Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will Templeton continue to fund BioLogos? Why?


BioLogos? They’re Christians for Darwin, or evolution or something, but for sure not for ID or anything.

At Hump of the Camel, Jon Garvey, a retired British physician and theologian, notes that BioLogos writers accuse ID folk of heretical or bad theology by thinking of God as a designer.

But, he says, their own theological leanings are much further from classical Christian orthodoxy than anything written by ID folk:

But I felt I had to comment on a recent thread on BioLogos, in which the argument is made that Intelligent Design implies that God is merely one amongst a number of possible designers, whereas God is, in fact, not to be compared with any other agent.

I would not have felt led to comment, though, were it not for the fact that this is another case – not the first, unfortunately – of TE pots calling ID or Creationist kettles black. Not long ago, someone suggested in a BioLogos article that ID is basically Gnostic, for reasons that rather escaped me at the time, but which ignored the fact that the charge of believing in a Gnostic demiurge (in the form of evolution) is far more aptly levelled at TE believers in “free process” theology.

Then there was the article that seriously suggested ID supports “occasionalism” because (the article claimed) ID says God intervenes occasionally in nature. This revealed a crass misunderstanding of the term occasionalism … More.

In our experience, BioLogians go looking for theological pegs to hang objections on because their own case is untenable: That God designs in such a way that you can’t tell if he did it or not. Scripture takes the opposite view, but never mind. That’s what it takes for a Christian to be a Darwinist, which is why so few serious Christians have  done it. But there is a market in being the next one to come up with a clever argument against evident design in nature.

Templeton funds BioLogos. Now that the organization is funding non-Darwinian approaches to evolution, it will be interesting to see if it continues to have the same enthusiasm for BioLogos’s project: Getting Christians to “accept” a field undergoing a massive overhaul. Why not wait till the smoke clears?

Many balls in play here. The Royal Society is rethinking the importance of Darwinism.

Also have a look at Garvey’s recent book, God’s Good Earth, a chapter of which is online.

See also: How will rethinking Darwin affect the ID community?: EESers think that a fully naturalist model that works can be found; IDers think that no model that ignores the nature and laws of information can work. If the IDers are right, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis will solve only those problems directly created by Darwinism.


BioLogos distances itself from views of founder?

Follow UD News at Twitter!



Leave a Reply