Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks — Let the Bloodletting Begin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Theistic evolutionists hold that Darwinian evolution is God’s way of bringing about the diversity of life on earth. They used to be content to criticize ID on scientific grounds. But that’s no longer enough. They are now charging ID with undermining the very fabric of civilization and even the Christian religion itself. Ken Miller’s most recent book, just out, makes this point in the title — Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. From the title, you’d think that Darwin is the Messiah and that until his ideas about evolution gained acceptance, our souls were in jeopardy.

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian (cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here — the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate) important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him, it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul. Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Francis Collins agrees. His endorsement of Miller’s book leaves no doubt that the ID people are a bigger threat than the atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins:

“In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.” –Francis Collins, Director, the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

With devout believers like this, give me a good infidel any time. Ever since Phil Johnson began publicly voicing his criticisms of Darwinism in the early 90s, his biggest detractors and most vicious critics have been — surprise, surprise — fellow Christians. In fact, we had a Mere Creation conference at Biola University in 1996 rather than at Calvin College (where we had planned to hold it initially) because Howard Van Till was so enraged with Johnson during his visit in the winter of 1996 that he was visibly shaking (Johnson and Niles Eldredge were having a debate at Calvin College — Eldredge turned to Phil after witnessing Van Till’s meltdown and remarked that even though things get heated among fellow evolutionists, it’s nothing like what he witnessed here).

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And they need to be defeated.

What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. The release date for Miller’s book is June 12th. I’ve got a book titled Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (co-authored with youth speaker and high-school teacher Sean McDowell) whose release date is July 1st. It is geared specifically at mobilizing Christian young people, homeschoolers, and church youth groups with the ID alternative to Darwinian evolution. You might want to compare Francis Collins’ endorsment of Miller’s book with Ann Coulter’s endorsement of mine:

In my book Godless, I showed that Darwinism is the hoax of the century and, consequently, the core of the religion of liberalism…. Liberals respond to critics of their religion like Cotton Mather to Salem’s “witches.” With this book, two more witches present themselves for burning: Sean McDowell, whose gift is communicating with young people, and Bill Dembski, often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design. I think Dembski is more like the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design. His record for tackling Darwiniacs is unmatched. This book gives young people all the ammo they need to take on Darwinism and understand the only viable scientific alternative to Darwinism: intelligent design. Every high school student in America needs a copy of Understanding Intelligent Design. –Ann Coulter, BESTSELLING author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

————
*Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

Comments
Borne: I submit that theistic evolution is self contradictory. How does God USE random variation and natural selection? How can both God and nature do the selecting? If the variations are random, how can they produce a finished product that God would have in mind? If they produce the finished product that God had in mind, how can they be random? Either an organism’s fate will be determined by the “unfolding” of an internal principle (directed evolution), in which case there is only one possible outcome, or its fate will be determined by random chance (Darwinian evolution), in which case there are many possible outcomes.StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
I tend to be a radical middle Christian. Ready for spiritual and moral war but wanting peace, radically convinced of Christ and his words but always trying to avoid extremes. "With devout believers like this, give me a good infidel any time." Indeed, I could point to many muslims who have a better understanding of God and creation than Miller and cie. I could also point out many materialist Darwinists who see theistic evolution as an oxymoron - laughable and foolish. Richard Lewontin- Harvard geneticist said,
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubsantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
And from Steven Weinberg,
The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.” – Steven Weinberg, NYT, 21nov06
Darwinism being the "greatest engine for atheism ever devised" hardly fits a Xian world-view. Therefore, these Darwiniac Xians are seriously deluded. Is Christ truly the descendant of apes? Or of a real literal Adam? Indeed, Christ is called "the last Adam". Seeing that Christ held a literal Adam and Eve, as well as did the apostles, I can never understand these mentally blind (inspite of being highly educated) Xians supporting the greatest engine of atheism ever devised. It does not add up and will never add up. A Xian, by very definition, must believe the gospels and the canonical writings of the apostles. These are the primary source of all we know of Christ and his life. So where do these blind followers of the blind get off denying the very words that their faith is supposedly based on? There is nothing in the words of Christ, the prophets or the apostles that remotely suggests a symbolic Adam or an Adam descending from something previous, something less, something merely animal. It doesn't ring true. That's because it ain't.Borne
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Patrick:
I haven’t read Miller’s textbooks so I haven’t read those quotes in context. Is he explaining other people’s views; does he make surrounding comments that explicitly show he believes the same?
Check out the following article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec.htmlGilDodgen
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Larry wrote: "Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don’t see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don’t see “I love Smith” knick-knacks." OK, fair point.Eric Anderson
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Saint and Sinner you either have to accept the Gospels’ accounts as miraculous or dismiss them as fiction You forgot the third choice - simply saying you don't know if the accounts are true or not.DaveScot
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Saint and Sinner: Your remarks about methodological naturalism destroying Christianity called to mind an idea I had that what if the Virgin Birth had a natural explanation. It doesn't destroy my faith, personally. (Gen 3:14) The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; (Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." [the latter verse is supposed to be prophetic of the virgin birth].JunkyardTornado
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Cool Funny Off Topic Video Signs Of Life: http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=01c10f27c27e8f8937f9bornagain77
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
JunkyardTornado, Of course I can't prove to you that the Virgin Birth was a miracle. Still, until you see humans walking through walls and ascending into heaven, then you either have to accept the Gospels' accounts as miraculous or dismiss them as fiction. Giving a naturalistic explanation won't do. Which brings me to the point which you missed. My point was not whether the Gospels were accurate. Rather, my point had to do with the damage TE's can do to the Church (and many have already done). TE's, if they were consistent with their argumentation, would dismiss all the miracles of the Bible as simple "gaps" in our understanding of the physical universe and become either theological liberals (more consistent) or simple atheists (fully consistent).Saint and Sinner
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. ... *Miller himself uses the warfare metaphor in the subtitle of his most recent book — Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.
The general mood among my associates is that the Darwinists haven't even begun to see what will be unleased on them. They've only been sparring with scouting parties so far, they haven't seen yet a truly organized and large-scale assault yet, but they will... :-) The main reason a large-scale organized assult will happen is that the Darwinists no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of information. Their tactics of censorship and intimidation don't work like they used to.... Cheap access to the interenet and video and teleconferencing cannot be policed by them. These communication mediums are not yet even being fully leveraged, but they will be, and as they are leveraged the great Berlin Wall will collapse. Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID.scordova
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson said,
Larry said: “Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism.” What is this relating to? And, by the way, do you know what you are talking about?
Well, I thought that "latter-day saints" was a reference to the founders of the Mormon church, e.g., Joseph Smith. I just looked up "latter-day saints" and it appears that the term may refer to members of the church. So maybe I didn't know what I was talking about -- it happens to people. Anyway, my analogy still holds. I just don't see Mormons worshipping Smith in the same way that Darwinists worship Darwin, e.g., I don't see "I love Smith" knick-knacks.Larry Fafarman
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
junkyard 31 - I'll accept that as significant to this discussion if you can show me some prophecy predicting this particular offspring, time and place of birth and any unusual-supernatural characteristics this progeny has to its peers. Perhaps we will see a decline in shark attacks on humans - GLORIOUS - we might even find a rather wet manuscript of the Chronicles of SHARK within a few billion years give or take hey.alan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
"The discovery that sharks can reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis now changes this paradigm, leaving mammals as the only major vertebrate (backboned creatures) group where this form of reproduction has not been seen."JunkyardTornado
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Saint and Sinner: Shark's virgin birth stuns scientistsJunkyardTornado
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
You know, it's funny how the TE's like to throw the "methodological naturalism" or "god-of-the-gaps" arguments to "refute ID" when, if those same (flawed) arguments were applied to the account of Christ's resurrection, would completely destroy Christianity. These guys are simply "useful idiots."Saint and Sinner
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Junkyard wrote: "But possibly we could read into John’s statement, who knows. He also says regarding Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” There is an awful lot of likening of people to animals in the Bible. Then in Revelation you have angels showing up with heads of cows and birds and so forth." You crack me up! Between your two possibilities, I'll take this has humor, rather than irony. (BTW, it really did make me laugh; I'm not being sarcastic.)Eric Anderson
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Larry said: "Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism." What is this relating to? And, by the way, do you know what you are talking about?Eric Anderson
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
-----duncan: "My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?" Dr. Dembski has not made that claim, as he magnanismously gives militant TE's the benefit of the doubt. I, however, am not as charitable as he. For my part, not believing in the SCIENCE of intelligent design does not necessarily make one a bad Chrisitan. However, denying the Bible's teaching about the EVIDENCE of design and slandering your ID opponents with lies is inconsistent with the Christian faith.StephenB
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Gil, I haven't read Miller's textbooks so I haven't read those quotes in context. Is he explaining other people's views; does he make surrounding comments that explicitly show he believes the same?Patrick
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
alan: An attempt at humor, or irony. But possibly we could read into John's statement, who knows. He also says regarding Christ, "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." There is an awful lot of likening of people to animals in the Bible. Then in Revelation you have angels showing up with heads of cows and birds and so forth. And in Genesis the serpent is condemned to crawl on his belly, implying he didn't previously, and also that things could have possibly been different from an evolutionary standpoint. Then again maybe all of this is completely specious.JunkyardTornado
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
My question is: if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian? Duncan, You are asking a legitimate question: 1. a person who believes that all living things are the result of natural selection of random mutations can be a good Christian, just not a very logical one. There is so much evidence, overwhelming evidence, that an intelligence was involved in the origin and development of life, that the only real reason for believing the contrary is a philosophical bias which excludes this possibility a priori. There is very little direct evidence for the miracles of the Bible, so it seems illogical to accept these and "a priori" (this is the important point) exclude the possibility that God has also played a role in natural history. (By the way, I do believe in the resurrection, but I don't claim this is based on scientific evidence; I find some of the other miracles reported in the Bible almost impossible to believe, not because I a priori exclude the possibility of miracles, but some of them just don't sound credible.) 2. I don't agree that ID has nothing to do with God. ID proponents argue that there is evidence in living things (especially at the microscopic level) of "design", but the evidence doesn't tell us who this designer is. This is true, we cannot be sure, based on what we see through the microscope, that the designer was not Dawkin's "more evolved" alien from another planet. However, the sudden appearence of time, space, matter and energy in the Big Bang, and the fine tuning of the laws of physics was clearly not the work of Dawkin's alien, so it seems likely the same intelligence that designed the laws of physics was involved in the origin and development of life. Thus I don't have a problem identifying the designer with a supernatural creater, a "God" by most definitions. However, if I start claiming the scientific evidence points toward the Christian God and away from Allah, then you will know I am confusing science and religion.Granville Sewell
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Check out my UD blog post on biology textbook quotes here. Of particular interest are these quotes from Miller's books:
"[E]volution works without either plan or purpose -- Evolution is random and undirected." (Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.) "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
So, according to Ken Miller, humanity came about without either plan or purpose, matter is the stuff of all existence and all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts, the method by which God created man is purposeless and heartless, humanity is just one more species in a world that cares nothing for us, the human mind is nothing more than a mass of evolving neurons, and there is no divine plan to guide us. How does one square this with orthodox Christianity? It sounds like the antithesis of the Christian faith to me. Yes, there is a battle for America's soul, and the quotes above are designed to destroy it. In addition, it is Darwinian orthodoxy that represents bad science. It attempts to cram the evidence into a conclusion that has already been reached, and to either ignore or explain away contrary evidence with storytelling and speculation that defies simple analytical scrutiny.GilDodgen
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
junkyard 19 Please explain - "Seems like even John the Baptist was affirming the truth of evolution."alan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
duncan 15 Because - Christ is (Christianity IS) Creation with a purpose from a "Personal God" having Mind, "Intelligence" "Information" NOT random chance without such Purpose. Pleas ask yourself if you have even come to terms with the basics since your questions begs an answer. LOL x LOLalan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
HA HA Junkyardbornagain77
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
ba77:"John the baptist did not have a high opinion of religious hypocrites either: Matthew 3:7 But when John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them, “You children of serpents! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" Seems like even John the Baptist was affirming the truth of evolution.JunkyardTornado
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Miller's brand of Christianity (All mere appearance on the outside yet no real substance on the inside) reminds me of the religion of the the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Though they were definitely "orthodox", devout and pious, to the public around them, As far as Jesus was concerned they had missed the boat big time as far as God was concerned, Take this following eye opening passage: Matthew 23:27 "How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of people's bones and every kind of impurity. John the baptist did not have a high opinion of religious hypocrites either: Matthew 3:7 But when John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them, "You children of serpents! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? I have a very hard time seeing how Miller's head doesn't explode. How in the world is it possible to believe in the miracles of God (especially the resurrection), yet at the same time, believe that totally natural processes created all life on earth. I would be in a nut house if I held such inconsistent thinking with sincerity.bornagain77
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian? Having and/or expressing doubts about the methodology behind ID would not make you a bad Christian. Knowingly ascribing false motives to the proponents of ID or knowingly claiming ID is something it is not, however, would fall into the "bearing false witness" category.tribune7
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Duncan I don’t get it – I come to this site looking for ideas and answers, If you are looking for answers you should ask questions not express strong opinions based on incorrect assumptions i.e. I think the irony might be in your comment, as theistic evolutionists would say that it’s the God bit that can’t be shown scientifically, not the evolution bit… But if you want answers --hopefully you lurk for a bit -- I'll give you these: 1. Darwinian evolution has not been demonstrated. 2. ID does not refer to God.tribune7
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Dr Dembski, I appreciate this is your blog and you’re perfectly entitled to remove my comments. It would disappoint me, and I can assure you that I come in good faith. For what it is worth, I’m a ‘don’t know’ with regard to ID vs evolution. Of course, this may already condemn me here, lol. My question is, if ID has nothing to do with God, why might not believing in ID make someone a bad Christian?duncan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Were it not for the aberrant intermingling of metaphysics and physics (meaning the study of the phenomena), particularly among Darwinists, that of confusing ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism (to use Plantinga's terms), this "battle" might not exist. Science has always portrayed itself as rational, logical, and unbiased. I think this might be the greatest lie of the 20th century. Having read Collins and listened to Miller's diatribes, these men may be committed Christians in belief, but are deeply affected by the confusion of Plantinga's distinctions. The difference in tone, in manner, and in rational discourse held by ID advocates, though no less rigorous, is glaring evidence that some false orthodoxy is being outdone. I am grateful for this restraint, difficult as it might be. Frankly, it embarrasses me as a Christian that this ignominious noise comes out of a so-called follower of Christ.toc
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply