Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O’Leary slam “Christian Darwinism” in forthcoming book

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins.

Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?

In the authors’ view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution – or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.

Dembski and O’Leary insist that this conflict has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Darwinism is, as they will show, the increasingly implausible creation story of atheism, which diverges at just about every point from the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.

Yet Darwinism is publicly funded, and taught, in many jurisdictions, without any criticism permitted.

Reactions – not only praise but criticism – are expected and much appreciated! Regular updates will be provided at www.uncommondescent.com, so persons who wish to comment on the project can post there.

Contact: Denyse O’Leary oleary@sympatico.ca

Comments
--riddick: "SB, Your post @ 3 is a non sequitur." Apparently, you don't know the meaning of "non-sequitur" inasmuch as none exists in my post. ---"Scordova’s thread had more to do with wishing to deny free speech to the writers of the editorial critical of FC." Now that is a non-sequitur. [Scordova complains about Darwinists who display bigory toward Christians, therefore, one gathers, Scordova would withhold their freedom of speech] See how that works? So a bunch of Darwinists aren’t happy that a Christian has a position in government!" You are showing signs of life. ---"Are you going to abridge someone’s right to say that?" Your return to rationality did not last very long. Do you labor under the misconception that those who complain about Darwinist bigotry would deny freedom of speech to the offending bigot. ---"The first amendment is there to protect speech with which one disagrees." Thank you for that profound observation.StephenB
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
D'Souza manages to put forth an honest assessment and argument for intelligent design. And he does so by using the very words of the atheist. He points out that much that science has "discovered," does not debunk the Bible, but rather supports it. Throughout it's pages, D'Souza manages to make intelligent design the direct result of scientific research. Which is something that many Christians are lacking in this debate.
http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-so-great-about-christianity.htmlMung
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Highly respected christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza believes in macro evolution and and for reasons I don't understand is quick to dismiss the scientific arguments for ID. I hope your new book counters the criticisms of ID that I hear from respected intellectuals like Dinesh.3dcajun
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Well, I don't see it on Amazon, so I don't believe it. I did however find this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981520405/ref=ox_ya_os_productMung
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Ellazimm@8 You said "I’d like to see a good exploration of how theistic evolutionists’ views compare and contrast with ID proponents. That’s informative." I agree. It's about time theistic evolutionists (or people who wouldn't know any better) have access to a group of people representing a wide range of religious (and non-religious) views. I think what they will discover, is that ID as a science of design detection, holds to no particular religious viewpoint. At times, I consider theistic evolution to be a spiritual battle in which some Christians have (unknowingly) compromised one orthodox belief in order to maintain another. In other words, they have mistakenly thought that by giving up God's biological design in science, that somehow global, universal design is purchased and on the shelf, never to be disturbed. Unfortunately, they are not aware that the devil is in the details. From a cultural perspective, if naturalism were to get a foothold in the biological sciences, it will not be long before the TE cherished global, universal design will be next to fall. In my opinion, the ID movement has come at none too late of a time to prevent this kind of catastrophe. Theistic evolutionists would be wise to get on board, instead of remaining in passive appeasement of those who represent a worldview that 1. is not in line with increasing scientific evidence and 2. will ultimately, eventually seek to destroy even the theistic evolutionist's perspective. I look forward to Dembski & O'Leary's new book "Christian Darwinism" and I hope it will resonate deep within the minds and hearts of theistic evolutionists, and/or those who would not know any better. I'm halfway through Dembski's "End of Christianity"...So far it's outstanding, scholarly and captivating. I expect no less from the new book.Bantay
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
CY: I'm not on the fence at all!! But I should probably stay out of any debates involving theology where I have no expertise or understanding. And your point is taken and I agree: debate is positive and good and healthy. It's the same basic process underlying science. I was just responding to the tone; slamming Christian Darwinism sounds more adversarial than I thought it needed to be. And, bottom line, I personally agree that theistic evolution involves a lot of cognitive dissonance. But I'm not a theistic evolutionist so really I should just shut up. I'm not really good at shutting up. Keep telling me when I should and I'll learn . . . I hope! hahahahahah Just to reiterate my position: I believe in the modern evolution synthesis. No question about it in my mind. But I'd like to understand what it is that other people are saying. I don't want to be another ID basher. It's really important to me that, as Jacob Bronowski put it so well in The Ascent of Man, we learn to touch people.ellazimm
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
EL, There is a long held tradition among Christians to debate the merits of a position as it relates to Christianity. Christianity has survived for such a long time partly because its followers have stood up for what was right and true, and have challenged what was not. This book, appears to be in that tradition. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is great, but there are limitations when doubt seems to be more applicable than benefit. From my understanding this book deals with the theology of TE, and not so much with the science of ID. As such, Christians have defended biblical perspectives, and challenged perspectives, which appear to side with metaphysics, which go against a biblical perspective. Theistic Evolution seems to be very similar to some forms of Scientific Creationism. Some SC attempts to force science to fit with metaphysical assumptions disguised as theology, while TE attempts to force theology to conform to metaphysical assumptions disguised as science. It's only right that the truth should be exposed. I appreciate your tone, but you seem to be riding the fence on a lot of these issues, not wanting to offend. I think eventually you have to get down off the fence to one side or the other. Maybe this book will help. But it looks like you'll have to wait a while.CannuckianYankee
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
lanrdu, 1) Where did I ever say that "scordova likes Collins’ theology"? 2) scordova: "It just occurred to me that the editorial may be encouraging illegal activity. In the US, it is considered a violation of civil rights to discriminate against people of faith with respect to employment." above @ 10: "What place do these charlatans have in attacking an appointed NIH director on religious grounds? Is this even legal?" It seems pretty clear to me that scordova and above suggest that the writers of the editorial are breaking the law simply by expressing their opinion. How do you read their statements? 3) Maybe you and everyone else on this blog need to be reminded that FC can't lose his job because of the ranting of scientists in an editorial. FC was appointed by POTUS, and he can only lose it the same way. If Obama fires FC for being a Christian, than we have a whole new ball game. But until that day, rest assured that FC will continue in his position as head of NIH.riddick
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Gil: I agree with you, I think the worldviews are incompatible but they don't think so. I'd like to respect their approach as much as possible without calling into question their motives or upbringing. I really enjoy debating the science. But I don't like casting aspersions on heartfelt beliefs on any side. Slamming Christian Darwinism seems to be to be too devisive and conterproductive. (Pardon my spelling; it's late and I can't figure out what my spell checker is objecting to). I'd like to see a good exploration of how theistic evolutionists' views compare and contrast with ID proponents. That's informative. But surely it doesn't have to be so confrontational. I hope so anyway. I'm here trying to learn what other people think. In a spirit of openness and honesty. I've read some of Kenneth Miller's work. He seems to be honest and true and having thought out the options. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt just as I do you.ellazimm
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
I think the obvious reason for Christian Darwinism is that some of its proponents fear being called creationists, and thus having their reputations or even careers destroyed. Darwinian orthodoxy has metastasized so thoroughly throughout academia that to challenge it in any way makes one persona non grata. The other possible explanation is that some people have been so completely indoctrinated, for so long (perhaps their entire lives), that they believe it just has to be true, no matter logic or evidence to the contrary. Those in either situation are therefore required to come up with some means of rationalizing the coexistence of two completely incompatible worldviews.GilDodgen
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
riddick, you are changing the subject from your first, failed claim, that scordova likes Collins' theology, to another, barely more defensible claim, that he's wishing to deny free speech. He's doing nothing of the kind. He's disagreeing with a bunch of Darwinists' opinion that Christianity disqualifies someone from any official scientific position, and asking the obvious question that this opinion raises - if religion is used to disqualify someone for a job, isn't that illegal?landru
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
SB, Your post @ 3 is a non sequitur. Scordova's thread had more to do with wishing to deny free speech to the writers of the editorial critical of FC. So a bunch of Darwinists aren't happy that a Christian has a position in government! Are you surprised at that? Are you going to abridge someone's right to say that? The first amendment is there to protect speech with which one disagrees.riddick
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
hmmmm...
...scordova is defending Dr. Collins because he/she (scordova) doesn’t find the prospect of religious discrimination intolerable
should have read "tolerable" instead of "intolerable". Sorry.ciphertext
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Can Francis Collins’ theology and science be good one week and poor the next? -- riddick
I assumed that scordova was highlighting a case of alleged, religious discrimination being applied to Dr. Collins. I see the two postings as distinct, except with their reference of Dr. Collins. I don't think whether or not Dr. Collins's philosophy of science affects his theology (or vice versa) was the point of scordova's post. I'm not even sure I can reasonably infer that scordova agrees with Dr. Collins's theology from the post. I can only assume that scordova is defending Dr. Collins because he/she (scordova) doesn't find the prospect of religious discrimination intolerable.On the other hand, I do believe that both O'Leary and Dembski have issues with Dr. Collins's theology. At least with the presumed integration of a materialist philosophy (Darwinian in this instance) into a theology that is, at its root, materialism's antithesis.ciphertext
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
I sincerly congrtulate both William Dembski and Denyse O'Leary for writing this book. It fulfills a desperate need. Inquiring minds need to know that Christian Darwinism does not and cannot work as a coherent thought system. For that reason and others, I look forward to reading the book.StephenB
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
---riddick: "Perhaps Dembski and O’Leary need to have a chat with scordova." ---"Can Francis Collins’ theology and science be good one week and poor the next?" Scordova does not defend Collin's irrational Christian Darwinism nor does he even approach that subject. His theme is that Collins, as a Christian, deserves the right to free speech. I suspect that I have asked this question a hundred times, but here we go again. Do Darwinists ever read for context?StephenB
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
riddick, Well, of course they can have a difference of opinion. The topic can be rightly debated here. Congrats to O'Leary and Dembski. I heard one Christian evolutionists say that evolution is like the gospel. Good people go to heaven while the bad people are weeded out. I don't think I've ever heard a more corrupt doctrine. It sounds like Tashlan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tash_(Narnia)#In_The_Last_BattleCollin
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
'How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” Sorry - not sure yet which tags to use to introduce quotes... I should say that I'm not a theistic evolutionist. I'm a non-theistic evolutionist without complete certainty in evolution... But theistic evolution can accommodate this quite easily I think. There is evidence that groups of people are stronger and more resilient if individuals behave in a loving way to other members of the group. This could (in theory) translate into increased reproductive success for members of successful groups. Personally I don't mind group selection arguments such as this - but if you object to those, note that it's plausible that human groups in the past consisted of relatives - so linking this to 'selfish' gene concepts. God could have set things up so that this kind of behaviour arises through natural selection with other humans as the objects of sacrificial behaviour - and then arranges that this behaviour is transferred to him.Peepul
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Perhaps Dembski and O'Leary need to have a chat with scordova. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/nature-editorial-attacks-christianity-of-francis-collins/ Can Francis Collins' theology and science be good one week and poor the next?riddick
August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply