Christian Darwinism Convergent evolution Intelligent Design News

Who on earth is Eric Metaxas?

Spread the love

And why does he think he can break the mold of Christian notables puffing Darwin? The exploded but still tax-funded theories* of naturalist atheists?

Dunno but get this:

One of the biggest problems for neo-Darwinists is the origin of complex structures that appear suddenly in nature or the fossil record. My friend Dr. Stephen Meyer talks about this in his wonderful book, “Darwin’s Doubt.” He points out how, in the so-called “Cambrian Explosion,” the majority of animal phyla on earth appeared suddenly, and without obvious ancestry—almost as if they “exploded” onto the scene out of nowhere.

Oh, so we’re allowed to know that now?

As opposed to: Christians for Darwin will actually review Darwin’s Doubt, if anyone cares. Of course, they pronounced themselves unpersuaded. Darwin may have doubted his own naturalist atheist theories; lots of Christians are persuaded by them.

No, we can’t make this stuff up. We don’t even try.

Metaxas again:

The researchers who sequenced the octopus genome call this “a striking example of convergent evolution,” or the supposed tendency of unrelated creatures to develop the same traits in response to environmental pressures. Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying a miracle happened twice?

But the octopus isn’t the only such miracle. “Convergent evolution” is all over nature, from powered flight evolving three times to each continent having its own version of the anteater. Think about that. As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature!

In many Christian atheist circles, it is  okay to think of nature as a person; it’s just not okay to think that people are persons. Unless chimpanzees are too, right?

Generally, it’s only okay to think things whose logical conclusion would be naturalist atheism (but we aren’t quite there yet, right?).

Guy better watch his back. Of course what he is saying is true, but that’s just the point. Inconvenient truths are bitches.

*Exploded but still tax-funded theories?

Note: No news posting till later today (unless it’s about the Savannah cat). Back at alternate day job for some hours.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Who on earth is Eric Metaxas?

  1. 1
    tjguy says:

    As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature!

    The old “personification of nature” trick to make it sound more feasible.

    It’s so hard to stop doing that!

    “Nature” sure is talented and smart! lol!

    Of course, another equally valid interpretation of similar organs/genes/abilities in totally genetically unrelated species is creation by the same Designer.

    That makes just as much sense of the data as the idea of convergent evolution does. Convergence is just a theory saving device to cover up the fact that the data doesn’t really fit the hypothesis of evolution. This rescue device hides that inconvenient truth.

  2. 2
    leodp says:

    If we can give it a name.. “convergent evolution”, then it sounds like we’ve explained it. As though the requirements of physical law are so precise that they can explain the random recreation of a nearly identical camera eye in completely unrelated lineages. But in the absence of a common ancestor a common designer makes a heck of a lot more sense.
    BTW, Eric Metaxas is a very bright and funny guy… check him out on a myriad of YouTube vids like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPhTDfcbrA

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Eric Metaxas is a very bright and funny guy… check him out on a myriad of YouTube vids like this

    Also highly recommend his book, Miracles.

    http://www.amazon.com/Miracles.....bc?ie=UTF8

    Lots of amazing coincidences in nature or should we say miracles.

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    As one delightfully un-self-conscious “Science Today” cover put it, convergent evolution is “nature discover[ing] the same design over and over.” Well, good for nature!

    Did anybody say “design”?

    🙂

  5. 5
    anthropic says:

    If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, sounds like a duck, then it’s a …

    Well, it’s definitely not a duck, if a duck doesn’t comport with Darwinism.

    Sheesh, sometimes I think Darwinian logic isn’t all it’s quacked up to be.

Leave a Reply