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
Duncan: Maybe this blog's not for you. The Internet is a big world.William Dembski
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Granville: Miller claims to say the Nicene Creed every Sunday and mean it. I'm sure Francis Collins means it as well. But it doesn't stop them from being ID's most implacable opponents.William Dembski
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
??? I don’t get it – I come to this site looking for ideas and answers, not to promote anything. My comment was about the position of theistic evolutionists. Again, I’m not in the business of trying to explain how ID refers to God. But I can quote how Dr Dembski thinks it does (see above): - “They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And they need to be defeated.”duncan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
If Ken Miller calls himself an "orthodox" Christian, I assume that means he believes in the resurrection of Jesus. If so, his thinking is rather bizarre: "I believe God can create a human out of a decaying body, but to suggest he had anything to do with the sudden appearence of all the animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion is unthinkable." If not, this is just more deceit, another attempt to "say anything to calm the barbarians".Granville Sewell
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
theistic evolutionists would say that it’s the God bit that can’t be shown scientifically, not the evolution bit… Sooooooooo. Do it :-) You get a Nobel prize if you can. And, while you are demonstrating Darwinian evolution -- that all life came from a single ancestor solely via natural selection and random changes to the genome -- scientifically, explain how ID refers to God.tribune7
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
tribune7 (7) 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...duncan
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Theistic evolutionists hold that Darwinian evolution is God’s way of bringing about the diversity of life on earth. Obviously, they can't show how so this is a matter of faith. Just one more plank in the case that Darwinian evolution, unlike ID, is a religion, and one more example of how irony rules in the era of the internet.tribune7
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
William Dembski said,
Ken Miller’s most recent book, just out, makes this point in the subtitle — Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.
That's not the first Darwinist book with "the Battle for America's Soul" in the title. The full title of what was supposed to be the definitive book about the Dover case, Darwinist Edward Humes' book, is "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, 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.
Darwinism is another Church of Latter-Day Saints, even more so than Mormonism. Darwinists shamelessly use "I love Darwin" knick-knacks, celebrate Darwin's birthday, etc., but so far as I know Mormons don't do the same for Joseph Smith. I don't think that being descended from monkeys is anything to be ashamed of, but nor do I think it is cause for celebration. I was astonished that the Kitzmiller v. Dover plaintiffs had the chutzpah to choose a theistic evolutionist, Ken Miller, as their lead expert witness in what was supposed to be a lawsuit seeking enforcement of the so-called "separation of church and state"! Theistic evolutionists are mascots who are trotted out to show that evolution theory is not just motivated by atheism. Darwinists tout Judge John E. Jones III as a "churchgoing Christian." In the conclusion section of his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, he arrogantly told people what their religious beliefs are supposed to be:
Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
The Clergy Letter implies that questioning evolution theory is blasphemous or sacrilegious:
We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
Ironically, though the Jewish religion originated the Genesis story of creation, the Anti-Defamation League is one of the most fanatical opponents of criticisms of Darwinism -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/03/movies-darwin-to-hitler-theme-and-adl.htmlLarry Fafarman
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
H'mm: This thread opens up some significant issues, on the -- now too often unnecessarily contentious -- interaction between philosophy, science, and theistic worldviews, and on their implications for society. I think a pause to look at Newton's General Scholium to that most significant of all scientific works, Principia, will be enlightening on where all this started. That is , with men who saw God's handiwork and beauty in the heavens and in the mathematics that captured the order of the cosmos -- an order that they saw as self-evidently a product of mind. (Well do I recall a recent thread in which someone tried to insinuate that such an inference to mind is nonsense, and thread to dismiss the significance of Newton as a result; only to show himself the live donkey kicking a safely dead Lion. Newton's insight on the mathematical elegance of creation is indeed a key point, and our recent observations on just how finely tuned th mathematics and parameters of the cosmos are underscores his point.) What Darwinism did was to create and/or popularise the perception that one could dispense with the most obvious inference on the source of that elegant order; for once one injected enough time into the equation, the intermixing of chance and selection filtering would allow life to spontaneously form, then develop the body-plan level diversity we see today and in the fossil record. So, the heavens were emptied of Wonder. At least in the minds of those who were enthralled by Darwin's vision. Then, from the 1930s on, along came information science. Suddenly, we had a quantitative approach to understanding the significance of high contingency used to hold and transmit functional information. And, we had an obvious reason to see that there is an inherent probabilistic resources issue in the notion that chance + necessity could jointly spontaneously originate cosmos and life then diversity and finally intelligence. Namely, we saw that the cosmos was astonishingly finely-tuned, and that life was equally astonishingly finely tuned and intricately -- sometimes, irreducibly -- complex. So much so that the search resources of the observed cosmos are soon exhausted: it is EASY to get to and surpass 500 - 1,000 bits of information storage capacity. And we know that that cosmos could not plausibly exceed 10^150 quantum states across its entire credible lifespan. So, chance + necessity end in search resource exhaustion on the gamut of our observed cosmos, thence probabilistic absurdity. But equally, we have a directly observed case in point of a third force: intelligence. For we are intelligent agents. Such agents use UNDERSTANDING and CREATIVITY to routinely innovate FSCI well beyond the Dembski type bound. So, we have a probabilistic resource challenged, institutionalised proposed mechanism, vs a mechanism that can account for what we see but is counter to a major, institutionally dominant worldview. (I also of course join many others to note that there is no credible evolutionary materialist account of the origin and trustworthiness of the mind, i.e there is a second self-referential absurdity here.) Our effective alternatives are: [A] an unobserved vastly wider cosmos as a whole -- one sufficiently quasi-infinite to swamp the odds, or [B] inference to intelligence. The second has the key advantage that we know what intelligence can do, and we observe just such intelligence in action all the time. In short the latter is empirically anchored, factually adequate, coherent and elegantly powerful as an explanation. Indeed, it is classically scientific! Why, then, is it so stoutly resisted, to the point of rage, slander and unjustified career-busting a la Expelled? Because much is at stake, and but little of that has to do with real science. And, everything to do with the insistence of evolutionary materialism that its visions and agendas for our lives, institutions and communities must prevail in the names of progress, modernity and liberation from any notion that -- however remotely -- supports the idea that we are stewards of Creation accountable before our Creator. Some very serious soul-searching is in order for the evo mat advocates and their fellow travellers such as Mr Miller. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
I am really comforted that TEs are so explicitly against us. I would be seriously worried of the opposite. Why? Indeed, I am not interested in the religious aspects of the debate. But, trying to be consistent with my usual attitude, that is to stick to the scientific (and some time philosophical) aspects of the ID issue, I stay convinced that TEs have the worst point of view on those apects: one that is gross, inconsistent, scientifically, logically and philosophically flawed. I have no doubt: I prefer a Dawkins to a Miller. So, if fight has to be, it's OK for me, but be it a fight on scientific and intellectual grounds. I think there are already too many religious fights to add a new one to the lot.gpuccio
June 13, 2008
June
06
Jun
13
13
2008
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
I love it when theistic evolutionists stop the presses to announce how “devout” they are as Christians, prompting us to withhold our suspicions that their real devotion is to Darwin. We are not supposed to notice, I guess, that true fidelity to Christianity would include, at a minimum, faith in the Biblical teaching that God’s handiwork has been made manifest in his creation. As Psalm 19 instructs us, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” And, of course we read in Romans 1:20, that the invisible things are clearly seen “being understood by the things that are visible.” Now I would expect even a mainstream Christian to take these passages seriously, but a “devout” Christian ought to be downright passionate about them. According to St. Paul, design is a self-evident truth, so much so, that a Christian, agnostic, cynic, or anyone else who questions it is “without excuse.” What can we say, then, of those who, in fact, don’t believe it at all and yet publicize their Christianity for strategic advantage. Clearly, they want their God and their Darwin too; but they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin. To believers they say, “Hey, I am a Christian.” leaving the convenient impression they believe in a purposeful, mindful creator. To the academy they say, “Don’t worry, I am first and foremost a Darwinist, so I really believe in a purposeless, mindless process that relegates God to footnote status. I you don’t believe me, just watch how I slander and smear the ID people.” Not only does their duplicity betray the public trust, it retards scientific progress. More to the point, these disingenuous hacks harm the ID movement 100 times more than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens could ever hope to. There is just enough sugar in their confection to make young Christians swallow the poison whole and join the ranks of the anti-ID militants. Although I am a Catholic Christian myself, I do, nevertheless, find the radical atheists easier to bear. Spare me from the soul selling, split-the-difference, have-it-both-ways Christians.StephenB
June 12, 2008
June
06
Jun
12
12
2008
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
Didn't Ken Miller make some noise about Dawkins at one point, only to have PZ Myers start screaming about how Miller was a creationist - resulting in an email exchange and Myers never bringing Miller up again, and Miller never going after Dawkins again? To be honest, though I'm probably best classified as a TE, I have serious misgivings about Ken Miller. He insists he's not a TE anyway, but something doesn'ts it well with me when it comes to how he approaches the issue.nullasalus
June 12, 2008
June
06
Jun
12
12
2008
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
I think that this is really a symptom of ID's success. When what Dawkin's calls in Expelled "an opposing doctrine", begins to gain some traction and validity it the public’s eyes it becomes no longer good enough to just ignore it politically. Now the evo-materialists feel like they are loosing ground and that is why they are mounting this offensive. Miller has made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that he views ID as the down fall of science. This is ridiculous and a flat out lie. ID opens up questions about THE most fundamental of all questions; that of origins. If IDists make a claim it allows those in opposition to counter it. This brings greater depth, interest and understanding to science. ID has brought evidential scientifically supported conceptual challenges to the science of origins and it's current mainstream proclamation. The truth about ID, thanks to the internet and the growing body of scientific literature on it, is now experiencing greater exposure than ever. Personally I agree that the issue of fundamentalist religious interpretation IS a political and philosophical mountain that ID is going to have to climb- but once people realize that ID can be stripped down from just a fundamentalist interpretation and that it is actually perfectly compatible with science and philosophy - then human nature will take over and people will seek the freedom to learn, believe and respect a valid scientific theory regardless of how it may rub a few people. The media may never going to stop calling ID "creationism" but people will continue to cut through the BS as more and more literature accumulates on the subject. Darwinists have force fed their philosophy to the public for years. Now it's time for some long over due balance. Let’s allow the pendulum to swing back to academic freedom. And Bill while I think at the end of the day that this is more of a battle of ideas than of politics - I do totally agree that it is a battle that must and will continue to be fought. To the other side this is all merely a battle about politics money religion and power- but for us actually fighting for change we know what it's really about; the freedom to express valid and cogent ideas without fear of persecution.Frost122585
June 12, 2008
June
06
Jun
12
12
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply