Intelligent Design

NT Wright Versus Karl Giberson

Spread the love

NT Wright has cogently argued that evolutionary thinking did not begin in 1859 and Darwin was not an intellectual revolutionary who single-handedly illuminated a new truth. In fact, the evolutionary foundation and framework were already in place “long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere.”  Read more

4 Replies to “NT Wright Versus Karl Giberson

  1. 1
    Neil Rickert says:

    I’m failing to understand what point you are making here.

    I don’t have a problem with NT Wright’s view that there were ideas of evolution before Darwin. I thought that was well known. Personally, I give a lot of credit to Linnaeus, whose classification system helped to make the evidence for evolution apparent.

    Personally, I do not worship Darwin as a God, nor do most scientists. The idea that we worship Darwin seems to come from the exaggerated rhetoric of creationists and ID proponents.

    For Giberson, those who question the metaphysically-laden theory of evolution are guilty of a “rejection of science.”

    As best I can tell, you are making that up. I don’t see how it follows from the text that you quote from Giberson.

  2. 2
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    Neil (1):

    I’m failing to understand what point you are making here.

    That Giberson uses inaccurate, stereotyped caricatures to attack those who do not agree with his view that evolution is a fact, and that he might want to listen to NT Wright, who ironically was interviewd by Giberson’s organization, Biologos.

    I don’t have a problem with NT Wright’s view that there were ideas of evolution before Darwin. I thought that was well known. Personally, I give a lot of credit to Linnaeus, whose classification system helped to make the evidence for evolution apparent.

    The ideas mandating evolutionary thought were not primarily scientific. They were religious.

    Personally, I do not worship Darwin as a God, nor do most scientists.

    Who said otherwise?

    As best I can tell, you are making that up. I don’t see how it follows from the text that you quote from Giberson.

    It is in the article. Giberson is talking about evolution skeptics and says they are rejecting science.

  3. 3
    Neil Rickert says:

    It is in the article. Giberson is talking about evolution skeptics and says they are rejecting science.

    No, that’s not in the article that I read.

    Giberson gives many symptoms of the rejection of science. He mentions climate change denialism before he mentions evolution skepticism. And he mentions several other symptoms. I am not finding anywhere that he has implied that skepticism of evolution by itself amounts to rejecting science.

  4. 4
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    Neil (3):

    The fact that Giberson also mentions the politically-charged AGW hardly remedies the problem. The branding of those skeptical of the metaphysically- and politically-charged claims of evolution and AGW as “The rejection of science” and

    part of a politically monolithic red-state fundamentalism, textbook evidence of an unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious

    is just the sort of thing Wright was bemoaning. One could hardly have contrived a better example of parochial, warfare-thesis rhetoric which, as Wright warns, is trivial and childish. We need to grow up.

    As Wright explains, one can find easy targets anywhere in the landscape to confirm one’s stereotypes and mount a vitriolic attack. It is ironic that the Wright interview was done by Biologos.

Leave a Reply