Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wayne Rossiter: How Christian evolutionists get grants


Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, offers some thoughts on Templeton’s bad investment, BioLogos (theistic evolution):

Of particular importance is the title of the blog: Why Christians Don’t Need to Be Threatened by Evolution.

“For too long Christians in North America have thought the Bible was in conflict with biological evolution. Yet many orthodox Christian theologians of the nineteenth century (including Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield) saw no conflict in principle.”

First, that depends on what you mean by evolution. All brands of Christianity incorporate some theory of diversification and speciation that we might call biological evolution. But, if by “evolution” we mean the Darwinian mechanism as scientists understand it, with it being the only real force in the process, then yes, there seems to be conflict. Second, we all could really care less if a few scholars of the nineteenth century saw no conflict. The fact is, many did. This would include those close to Darwin himself (Lyell, Wallace… even Asa Gray had some concerns). This is just a blatant appeal to authority.

Yes. Typical church closer.

Now on to the meat and potatoes of Middleton’s blog.

“The infamous ‘war’ of science and religion (of which the creation-evolution battle is the most prominent example) is a relatively recent invention, manufactured from the atheist side by John William Draper (History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, 1874) and by Andrew Dickson White (A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896) and on the Christian side by conservatives who misread the Genesis creation accounts as scientific.”

Note from O’Leary for News: I don’t get it. If the theistic Darwinists want to be naturalist atheists, why don’t they just admit it?

Darwin was the first important fully naturalist atheist and he spawned many movements, including eugenics.

But part of this is probably about sanitizing history. You know Darwin a liberator like Lincoln. Some of it also may be about all that dying church money waiting to be sopped up.

See also: Darwinian racism: The story you never learned in school

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Christian revolution is taken for the approval of the target for the team. The link of the https://www.brillassignment.co.uk/dissertation/ for all issues. The perpetual term is done for the enhanced items for the future patterns. RonLuera
“Why Christians Don't Need to Be Threatened by Evolution.” http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/why-christians-dont-need-to-be-threatened-by-evolution Let’s see: The Word of the God of Sinai does not need to be threatened by evolutionism. Christ (the Word) does not need to be threatened by evolution. Wait a minute, the Almighty Father/God of Sinai (One God) was Crucified by certain people who oddly enough, at the time believed God created in six days. Today, evolutionism intellectually crucifies the Genesis Sabbath Commandment. If evolutionism can kill one divine law, it can intellectually destroy the lot. A question for any Christian evolutionist, do you accept evolution because God’s Word teaches it, or do you accept evolution because you are concerned with what the world will think about you if you don’t? “For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6) Nevertheless, He is not good enough to counsel evolutionists and BioLogos. mw
In theistic evolutionary terms, God made His Adam son out of son of monkey. Therefore, Christ is related to a monkey on His mother's side. Further, Adam could legally kill and eat his monkey-type parents, as they were not human. Such Christianity has largely descended into barking mad theology. Polite notice, Darwin actually described himself as "agnostic." He also described the Judaeo-Christian God as "erroneous," p 6, Origin. Roll on judgement day. mw
The more money given to folks to prove evolution the more will evolution be shown not to have been proven! if evolutionism is not true then the more attention, smarter/more people, pay to its claims WOULD lead it to be defeated in out time. Truth has the advantage in scholarly research. So let them pile on these grants all they want I say. Robert Byers
The church has a long history of not restricting itself to only the most "literal" reading of the text. Mung
Ah huh. Misread Genesis, huh? He means, understand it just the way it reads, without inventing bizarrely metaphoric fantasies that just happen to allow it to reconcile with what he believes? Or he means, misread it the way every great pioneer of science read and understood it, as providing an historical account of real people doing real things? And what? He wants Christians to believe in a God who lies (death came by sin, and sin by man), in a God who is incapable of saying what he means, in a God who is helpless in the face of material he ... well, who knows? Inherited? Stumbled over? Was himself created by? (Oh, hang on, now he sounds like some IDers, too!) Er, no. I don't think conservative Christians misread Genesis. I don't think conservatism has anything to do with it, in fact; that's just part of his ad hominem insinuations about those who disagree with him. I think Christians of many sorts who simply read it get the message it actually conveys. There are two key concepts: Exegesis, which is reading out of the text (only) what is in it. Eisegesis, which is reading into the text what you got from somewhere else. It's quite plain which one is being resorted to here. ScuzzaMan

Leave a Reply