution

  1. 1
    EricMH says:

    Why are Christians so quick to call uncle?

  2. 2
    rvb8 says:

    ‘highly credentialled philosophers, scientists, and theologians, from Europe and North America..’

    OK. Any from Africa, Russia, South America, China, India, SE Asia, the Middle East?

    EricMH, is correct. Among evolutionary biologists there are heated debates about mechanisms for evolution, andthe various weight these mechanisms bring to bare on the science.

    There is no debate that evolution happened, happens, and will continue to be the driving force of biology.

    However, as EricMH correctly points out the unity within Christianity, and Judaism concerning evolution, is next to zero.

    Old Earth, Young Earth, Biblical litteralism, Biblical metaphor, Evagelical, Catholic, etc etc.

    This mess will never agree, and most likely the OE version followers will eventually become straight out Darwinists, and everything will become diluted.

    We call this progress; an evolution in thought if you will.

    After all we gave up Zeus, and Thor, why not the remainder?

  3. 3

    ” … After all we gave up Zeus, and Thor, why not the remainder? … ”

    And someday because of the evidence of; Kinesin motors and other cellular machines; the seemingly unlimited and broad and deep functionality of the human body in such areas as thought, literature, music, art, science, technology, sports …

    Hopefully we may one day also add Darwin, Dawkins, Coyne … and rvb8, to the list containing Zeus and Thor as those we gave up.

    But alas, willful blindness will keep many locked up in that windowless cave called Atheism.

    But not all … as in the case of this man who sees as he’s never seen before …
    https://www.facebook.com/NTDTelevision/videos/1986628964712537/

  4. 4

    But will those such as rvb8 willfully and scornfully toss those glasses into the trash and mock and ridicule those who have given him such a gift?

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, it seems you still have not grasped the vast ontological gulf between Thor et al and the maximally great, necessary being root of reality. The old village atheist rhetorical stunt of listing off a few pagan gods then inviting dismissal of God as root of reality without serious study of the nature and roots of being reflects intellectual irresponsibility to the point of dishonesty, not a serious argument. I suggest, you need to start from issues such as being and non being, possible vs impossible being, contingent and necessary being, then address the need for a root of our world, one with responsibly and rationally free, morally governed creatures in it. As in, absent this last, there is no basis for reasoned, responsible discussion. KF

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    –After all we gave up Zeus, and Thor, why not the remainder?–

    So why did we give up Zeus and Thor? The wisdom of natural science? LOL.

    Actually, the communists gave up on “the remainder”. How did that work out for them? Do you want to move to one of their realms?

    Understand this, if you think nature came from nature you are a man of faith and while their is nothing wrong with faith denying you have one is delusional. The condemnation the devout, activist atheist gets isn’t because he doubts God but because he denies reason (and science).

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    After all we gave up Zeus, and Thor…

    Who is we? You pagans?

    For me they were never even under consideration.

    Given the propensity of the pagans to change their gods I fear that Science too is an endangered deity.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    kmidpuddle says:

    TWSYF:

    Mung @ 7: Brilliant.

    Now I have seen everything. Those two words in the same sentence is something that I never thought I would see. I think even Mung would agree with this. 🙂

  10. 10
  11. 11

    KM @ 9: You brought a smile to my face with that touch of levity. Thank you.

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    Mung @7:
    “Given the propensity of the pagans to change their gods I fear that Science too is an endangered deity.”

    Perhaps you meant pseudoscience?
    Science is serious. Kopernik did science.
    Dawkins does pseudoscience.
    Big difference.

    Yes, pseudoscience eventually fades away.

  13. 13
    Eric Anderson says:

    Among evolutionary biologists there are heated debates about mechanisms for evolution, and the various weight these mechanisms bring to bare on the science.

    And what are these “mechanisms”?

    There is no debate that evolution happened, happens, and will continue to be the driving force of biology.

    Sure. No debate among those who don’t understand the issues and just naively accept the party line without thinking. Among thoughtful observers, there is significant question about the extent of evolution, what it in fact has accomplished, and its ability to be a driving force.

    Maybe you should apply for Eugenie Scott’s old job at NCSE. You’ve got the propaganda sound bites down.

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    I think even Mung would agree with this.

    LoL.

Leave a Reply