Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book: God and Evolution confronts the fan club of Darwin’s unemployed God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Fan club’s motto: God loves you, but the world shows no evidence of his existence. And clued-in clergy will tell you it is wrong to ask for evidence.

Hmmm. If I had a husband like that, either he’d be on the sidewalk or I’d be on a fast train. And I’d definitely be attending a different church.

A recent Biola University seminar introduced an overdue new book, God and Evolution: Protestants, Catholics and Jews explore Darwin’s challenge to faith (Discovery Institute Press, 2010). Why this? Why now?

“Too few people have carefully teased out the various scientific, philosophical, and theological claims at stake,” says Jay Richards, director of research for discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and editor of God and Evolution. “As a result, the whole subject of God and evolution has been an enigma wrapped in a shroud of fuzz and surrounded by a blanket of fog.”

Well, putting it this way, in the passive voice, is putting it charitably.

I have not seen the other contributors’ chapters yet because the book sold out at the seminar. But if what I heard there is anything to go by, this one is a real eye-opener. Two items stand out:

– David Klinghoffer’s careful explanation of why traditional Judaism could not possibly endorse the no-design universe

– the exposition – in serious theistic Darwinists’* own words – of the theology that underlies theistic Darwinism.

In fairness, many Jews have lost contact with their faith, and most people who call themselves theistic evolutionists simply do not, in my experience, know what Darwinism says and implies.

The fog created by neo-Darwinists and theistic Darwinists is so great that, quite honestly, unless you have rubbed your face in the Evolutionary personal advice columnist’s traipse with the gorillas, Darwinian brand marketing, or the human zoo, you wouldn’t know.

Many people think that Darwinism just means that Earth and all life forms thereon were not created in 144 hours. Also, they foresee conflict and don’t want it (“divides the brethren”).

But conflict is coming to them. As God and Evolution‘s press release puts it:

The book is a response to growing efforts by some Darwinists to enlist the support of the faith community by downplaying Darwinism’s core principles. Chapters of the book detail the failures of theistic evolution, address the problem of evil, and explain how intelligent design is consonant with orthodox belief.

I gave a talk on my own chapter’s subject: The older Catholic popular writers and Darwinism. G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and St. George Mivart, each in his own way, recognized the atheist materialism that underlies Darwinism and emphatically rejected it. Here is a brief excerpt.

Indeed, the Church still does. If you look carefully at what the present Pope has said (dealt with in the book), he is well aware of what is at stake. Too well aware. An entrenched, tax-funded Darwin lobby, supported by compliant and cheerfully ignorant legacy Western media can roar up quite the furore in a situation where few are currently getting murdered. And the Pope has plenty of problems with situations where lots of people are getting murdered.

Here is that brief excerpt from my chapter.

(Note: I use the term “theistic Darwinists” rather than “theistic evolutionists” because, among the serious ones, Darwinism is the only theory of evolution that seems important, despite growing support for other causes of change in life forms.)

Comments
OT - breakthrough: Harvard researchers identify new aspect of cell reprogramming Excerpt: The new finding follows by less than two months the discovery by HSCI’s Derrick Rossi and colleagues that skin cells could be returned to an embryonic stem cell-like state using specially engineered synthetic mRNAs, eliminating the need to use virus...es that can induce cancers to develop. Rossi’s discovery turned the cell reprogramming field on its head,and was considered so significant that HSCI co-director Doug Melton announced that the HSCI iPS core, which produces reprogrammed cells for researchers, would immediately switch to using the method developed by Rossi. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-harvard-aspect-cell-reprogramming.htmlbornagain77
November 8, 2010
November
11
Nov
8
08
2010
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
OT - Modern Miracle: Skin Transformed into Blood (Without Destroying Human Embryos) Excerpt: The Canadians bypassed all those problems by finding growth factors (substances that regulate cell division and survival) that could directly reprogram skin cells into bloodcells. That not only bypasses the stem cell stage with all its issues, but it creates adult blood cells that can be used for transplantation into adults. Avoiding the stem cell stage also means that researchers can now make far larger quantities o fblood cells, because they avoid the conversion inefficiency of going to and from the stem cell stage. http://www.livescience.com/health/blood-skin-stem-cells-101107.html ,,,notes: Umbilical cord, & Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells: So which is better: embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells? Thus far, embryonic stem cells can't currently treat any diseases, while adult stem cells have helped patients with 72 conditions. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm Stem Cell News: Jan. 2010 Excerpt: Dr. Gregory Brent (UCLA) told an audience Saturday night that embryonic stem cells have yet to produce one treatment, while adult stem cells are currently treating millions. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100118abornagain77
November 8, 2010
November
11
Nov
8
08
2010
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Note: I use the term “theistic Darwinists” rather than “theistic evolutionists” because, among the serious ones, Darwinism is the only theory of evolution that seems important, despite growing support for other causes of change in life form.
Curious - as an evolutionary biologists, I'd suggest that Darwin's theory (which is surly what 'Darwinism' would support) is discredited. We've simply moved on. Even neo-Darwinism is a relic of the past.Heinrich
November 7, 2010
November
11
Nov
7
07
2010
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
The book is a response to growing efforts by some Darwinists to enlist the support of the faith community by downplaying Darwinism’s core principles. To play Darwin's advocate here (ha ha) -- aren't those "core principles" exactly what ID proponents think are incorrect and want rejected anyway? I assume this is the talk of evolution being unguided, undirected, without teleology, etc. I suppose I'd still have to read what the book itself says, but I would think "Darwinism, with the problematic 'principles' sliced out" would be Darwinism ID proponents would welcome. (As in, it would be evolution sans darwinism.)nullasalus
November 6, 2010
November
11
Nov
6
06
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply