theistic evolution

Wayne Rossiter: Misuse of statistics at BioLogos?

Spread the love

BioLogo = mostly Christian for Darwinism. From Wayne Rossiter, at Shadow of Oz:

She derives all of this is a most specious and disingenuous way. The poll contains data dating back to 1981. But, Haarsma cherry picks convenient dates spanning small periods of time in order to make her case (specifically confining the span of interest to just three years: 2014-present). If we simply look at the entire pattern from 1981 to the present we see a very different reality: In 1981, the number of people ascribing to the YEC view was 44%. Today it is 38%. In 1981, the number of people ascribing to the “theistic evolution” view was 38%. It’s exactly 38% today. No change over the last 36 years. In 1981, just 9% ascribed to the atheist view. Today, it is 19%. Take home message: Atheism has more than doubled, and theistic evolution hasn’t budged. Quite a different story than Haarsma offers.

Taking the long view, we see support for my thesis: The BioLogos crowd is not interested in converting evolutionists into Christians, but rather converting Christians into evolutionists. Haarsma is overjoyed that there are fewer YECists in the world, even as there are twice as many atheists (a pattern supported by another recent article). This also supports a statement made by Slate Magazine last year:

“BioLogos is a stopgap, the training wheels you put on your bike before realizing you can ride without them.”More.

Riding that bike could get you killed, actually.

See also: Wayne Rossiter: One jacket, two books, both wrong

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Wayne Rossiter: Misuse of statistics at BioLogos?

  1. 1
    JDH says:

    Two things:

    A. Although I am not a YEC, I am not convinced that it could not possibly be true. I just don’t happen to think that the Lord was communicating in Genesis that the earth is literally around 6000 years old, and neither do I think the language used forces this interpretation. I fully admit I could be wrong though, and am in no way offended by someone who believes in YEC.

    B. OTOH – I think He was saying at least seven things.

    1. The universe was not first. He was there (or really IS there) first and brought the universe into existence by His Word from nothing.

    2. He followed a process. The universe was not “plunked” into existence fully formed, but He followed a formula of steps that took finite amount of time (Hebrew yom). Each step appears to be necessary to allow the following steps to happen.

    3. He was involved deeply in every step. He did not create the world and leave the future to chance. Each “day” needed his special care, His working. Without Him working, the creation would not go forward.

    4. His Creation had a purpose. It pleased Him. He did not make a mistake. It was not unguided work. It was good.

    5. He created a whole lot of necessary infrastructure before He could get to creating even plant and animal life. The creation of life is impossible without God and would not have been possible without the guided set up of the necessary infrastructure.

    6. The creation of man was a unique work and the height of creation. It involved something different from all that had happened before. Man was made to share something of unique essence with the Creator.

    7. He stopped creating. He rested from the work of Creation.

    If it was the goal to communicate these things to an audience that would include man from the earliest days of religion even to the sophistication of the modern day, and that story had to be kept, maintained, and revered throughout the ages, I can’t think of a better vehicle than the simple verses of Genesis 1.
    The more I walk with the Lord, the clearer the truth of “In the beginning, GOD” and all that follows becomes.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Amusing that Rossiter accuses Haarsma of cherry-picking the data in “a most specious and disingenuous way”, and then he does the same thing: she compares the current survey to the two previous surveys (which together suggest a trend). Rossiter compares to the first survey, in 1981. Why pick this date, other than it was the first survey? That would only make sense if it was reasonable to assume a constant trend over the last 35 years. If there is any such trend over the time span, it is in the increase in the proportion of people who say that God had nothing to do with human evolution.

  3. 3
    Origenes says:

    Bob,

    Amusing that you accuse Rossiter of doing something which he conclusively does not do.

    Bob: If there is any such trend over the time span, it is in the increase in the proportion of people who say that God had nothing to do with human evolution.

    … which is completely in line with what Rossiter is saying:

    Rossiter: In 1981, just 9% ascribed to the atheist view. Today, it is 19%. Take home message: Atheism has more than doubled …

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    Origenes – you fail to address my argument, that there is no reason to assume a constant trend, over the survey period.

Leave a Reply