Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Some thoughts on the Mohler/Giberson debate


On August 21 Karl Giberson, physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College and one of several engaged in the ever-interesting juggling act of defending “faith and science” by means of a Darwinian apologetic, now has added to his litany of misconceptions a boorish attack on Al Mohler in The Huffington Post, “How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth.” Since David Klinghoffer has provided an excellent summary of the issues involved in an earlier post to this site, Karl Giberson v Al Mohler on Darwin: The Grudge Match, they need not be restated here. The point here is to address Giberson’s principal objection, namely, Mohler’s assertion that “Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged . . . .” Giberson wants to dismiss Mohler’s comments as merely an effort “to undermine evolution by suggesting that it was ‘invented’ to prop up Darwin’s worldview.”

My thoughts on this debate have been posted to Evolution News & Views.

Enezio, OT (where O = off) I checked out your website. Didn't understand a bit of it, except I noticed the translation of the article from EN&V concerning the universe claiming that Hawking is no longer needed to explain it. Nice job. OT (where O = On) Mr. Flannery, The only point where I think Mohler erred was in apologizing for the statement regarding Darwin going on the Beagle to prove evolution. I think he was correct. Maybe his wording was a little provocative, but overall, given the history you've cited, it is correct. Darwin already accepted "evolution" as his advocates define it. I think he also had an idea as to what the mechanism for evolution was, and he sought out evidence to confirm this. There is nothing wrong with stating that he did this, and Darwin would not have been in the wrong scientifically for doing so. But the real issue here is whether Darwin was influenced by a particular theological bent, which influenced his reasoning and conclusions. Clearly he did. CannuckianYankee
Michael Flannery, Congrats! Nice piece of history work. May your tribe increase! Cheers from Brazil. Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
For example, he heard William A. F. Browne (1805-1885) attack Charles Bell's Essays on the Anatomy and Physiology of Expression (1824) by insisting that there was no difference between animal and human facial anatomy
Is this a radical idea? Petrushka
Now I would like to see the "truth lover" Karl Giberson to either admit that he was wrong or to respond to this post explaining why, Adrian Desmond and James Moore or Janet Browne or for that matter, Michael Flannery, is wrong. I sure hope that would be important for him, because failing to do that would qualify him as somebody who "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose". T. lise

Leave a Reply