Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism – oops, I meant theistic evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 19, 2010

theistic evolution}

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

Today’s three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I’m not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they’re saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I’ve tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the “theistic evolution” that Francis Collins espouses, but didn’t offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see “Theistic evolutionist,” July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Comments

O'Leary (#22): gpuccio at 14 writes “If she is simply saying that some of Darwin’s ideas have been refuted by subsequent scientific investigation, that’s trivially true. [ ... ] I am interested in hearing a clarification from Ms. O’Leary herself.” Ehm... That was really Cassandra at #14. I just tried to counter those statements in my post #15.gpuccio_{June 22, 2010
June
06
Jun
22
22
2010
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Clive, Simply tremendous. Another example of why Lewis must be simply ignored - for the good of the cause.Upright BiPed_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

---zeroseven: "Talking about repeating arguments that have already been made many times before, this whole argument that without God there is no meaning or purpose, is exactly one of those." Context, context, context. Please read for context. While it is true that there is no meaning or purpose without God, that is not what I said because I anticipated the typical Darwinist response. What I said was this: If there is no God, then humans were not made to behave in any certain way or to pursue any meaningful end. There isn't anything controversial about that statement since it is obviously true. Do you deny this? That was step 1 in an argument that you clearly didn't follow since you never got past step 1.StephenB_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

zeroseven
Talking about repeating arguments that have already been made many times before, this whole argument that without God there is no meaning or purpose, is exactly one of those.
De Futilitate from C.S. Lewis http://books.google.com/books?id=e19zlwlOVwUC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=c.s.+lewis+de+futilitate&source=bl&ots=IBgetBmb7f&sig=y1sLCqd_aDiZZvBrXU3j8JnDJSk&hl=en&ei=WzAgTL3JKcG88gb18q2SAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=falseClive Hayden_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Talking about repeating arguments that have already been made many times before, this whole argument that without God there is no meaning or purpose, is exactly one of those. It is stated all the time like a mantra, but no-one has ever given me a reasonable explanation of why this would be true. It is completely contradicted by reality and I find no good philosophical reason for accepting it either.zeroseven_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

gpuccio at 14 writes "If she is simply saying that some of Darwin’s ideas have been refuted by subsequent scientific investigation, that’s trivially true. [ ... ] I am interested in hearing a clarification from Ms. O’Leary herself." You want a clarification? Well, you will hear one below: First, I have no idea what the term "trivially true" means. If it is true, it is true, and if it is true, it could certainly be important to someone somewhere. Also, I do not have a third hand. I, inconveniently, make do with two hands. But people say I have been a good pair of hands all my life, so will push on regardless. Now, to business: Darwinism of any kind is not supported by serious evidence. It would be better to describe it as supported by philosophy, budgets, endowments, and court decisions, not by evidence. People need to believe it. Now here is my question: Is there really any important evidence that one species morphs into another by vast increases in information due to Darwinian survival of the fittest? Or is this just another theory we need to believe?O'Leary_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya: "Again, this seems like an disingenuous and exaggerated attempt to coerce non-believers." Olasky is not writing about nonbelievers. He is writing about schizophrenic believers who think that a purposeful, mindful creator used a purposeless, mindless process.StephenB_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya ---“Olasky seems to suggest that Christianity is currently void of the contradictions, and theistic acceptance of evolution would represent some unprecedented event. Olasky is saying that two irreconcilable world views cannot be reconciled. ---“ Olasky seems to think accepting evolution should be avoided as it would require interpreting part of the Bible as metaphor. However, this has already occurred many times in the past. Why stop now?” Olasky is saying that Darwin’s idea of unguided evolution, which Christian Darwinists unwisely accept, cannot be reconciled with their alleged belief in the Biblical teaching that God created the earth. He is, of course, correct in his analysis. ---“How do you define “Evolution” and what do you mean by “not true?” Aren’t you the guy who just used the word “evolution” in the previous paragraph without defining it? ---“First, exactly what process did you use [O'Leary} to determine that “only survival in this world matters” in God’s absence? Please be specific. The process she used is called abstract reasoning. If there is no God, then humans were not made to behave in any certain way or to pursue any meaningful end. That means that there can be no morality proper to human nature: Humans cannot pervert their created nature through bad behavior, because they have no created nature to pervert; they cannot frustrate the purpose of their existence with bad behavior, because there is no purpose for their existence. That makes all acts morally neutral. If there is no objective morality, there can be no universally binding standard for discerning good acts from bad acts. Indeed, there can be no such thing as a good act or a bad act. Thus, all things are permissible. ---“Second, even if we assume “only survival matters” (which I do not), would this not imply an action such as blowing up the entire planet would not be permissible?” If there is no God, blowing up the planet is permissible just as arguing against such an act is permissible. Under those circumstances, anything at all is permissible because morality is reduced to the principle of “might makes right.” When that happens, the ruling tyrants become the agents of morality and it is they who decide what is “permissible. Thus, if the power is in the hands of those who would blow up the planet, blowing up the planet is permissible. If the power is in the hand of those who would not blow up the planet, then blowing up the planet is not permissible.StephenB_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Clive: I know you meant that: my post was just a provocation for our darwinists friends...gpuccio_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

gpuccio,
Since when are “bugs eating nylon” evidence for darwinism? They are not. They are only an example of microevolution (or, at best, simple neo-Lamarckian adaptation). Nothing more.
Exactly correct, sorry if I was unclear, that is exactly what I meant.Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Clive: Since when are "bugs eating nylon" evidence for darwinism? They are not. They are only an example of microevolution (or, at best, simple neo-Lamarckian adaptation). Nothing more.gpuccio_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Cassandra,
If she is suggesting that his core theory is incorrect, that claim would not be supported by the evidence. If on the third (?) hand she is using the term “Darwinism” in more general sense that includes neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis, that also is not supported by the evidence.
I can't speak for Denyse, but no evidence supports Darwinism, I reckon the folks claiming it does have the burden of evidence. Molecules to man, and a shrimp ancestor and banana tree ancestor being the same ancestor, is a large claim, and that needs its own evidence, not just some bugs eating nylon or children having red hair from parents without it. I know this sounds simple, but it exactly this sort of thing that is used for evidence of evolution, and it doesn't cut muster. If Darwinism cannot explain the simplest of things, it cannot explain anything else. Survival of the fittest is saying "Whatever survives survives", which is saying "Whatever will be will be". This is not an explanation, you may as well explain the way the wind blows on such grounds. Natural Selection is not an explanation of cellular machinery, data in DNA, etc., or a mouse giving birth, eventually, to a bat, as the myth claims. I know it's a good dream to materialists, because dreams cannot be refuted. It takes everything as evidence and therefore lacks actual evidence.Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Cassandra: Ms. O’Leary’s original statement: "there is abundant evidence that Darwinism is not true, as an explanation of evolution in general." is sufficiently at odds with the findings of biology and other sciences that it seems important to clarify exactly what she means before responding. Are you kidding? Have you suddenly forgotten where you are? In case, I will remind you that this is UD, the dark lair of those most evil people, the IDists. You know, maybe youy have not noticed, but here we do not believe in the mainstream interpretation of what you call "the findings of biology and other sciences". We appreciate the findings, but we have our own ideas on how to interpret them, silly anticonformists that we are. And strange to say, I remember I have seen you on many other threads, and even answered you in detail on manu oh these arguments which now you pretend to ignore. How is it? After all, the ID arguments are many, but not infinite, After a while you should have some idea of what they are, at least of the most important ones. Otherwise, why do you come here? Just to waste time? Or are you suggesting that each time one of us states, like Denise, that "there is abundant evidence that Darwinism is not true", he should again repeat all the arguments that he has already detailed hundreds of times?gpuccio_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (13), Thank you, that is exactly the kind of clarification that is required to understand Ms. O'Leary's argument. If she is simply saying that some of Darwin's ideas have been refuted by subsequent scientific investigation, that's trivially true. If she is suggesting that his core theory is incorrect, that claim would not be supported by the evidence. If on the third (?) hand she is using the term "Darwinism" in more general sense that includes neo-Darwinism and the modern synthesis, that also is not supported by the evidence. I am interested in hearing a clarification from Ms. O'Leary herself.Cassandra_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Cassandra, Darwin's idea of gemmules, for starters. But that wasn't my point, questions about the meaning of "not true" strike me as trolling and intentionally obfuscating needlessly.Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden (11), If I may interject, it doesn't appear to me that veilsofmaya's questions were an attempt at trolling. Ms. O'Leary's original statement:
there is abundant evidence that Darwinism is not true, as an explanation of evolution in general.
is sufficiently at odds with the findings of biology and other sciences that it seems important to clarify exactly what she means before responding. I would also be interested in seeing this "abundant evidence."Cassandra_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

veilsofmaya,
How do you define “Evolution” and what do you mean by “not true?”
Are you kidding me? How do you define define? I could ask you a hundred inane questions that don't deserve an answer too. Don't troll around here my friend.Clive Hayden_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

@JohnyB (#8) The issue is propagating the idea that human beings do not have value unless they were "designed' by an intelligent agent. While It might be useful for coercing non-believers in the present, if we do actually observe evolution at some point in the future, then what? A number of pastors I've engaged blame evolution for social problems in their neighborhood and even their church. As such, they take an anti-evolutionary stance even though they clearly do not understand the theory or have any scientific background. However, the problem appears partially self-inflicted as they wield the idea that human beings have no value unless designed by God as a weapon in their 'spiritual warfare.' By presenting this sort of false dilemma they reap what they sow. In his article, Olasky seems to be objecting to theistic evolutionists taking one his nuclear options off the table.veilsofmaya_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

@O'Leary (#7) Sorry, for the confusion. It was a poor assumption on my part. You wrote:
Okay, now to address the arguments:
I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address my arguments. - Unbelievers already think God == 0 - As such, Olasky seems to be complaining one of his "nuclear options" to essentially terrorize and coerce non-believers is being defused. - Olasky is either ignorant of or presented a straw man of evolution in his article - Olasky seems to suggest that Christianity is currently void of the contradictions, and theistic acceptance of evolution would represent some unprecedented event. - Olasky seems to think accepting evolution should be avoided as it would require interpreting part of the Bible as metaphor. However, this has already occurred many times in the past. Why stop now? - Olasky ignores the fact that Christians have been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting scientific discovery that contradicted the currently accepted Biblical views at the time. You wrote:
First, if God doesn’t exist, all things are indeed permissible because only survival in this world matters.
First, exactly what process did you use to determine that "only survival in this world matters" in God's absence? Please be specific. Second, even if we assume "only survival matters" (which I do not), would this not imply an action such as blowing up the entire planet would not be permissible? Would you suddenly exhibit a desire to start killing and stealing things if you thought there was no supernatural being to punish you after you died? Again, this seems like an disingenuous and exaggerated attempt to coerce non-believers.
Second, there is abundant evidence that Darwinism is not true, as an explanation of evolution in general.
How do you define "Evolution" and what do you mean by "not true?" And when you say "abundant", how does this evidence compare to the amount of evidence that collaborates TOE? For example, Galileo actually got the details of exactly how planets orbited the sun wrong. They are slightly elliptical, rather than perfect circles as he predicted. And, since the theory was relatively new, there wasn't that much more evidence that collaborated Galileo theory at the time. Of course, Einstein came along and showed us that even Newton's refined laws were actually wrong. But the fact that both Galileo and Newton's theories were actually technically "wrong" did not change the fact that it's the earth orbits the sun, rather than vice versa.veilsofmaya_{June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

I call this almost believing in divine action. The problem with it, is this:
one day his students will wake up and realize that all of the theologizing was superfluous window dressing, and it was the materialistic paradigm which was doing all of the heavy lifting. Hopefully when this happens they will say, "how can we fix this?" But I fear that [the theistic evolutionist's] own teaching of deference to science on all questions of natural history will cause them to instead simply cast off the theology as irrelevant to reality.
johnnyb_{June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Hi, Veils of Maya: We might get some grammatical facts right, for convenience of communication: "First, I find O’Leary revealing his true motivations by linking to this post quite refreshing." First, I am a "she", not a "he". I am a Toronto grandmother, a born and proud Canadian. The surprise that a person you are dealing with could be female can be accounted for by noting that we do not practice routine discrimination against women. So just for the record, I am subordinate only to proper authorities, not to just any guy who is mad at me. (I do not include you, as I understand you did not know this fact.) Okay, now to address the arguments: First, if God doesn't exist, all things are indeed permissible because only survival in this world matters. Second, there is abundant evidence that Darwinism is not true, as an explanation of evolution in general. We are all looking for solutions. But from the professional tax burden Darwin establishment we find nothing whatever but obfuscation and demands that we accept that Darwinism is compatible with the human race's traditional beliefs, which it obviously isn't. If all those beliefs are wrong, how did we survive so long? So why don't we start there and work forward ? Darwinism is dead, and we need a workable theory of evolution.O'Leary_{June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

First, I find O'Leary revealing his true motivations by linking to this post quite refreshing. Olasky writes:
To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0."
Isn't this already the case given that unbelievers are are, well, unbelievers? As such, it seems that Olasky is complaining that evolution takes away one of the 'nuclear' card theists commonly play, such as if God doesn't exist than all things are permissible, or human beings only have value if God designed them in final form, etc. These sorts of arguments are not only non-sequiturs but have sown seeds which, as Olasky is now realizing, have grown into significant liabilities - not only to future evangelism but even the the immediate foundation of many existing believers.
OK. It seems to me that since the Bible emphasizes God's purposefulness and macro-evolutionary theory emphasizes randomness, the two are contradictory. Theistic evolutionists stretch the laws of logic: How can Creation be a sovereignly guided sequence and at the same time a sequence of chance, with random mutations and survival of the fittest?
Here, Olasky reveals either a gross misunderstanding or presents a straw man of evolution. The resulting features that appear are NOT random. Nor are mutations the primary emphasis of the theory. This is non-controversial, yet we see it time and time again from many theists. Olasky also seems to suggest people adopt Christianity because it's a purely rational endeavor completely void of contradictions. The theory of Evolution would, for the first time in history, introduce a problem that is somehow irreconcilable and would prevent it's adoption. However, Olasky seems to have forgotten a number of significant historical problems that were explained away by centuries of theology. Examples? The problem of evil, the Euthyphro Dilemma, etc.
Unless we see this chapter as metaphor rather than history, the biblical account is incompatible with the idea that Adam and Eve each had two parents plus some beneficial mutations. Theistic evolutionists logically have to discount other parts of the Bible as well. It's not just that when we de-historicize parts it's hard to stop. (Were Noah, Abraham, and Moses also metaphors?) We also have to discredit Paul the apostle, who cited early Genesis as fact (see Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 11 and 15, and 1 Timothy 2).
Is Olasky really using "it's hard to stop" as an argument? Even if evolution is true, we should pretend it's not because it might lead us to determine other parts of the Bible are not accurate either? Furthermore, he seems to suggest contemporary views of the Bible have not changed in the last 2,000 years. Nor have theists have never been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting a scientific discovery that contradicted the currently accepted Biblical views at the time. Again, Olasky must ignore much of Christianity's past to paint such a picture. Examples? From "Religion and Science" by Bertrand Russell (1935)
"At first, the Protestants were almost more bitter against [Copernicus] than the Catholics. Luther said that "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove show that the earth revolves [...]. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Melanchthon was equally emphatic; so was Calvin, who, after quoting the text: "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (Ps. xciii, I), triumphantly concluded: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Even Wesley, so late as the eighteenth century, while not daring to be quite so emphatic, nevertheless stated that the new doctrines in astronomy "tend toward infidelity".”
So why should we think current day religious objections to Evolution are anything new?veilsofmaya_{June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Admittedly I am not vested in TE, but how might TE folks push back? Is it not possible that God caused Darwinian or punctuated evolution? (Never mind the Bible and other evidence for the moment.) Yes, my fear has long been that an unnecessary God tends to get marginalized by the devoutly secular and by tepid theists. But is God's marginalization from a TE perspective necessary? Those on a slippery slope may never reach bottom.ptr_{June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

I like how Dr. Dembski's equation of God and zero: The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf I don't know how that would be properly written out, but none-the-less I hold the equation to be true.bornagain77_{June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

---"And how does that work against the argument that God wrote the equation and that the ‘0? is superfluous?" I think "0" means "no help needed," whereas "God" means "help needed." So, when the TE speaks to atheists, he asserts 0 (no help needed), yet when he speaks to Christians, he asserts God (help needed). When confronted with the inconsistency, he asserts 0 = God, meaning that help is needed, except that it isn't. Welcome to the wacky world of modern theistic evolution.StephenB_{June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

And where did God ever say that he wanted his work to come out to zero? Where has any serious theist believed this? Does it not confute all theistic traditions? Authors sign their work. I know, because I have done it. Having worked in publishing, I have had to sign off on many works I did not write, but for which I must assume responsibility.O'Leary_{June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”
And how does that work against the argument that God wrote the equation and that the '0' is superfluous?AnaxagorasRules_{June 19, 2010
June
06
Jun
19
19
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply