William Lane Craig defends theistic evolution at Peaceful Science

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 20, 2022

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On theological but not necessarily scientific grounds. He’s defending it against Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, pointing to a defense by Michael J. Murray and John Ross Churchill:

One of the things I appreciate about Michael J. Murray and John Ross Churchill’s paper is their candid embrace of the label, “theistic evolution,” for their view.1 This strikes me as much more accurate and straightforward a label than the euphemistic appellation, “evolutionary creationism,” recently adopted by some theistic evolutionists, which seems clearly an attempt to coopt the label, “creationism,” in order to make their view more palatable to evangelical Christians.
It will be helpful at the outset to note the very limited scope of Murray and Churchill’s response to the volume, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (SPTC). They state that the volume as a whole conveys “the message that for Christians with traditional doctrinal commitments, no version of theistic evolution that adheres largely to consensus views in biology will be a plausible option.”2 They maintain to the contrary that it is “incontrovertible” that there are versions of theistic evolution that are “immune to many of the key criticisms advanced” in the book.3 More specifically, they argue that “there are versions of theistic evolution … that are consistent with traditional doctrinal commitments” concerning divine providence, miracles, evidence for theism, and nonphysical souls. It is evident, then, that their concern is with doctrinal criticisms of theistic evolution.4
Now immediately I felt myself rather left out of the conversation. For I am a Christian with traditional doctrinal commitments, but any reservations I have about the viability of theistic evolution have nothing to do with such doctrinal commitments. My reservations are not theological but scientific in nature.
William Lane Craig, “Response to “Mere Theistic Evolution”” at Peaceful Science (March 7, 2022)

Some of us would think that if theistic evolution fails a science test, one needn’t bother with the theology. But maybe we misunderstand.

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: The mytho-history of Adam, Eve, and William Lane Craig. Long a defender of orthodoxy, Craig seems to want to prune the orthodoxies he is expected to defend. But the pruning process in which he is engaged can never really stop. The “sensible God” is most likely the one looking back at us from our medicine cabinet mirrors.

Comments

then Zeus, contrary to what you and Bloom are trying to claim, will hardly suffice as the Intelligent Designer
You made no attempt to understand what Bloom was saying. I suggest you listen to his ideas and read what he has said. If you disagree with him on anything, let us know. I can find zero to disagree with. I doubt anyone here who supports ID can find anything either. It’s interesting two people I had not heard of a year ago are two of the best thinkers on ID I have seen and both have similar last names, John Bloom and Stephen Blume.jerry_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

F/N: I clip from Craig:
I felt myself rather left out of the conversation. For I am a Christian with traditional doctrinal commitments, but any reservations I have about the viability of theistic evolution have nothing to do with such doctrinal commitments. My reservations are not theological but scientific in nature. I think that a great many of the contributors to SPTC would lack what Murray and Churchill call “a confidence in the explanatory power of the evolutionary approaches employed in current biology."5 Only at the end of their paper do Murray and Churchill address scientific objections to theistic evolution, however, and here they content themselves with pointing out a couple of alleged missteps by Paul A. Nelson and by Ann K. Gauger et al. They say very little to inspire confidence in the explanatory power of the evolutionary approaches employed in current biology. So I find Murray and Churchill’s statement of the third plank of theistic evolution problematic due to its ambivalence. Initially, they state, “all versions of theistic evolution affirm that the complexity and diversity of life are best explained by appeal to evolutionary processes that have been operative over long periods of time, where the relevant processes include those that constitute what is often called ‘the modern evolutionary synthesis.'"6 Notice, the relevant explanatory processes include but are not limited to those of the modern synthesis. This is “mere” indeed! Even a Michael Behe, who thinks that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection explain very little of the origin of biological complexity, counts as a theistic evolutionist on this characterization, since he would agree that the mechanisms of the modern synthesis are included in the evolutionary processes. So would a classical progressive creationist like Bernard Ramm, who posits sequential miraculous intervention on God’s part to drive evolutionary advance.
KF PS, as I recall statistical thermodynamics and quantum theory, I see no reason why randomness does not play its part.kairosfocus_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

CD, the design inference on empirical, tested sign is just that, empirical, with trillions of known cases, no exceptions to design as cause. Where, that ties right into the linked configuration space challenge. Yes, one can discuss at philosophical level too but that is besides the point. Meanwhile, the living cell still has in it 4-state coded digital, algorithmic information well beyond a 500 - 1,000 bit threshold whereby the atomic resources accessible to us are simply unable to search, blindly, more than a negligible fraction of relevant configuration spaces. We are dealing with complex language and goal directed processes, both strong signs of design. Then, there is the added complexity of a von Neumann kinematic self replicator. Apart from entrenched Lewonin type a prioris, this would be a no brainer. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

martin_r
I never understood, what is the difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Could someone explain to me? I might be wrong, but both versions have the exactly same fatal problems ..e.g. missing fossils.
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory as such. It's a religious view and it doesn't do any original scientific work. Basically, it just says that "whatever mainstream science comes up with, we're good with that". They use theological explanations for how evolution fits into a theistic worldview. It gets kind of crazy where they talk how there is no empirical evidence at all of intelligent design in nature. But at the same time, they will say that everything we perceive as random is created by God. Then some of them realize the problems with this and say that God doesn't know what's going to happen. Nature just runs along on its own. God made the laws but is not involved. It's actually a lot like deism and I don't see how it is theistic - since for theism, God does need to be involved with creation. ID Is just science and doesn't explain the source of intelligence.Silver Asiatic_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

"I have good friends and colleagues on both sides of the debate, and I hope that my comments here today may promote better understanding and serve to bring us closer together." This is the cat pouncing out of the bag. TE is a political triangulation. Blech. Had enough of those. Andrewasauber_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

So mythical Zeus is OK with you Jerry? Perhaps you and Bloom should think these things through a bit more carefully. Especially after Stephen Meyer wrote his book last year entitled "Return of the God Hypothesis". Here are the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions for modern science that Meyer laid out in chapter 1 of his book:
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bocon’s inductive methodology) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
As should be needless to say, if you can't even do science without first presupposing Judeo-Christian presuppositions, then Zeus, contrary to what you and Bloom are trying to claim, will hardly suffice as the Intelligent Designer..bornagain77_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

never understood, what is the difference between atheistic and theistic evolution
Maybe we can start by stating the truth and emphasizing that. However, many here espousing ID are conflating ID with religion. As the comment above said, it could be Zeus and ID shouldn’t care. Never heard of John Bloom before but here’s an interview with him. https://idthefuture.com/825/jerry_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

it is very disturbing, how many obviously smart people can be sooo confused ... Obviously, Darwinian propaganda made great job. Unfortunately, this is exactly how it ends, when e.g. biologists - natural science graduates - researching / talking /reviewing/ commenting on something they DON'T UNDERSTAND, in this case, very advanced engineering ... PS: I never understood, what is the difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Could someone explain to me? I might be wrong, but both versions have the exactly same fatal problems ..e.g. missing fossils.martin_r_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Can ChuckDarwin read? Obviously not. But we all knew that.
they are too busy trying to score points rather than put forth a serious intellectual position….
Another candidate for most ironic comment of century. From the commenter who gets nothing right.jerry_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Craig is now like a man without a country. He gives some reasonable advice to IDers:
Indeed, my main reservation about ID is whether the inference to intelligent design is not better thought of as a meta-physical inference, rather than as a scientific inference. My inclination would be, not to offer an alternative scientific theory to the current paradigm, but just to question that paradigm’s explanatory adequacy and to supplement it with a philosophical postulate of a designer.
But, of course, IDers will never take that advise, they are too busy trying to score points rather than put forth a serious intellectual position....chuckdarwin_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Do people here read? Here’s what Craig said about ID. It’s long but what should be responded to. It accuses many of conflating ID with religion. An accusation that I agree with as most so called ID advocates here only want to talk about religion.
Murray and Churchill go on to contrast ID and theistic evolution in various ways. I realize that they are presenting just sample versions of ID and theistic evolution. Nonetheless, I think that their presentation serves to foster the false image of ID that is as much an obstacle to mutual understanding as is the false image of theistic evolution as a scientific theory. I suspect that many theistic evolutionists misunderstand ID because they take it to be, like theistic evolution, a view integrating theology and science rather than a scientific theory. Just as some ID theorists wrongly take theistic evolution to be a scientific theory rather than an integrative view, so some theistic evolutionists take ID to be an integrative view rather than a scientific theory. Each advocate is viewing the other as a mirror image of himself. But ID theorists have been adamant in insisting that ID is not theistic. Over and over again they have explained that they are offering a theory that infers to intelligent design and no more as the best explanation of biological complexity. The designer could be extraterrestrial life forms or laboratory technicians experimenting with our microworld in their lab. I recall a conversation I had with ID theorist John Bloom about the objection that ID would require no more than Zeus as the explanation of biological complexity. He nodded slowly in approval. “Zeus will do,” he said. “Zeus will do.” I suspect that many people think that ID theorists’ denial that their theory is theistic is disingenuous, a way of sneaking creationism into public schools with a wink and a nudge. But that fails to take ID seriously as a theory. That ID theorists are serious in not positing God as the best explanation of biological complexity is evident in their response to the problem of natural evil in the course of evolution. They rightly point out that ID makes no claim whatsoever that the designer is good. ID is not a view attempting to integrate theology and science. It is a rival scientific theory to mainstream biology that postulates intelligent design as an explanatory component of that theory. Indeed, my main reservation about ID is whether the inference to intelligent design is not better thought of as a meta-physical inference, rather than as a scientific inference. My inclination would be, not to offer an alternative scientific theory to the current paradigm, but just to question that paradigm’s explanatory adequacy and to supplement it with a philosophical postulate of a designer. I have good friends and colleagues on both sides of the debate, and I hope that my comments here today may promote better understanding and serve to bring us closer together.
jerry_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

@1 Years ago he used to support ID. Wiki labeled him as a creationist, and so did serval other places too. He slowly stopped mentioning ID and is now talking about TE a lot. It saddens me really and I couldn’t agree with you moreAaronS1978_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

As to: "but any reservations I have about the viability of theistic evolution have nothing to do with such doctrinal commitments. My reservations are not theological but scientific in nature." - (Craig) Well frankly, besides 'science' itself falsifying Darwinian/Theistic Evolutionary claims,
Jan. 2022 Scientific evidence falsifies claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141
,, besides 'science' itself falsifying Darwinian/Theistic Evolutionary claims, the 'theology' of theistic evolution is, to put it mildly, found to be wanting clarity.
Theology at BioLogos: The Curious Case of the “Wesleyan Maneuver” – Part 3 Excerpt: We discovered that Venema consistently evaded Crude’s questions, and that, even when he finally answered them, his answers were unclear and unsatisfactory. And we discovered the source of the lack of clarity – Venema’s self-contradictory commitment both to God’s absolute sovereignty and to the “freedom” of nature which he thinks is implied by his “non-Calvinist” position. And we discovered that, rather than being much distressed by the incoherence of his position, he excused it on the grounds that “mystery” is allowable in his theology. Such a position renders the entire BioLogos venture pointless, since its goal is to convince the public, especially Christian evangelicals, that the “free” nature of neo-Darwinian evolution is not incompatible with the “determined” ends of a sovereign, providential God. How can it do this, if in the final analysis, all it can say is, “I tend to be OK with a bit of mystery”? The word “bathetic” is not one I use often, but it pretty well describes the theological position of the lead scientific writer on BioLogos.,,, So what we have had in the leadership and the columns at BioLogos is a theologically skewed segment of American evangelical Christianity, with Calvinism grossly underrepresented, and Wesleyanism grossly overrepresented. To summarize what I’ve said so far: BioLogos has an “Arminian” emphasis on human freedom, which, without explanation of any kind, it extrapolates to produce the notion of a “freedom” of nature; and this “freedom of nature” theology, while not formally labelled by Venema, is labelled generally by BioLogos as “Wesleyan.” It is for this reason that I have called the climax of Venema’s performance “the Wesleyan Maneuver.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theology-at-biologos-the-curious-case-of-the-wesleyan-maneuver-part-3/
Another place where Theistic Evolutionists are 'theologically compromised' is in their appeal to the artificially imposed limit on science, by atheists, of 'methodological naturalism'.
Why Methodological Naturalism? - S. Joshua Swamidass Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause,“without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN). https://peacefulscience.org/articles/methodological-naturalism/ Methodological naturalism Excerpt: Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[21] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism
Yet, all of modern science is based on Judeo-Christian presuppositions, (and is certainly not based on 'methodological naturalism' as both Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists try to hold),
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bocon’s inductive methodology) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA Methodological Naturalism is simply a non-starter as far as science itself is concerned. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, directly contrary to what Atheistic materialists and Theistic Evolutionists try to claim, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
,, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (and/or Theistic Evolutionists who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s materialistic worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
Again, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
That some Christians would be willing to compromise their theology just so in order to try to make their theology compatible with Darwinian evolution is nothing new. In fact, when Darwin first wrote his book, it was the "liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin's natural selection as an instrument of God's design" whist "the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book"
Reactions to On the Origin of Species Excerpt: Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin's natural selection as an instrument of God's design. http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Reaction_to_Darwin%27s_theory
And the reason why Darwin was able to so easily 'sell' evolution to liberal Christians right off the bat is precisely because Darwin's book is, basically, filled with faulty, and/or deceptive, theological argumentation instead of any compelling scientific evidence.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. - per evolution news
In fact, Darwin's arguments, (since Darwin had no mathematical, nor empirical, evidence supporting his claims in his book), were essentially dependent on faulty theological presuppositions. In fact, directly contrary to the claims of Darwinists, even today, (since Darwinists still have no real time empirical evidence supporting their claims), faulty, and/or deceptive, theological presuppositions are still found to be essential for Darwinian arguments today.
Devil’s Chaplain: Evolution as a “Theological Research Program” Michael Flannery - September 10, 2021 Excerpt: this research program’s principal investigator was Charles Darwin, and the epithet he chose for himself, “a Devil’s chaplain” — which he shared in a letter on July 13, 1856, to his close friend and confidant Joseph Dalton Hooker — is revealing: “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!” Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwin’s religious views preceded (not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwin’s theological premises are essential (not peripheral) to his argument; Darwin’s references to theology attach direct significance to the theory itself — he is not practicing reductio theology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect — the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the “scientific” evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwin’s theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and ’40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/devils-chaplain-evolution-as-a-theological-research-program/ Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44
Thus in conclusion, for Craig to say, "My reservations (with Theistic Evolution) are not theological but scientific in nature" is for him to, basically, admit that he accepts the faulty, even deceptive, theological presuppositions of Darwinian evolution, and is therefore for him to, basically, admit that he is 'theologically compromised'.
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
bornagain77_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Very disappointing, but he has been moving further and further that way for a while now. I guess it's because he thinks it safeguards him from the anti-science label and maybe thinks it makes his ideas more appealing to his opponents? You know - there is less they can attack him for. Creationism is an easy target.tjguy_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply