Archives for “intelligent design”
Can one be consistent in accepting both the common form of inerrancy as described in the Chicago Statement and universal common descent?
This question is something I struggle with when I observe people try to sell other believers on evolutionary theory without openly acknowledging the ways in which their own rejection of the idea of a single pair of progenitors has resulted in an often subtle yet usually profound modification of how they understand the Bible to work. I, too, have been tempted on numerous occasions to begin the presentation of my case by positing a (purely hypothetical) scenario in which accepting that early Genesis was unhistorical does not result in a revised or nuanced bibliology; if not outright dishonest, I feel that this approach is nonetheless misleading, perhaps even disingenuous, and a setup for problems later.
- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
- Human interpretations of Scripture and nature This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks, author of God’s Word in...
- Why the debate over creationism matters Recently I have been involved in a couple conversations with folks who aren’t really “informed” (I use the term loosely) creationists but have been hounded enough by creationists/biblical literalists who...
All right, here’s a rant for you.
There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!) criticizing mainstream science in favor of creationism. The usual suspects have emerged to show their disgust of the benighted institution of homeschooling. There’s a poll up at MSNBC asking the question, “Is it OK for home-school textbooks to dismiss the theory of evolution?” Wait, what does “OK” mean here? Are they asking, “Do you think it’s good that home-school textbooks do this?” or “Is it healthy for society that they do this?” The ambiguity in the question itself implies that what they really want to know is, “Should the authorities allow parents to teach their kids this stuff?” The mantra among most secularists that I’ve heard on this issue is that homeschooling should be, preferably, illegal or, at very least, strictly regulated for content by the state. Thus, the following rant.
Related posts:- Homeschooling and agendas There is no bigger proponent of home education than yours truly. I myself was homeschooled from the fifth grade through graduation. Although a somewhat shy, awkward kid, I somehow turned...
- Why the debate over creationism matters Recently I have been involved in a couple conversations with folks who aren’t really “informed” (I use the term loosely) creationists but have been hounded enough by creationists/biblical literalists who...
- Quote of the day (12-6-2008) At the risk of inbreeding, I am compelled to submit this quote from a blogger who has twice linked to my post on why the debate over creationism matters. It...
Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/v/iE5JIzJ0yUs
http://www.youtube.com/v/pqVJsmYJvDQ
And while I’m linking around, check out Tom Jefferson’s Mike Beidler’s witty and semi-satirical Evolutionary Creationist’s Declaration of Independence.
- Why I am convinced of common descent (and why I think you should be, too) These well-made videos from the Cassiopeia Project are excellent and accessible primers about evolutionary theory. I appreciate that, despite their emphasis on why the evidence is clearly and uniformly in...
- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
- Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these special creationists have had quite...
The most dangerous shyster is the one who has convinced himself to believe his own pitch.
Over at The Creation of an Evolutionist, Mike is continuing to blog through his weekly viewing of The Truth Project. He just completed Lesson Five. More so than the previous lessons, Lesson 5 focused on a critique of mainstream science, and evolution in particular. Bear in mind that Mike is about as fair-minded as they come, but he is shocked by Del Tackett’s blatant misrepresentations of clear facts and doesn’t hold anything back in his detailed analysis. Make sure you check it out, especially if you’ve seen TTP and didn’t notice anything wrong!
(Thinking about what Mike has told us about Lesson 5 has really gotten my dander up. You’ve been warned.)
Related posts:- Thinking “Outside the Box” about the Bible My friend Cliff Martin has written one of the best, most concise descriptions of the nature and purpose of the Bible that I have ever had the privilege of reading....
- The return of the evolutionist — for real this time! My friend Mike Beidler‘s not busy enough being a military diplomat in the Middle East right now. You know, things going so swimmingly, he doesn’t have anything at all to...
- When Christianity undervalues truth Using an analogy especially interesting to me as an historical linguist, Sabio Lantz at Triangulations reminds us of the power of understanding that the Christian faith isn’t quite as unique...
The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time, 99 votes were cast. Today as I close it out, I add my own as the last vote.
I voted Critical. No surprise there.
What I do find surprising is that one of two choices that received almost no attention early on, Worse than unimportant, finished just a few votes behind one of the early contenders, Important, but not critical. Sure, it received a clear minority of votes, but given my blog’s audience, most of whom are at least vaguely aware of the debate’s importance, this is disturbing to me.
These people are asking why I should be wasting my time distracting Christians from what they really should be doing; none of them came on to the blog as requested to explain what exactly they thought I should be focusing on. Was it just a matter of, “Please, I’m uncomfortable with this topic — can we move on to something else already?” Perhaps, but I’m guessing that the evangelicals who would vote “Worse than unimportant” would genuinely feel that the debate is a distraction from what they consider to be one of the most important things on the evangelical’s to-do list: evangelism.
Related posts:- Would he be having a happy birthday? Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait until there were 100 results...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
- You can’t just ignore the evolution debate I generally like World magazine. Oh, there’s plenty I disagree with in every issue, but one thing editor Marvin Olasky and his team just seem to get that so many...
Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait until there were 100 results to make a wrap-up post, but I’ve decided that in honor of Charles Darwins’s 201st birthday, I’d go ahead and comment on the 97 votes already in.
Christians, how important is the faith/science debate? Add comments here.
- Critical: Christians have got to pull their heads out of the sand, for the good of the Kingdom! (41%, 41 Votes)
- Pressing: This issue has too much visibility among those engaged in the general believer/unbeliever discussion. We need to deal with this head-on. (35%, 35 Votes)
- Important, but not pressing: I'm sure it's important for some people to address, for certain groups. But just give me the Readers' Digest version. (14%, 14 Votes)
- Unimportant: Totally a non-issue. Next! (2%, 2 Votes)
- Worse than unimportant: What a waste of time! An utter distraction from what really matters. (8%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 100
Loading ...It should be noted that I actually stopped looking at this poll’s results after around 50-60 votes. Until then, there had been a lead of five or ten votes (varying) in favor of “Pressing”, with “Critical” in second place. So now today when I looked at it, I was surprised to see that “Critical” had finally overtaken “Pressing”. The popularity of both answers could be read as a testament to the impact of Charles Darwin, but I find myself wondering, would he be pleased by this result?
Related posts:- Evolution and evangel(ical)ism The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time, 99 votes were cast. Today...
- Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists? As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d like to get my readers’...
- Darwinism Must Die Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of...
This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks, author of God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship
Related posts:When the cosmos is understood in this way—as divine speech to humanity—then it is no longer possible to characterize Christian debates about science as a conflict that pits “God’s inerrant word in Scripture” against “errant human science.” Rather, any conflict between Scripture and science should be understood as a conflict between “human interpretations of God’s word in Scripture” and “human interpretations of God’s word in nature.”
When we understand the situation in this way, then in any apparent conflict between Scripture and science it is just as likely that we’ve misunderstood the biblical evidence as that we’ve misunderstood the science … in fact, one could make the theological argument that we’re more likely to misunderstand the Bible, as an instance of special revelation, than to misunderstand the general revelation available to everyone in creation.
- The nature of inspiration and the purpose of Scripture This is the third of a series of posts on inspiration, inerrancy, and hermeneutics. We can summarize the previous discussion by saying that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 teaches that these writings...
- Finding God’s hand in Scripture All Christians generally agree that the Bible was written down by humans, and most agree that in some way their writings are reflective of their individuality; the question comes in...
- The place of fear in our bibliology The other night, a friend and I reiterated our independent observations that, despite all nuances, what ultimately stands behind most of American Christianity’s implacable dedication to inerrancy is fear. Dr. Jim...
I was intrigued by this short video showing Dr. Ard Louis (Oxford University) articulate a simple but profound critique of this fundamental aspect of the reasoning behind intelligent design.
Read Darrel Falk’s helpful summary and commentary here.
This same sort of argument can be applied to the various attractive (but always suspicious) “fine tuning arguments“.
As I said, I was struck by Dr. Louis’s evident intelligence and so went googling to find more about him. In so doing, I discovered that just a few nights ago (January 24, 2010) he gave a lecture at Stanford entitled “Can Science Explain Everything?” in which he argues that even when we accept the answers we find in the laboratory, our search for answers doesn’t necessarily come to a dead end there.
Related posts:- Faith and science: on “two ways of knowing” I’ve been watching the back-and-forth between Jerry Coyne and Karl Giberson. Apparently there has been a video produced for USA Today that features them in a conversation answering the question,...
- Limitations of science Dr. Keith Miller’s recent essay on the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution site entitled “Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science” included the following statement: In fact, as I have argued,...
- Florida science standards dethrone God! Details at 11 Talk about a love/hate relationship… I highly commend Gary Demar of American Vision for a number of reasons. Chiefly, he is on the front lines in arguing against the immobilizing...
My friend Mike Beidler‘s not busy enough being a military diplomat in the Middle East right now. You know, things going so swimmingly, he doesn’t have anything at all to do. Since he’s been over there, he’s joined a group that is watching Focus on the Family’s film series The Truth Project that seeks to reinforce the predominant American evangelical worldview — you know, the Truth.
An important component of this project, of course, includes a critique of evolution, which, also of course, has bugged Mike a bit. I saw him writing up his thoughts in brief form on Facebook and decided to twist his prompt him to channel these interesting thoughts toward his recently inactive blog.
Your assignment? Go read it, and give him enough responses so that he feels pressured to continue.
Related posts:- The Truth Project and critical thinking The most dangerous shyster is the one who has convinced himself to believe his own pitch. Over at The Creation of an Evolutionist, Mike is continuing to blog through his...
- The place of God’s providence in my theology I have been musing lately about how my stance on the creation/evolution controversy would impact other areas of theology if applied consistently. The stance I’m referring to is my conviction...
- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
The Intelligent Design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was never released in the theaters in the UK, so now in the wake of the DVD’s release there this month, the UK radio show Unbelievable has recently partnered with someone named Mark Haville to host the first screening of the movie to a UK audience. In anticipation of this event, Unbelievable has done a couple of shows related to the topic.
This last weekend’s show was an interesting knock-down-drag-out between Meyers and atheist Peter Atkins of chemistry textbook fame. I thought I’d direct my readers to it, if for no other reason than to enjoy the fireworks that result. I thought the discussion of Meyers’s trademark information theory arguments for ID almost went somewhere really helpful, but since Meyers has the tendency to filibuster and Atkins has a short fuse, and because both have no qualms about talking over one another, the topic ended up stillborn. In any event, it is evident that they are in effect speaking two entirely different languages.
Related posts:- No arguments from ignorance allowed R.C. Sproul recently had a discussion with Ben Stein, host of a documentary called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. This documentary takes a look at the way some colleges appear to...
- My crackpot detector’s about to explode .!. Three unmistakeable signs of someone no one has any business taking even half-seriously: 1) They imply or state outright that the beginning of the universe, the earth, or...
- Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these special creationists have had quite...
I generally like World magazine. Oh, there’s plenty I disagree with in every issue, but one thing editor Marvin Olasky and his team just seem to get that so many other Christian publications don’t is that the core expression of our faith is in ministry to humanity. I’ll regularly be punching the air at their blind adherence to evangelical mainstays like neoconservative politics at one moment, and at the next, blinking back tears as they highlight Christian individuals and organizations making the kind of difference in the world that I regularly campaign for but all too rarely see in action.
For the last twelve years, they’ve recognized individuals who they find to have used their big stage influence to courageously stand up against a predominant but ungodly culture/power/ethical system. These individuals are deemed “Daniel of the Year”. This year it’s none other than Intelligent Design advocate Stephen Meyer.
Related posts:- Evolution and evangel(ical)ism The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time, 99 votes were cast. Today...
- Why the debate over creationism matters Recently I have been involved in a couple conversations with folks who aren’t really “informed” (I use the term loosely) creationists but have been hounded enough by creationists/biblical literalists who...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
These well-made videos from the Cassiopeia Project are excellent and accessible primers about evolutionary theory. I appreciate that, despite their emphasis on why the evidence is clearly and uniformly in favor of evolutionary theory, they’re not polemical about specific claims or objections from evolution critics. There’s no slapping anyone around; the overwhelming evidence for common descent is just presented on its own terms.
There will no doubt be lingering questions about specific creationist claims and objections. But on the whole, I can’t imagine that evolution skeptics will be able to watch all of these and still automatically impute the worst motives for why Christians like me, who might have been otherwise content to hang onto the typical Protestant interpretation of Genesis, have become convinced of common descent. The scientific data is so compelling.
Related posts:- Detecting design and declaring independence Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design. http://www.youtube.com/v/iE5JIzJ0yUs http://www.youtube.com/v/pqVJsmYJvDQ And while I’m linking around,...
- Another one bites the dust Do you believe that the theory of evolution has never been observed? That it is purely theoretical and has never been, can never be, demonstrated in the laboratory? Well, it...
- Missing link found? From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey...
One of today’s posts on Science and the Sacred is called An Artist or An Engineer? The author argues that we shouldn’t expect the precision of an engineer in creation any more than we expect it in an artist. The article brings this out by raising the issue of what has elsewhere been called “unintelligent design”:
The problem of imperfect design in nature raises serious concerns for the idea of God as the divine engineer, the metaphor put forward by those associated with the Intelligent Design movement. After all, if God designed each detail in the blueprint of life, why would he create mammalian eyes which have a blind spot?
One of my friends who is critical of evolution responded to this article with a one line explanation for design imperfections: “A little thing called the Fall.” She was referring to the belief that the Fall of Man marred the entire physical creation.
Related posts:- Intelligent Design and the unseen Some Christians who accept the mainstream science view of the origin of the species (evolution), in a fair-minded and an admirably conciliatory way, throw a bone to the Intelligent Design...
- Focus on the Family responds Focus on the Family has responded to an anonymous blogging friend we call Thomas who wrote a letter in protest of their misrepresentations about evolution in the October 2009 issue...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
As a follow up to a post of mine from June 2008, I thought I’d take this opportunity to point out the excellent blog from the BioLogos Foundation called ”Science and the Sacred“, which today featured an article on the same study I mentioned in my post from over a year ago. The fact that stuff is still slowly trickling out on this study highlights the commitment of true science to exhaustively vetting even potentially good news, instead of throwing stuff out there just to get it published and making their view look better.
Related posts:Twenty-one years and 40,000 generations later, an experiment looking at the evolution of a population of single-celled E. coli bacteria has finally reached its conclusion. The results “beautifully emphasize the succession of mutational events that allowed these organisms to climb toward higher and higher efficiency in their environment,” says Dominique Schneider, a molecular geneticist and member of the research team…
- How quickly genomes change Evolution caught in the act: US-German team measures how quickly genomes change Mutations are the raw material of evolution. Charles Darwin already recognized that evolution depends on heritable differences between individuals:...
- Another one bites the dust Do you believe that the theory of evolution has never been observed? That it is purely theoretical and has never been, can never be, demonstrated in the laboratory? Well, it...
- ID movie exploits overblown Cambrian controversy Have you heard about this yet? Intelligent Design Documentary to Premiere at Smithsonian Affiliated California Science Center Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life:...
Have you heard about this yet?
Intelligent Design Documentary to Premiere at Smithsonian Affiliated California Science Center
Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: the sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps predicted by Darwin. Frequently described as “the Cambrian Explosion,” the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information.
Forget for a moment that there have been several cogent explanations for the apparent burst of speciation in the Cambrian period (that this film will undoubtedly misrepresent or ignore). Forget that even if the Cambrian issue were a more difficult problem than it actually is, it would not alone suggest that “Darwinism” as a whole was a “theory in crisis”. Disregard the fact that no single underdeveloped area in the theory of evolution could seriously eclipse its sufficiency to explain practically every other bit of scientific data thrown at it. Pretend that it’s realistic to expect that a theory as grand and sweeping in scope as evolutionary theory would have an answer at the snap of the fingers for every imaginable question.
Related posts:- Intelligent deception One of today’s posts on Science and the Sacred is called An Artist or An Engineer? The author argues that we shouldn’t expect the precision of an engineer in creation...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
- Chance and diminishing domains During the course of his interview with Ben Stein that I mentioned in an earlier post, R. C. Sproul recounted the story of his conversation with a college professor. At...
I’m going to review an atrocious article I just read, and I think you’ll agree that deconstructing it will be like child’s play. And not just because it appeared in my daughter’s latest issue of Clubhouse Jr.
Featured in Focus on the Family’s magazine aimed at children aged 4 to 8, “From Goo to You?” is a two-page article authored by Barbara Owens. And boy, do those two pages pack a wallop: they’re positively jam-packed with inaccurate information, ranging from ostensibly genuine misunderstandings to obvious, indefensible misrepresentations. In the process, Owens (on behalf of Focus on the Family) throws key fellow evolution critics under the bus even while borrowing their terminology — but more on that later.
From the outset let me assure you that my comments about “creationists” and the boneheadedness (at best — dishonesty at worst) of the people behind this article are not meant to be applied to parents and kids who believe in creationism. As a former creationist, born of creationist parents, I understand how hard it is to reject the deafening roar of the evangelical Christian community, which has been lockstep in sync on the subject of how ridiculous and wicked evolution is. I read that there are 88,000 subscribers to this magazine, and if you consider multiple children in the household, you begin to see how wide a reach this article will get. I can’t help but be of the old fashioned opinion that people should know better before they set about trying to propagandize the whole evangelical population of children.
Related posts:- Why Christian scientists are evolutionists, revisited When I posted the poll, “Why do Christian scientists often profess belief in human evolution?”, originally under this post and since then in my sidebar, I resolved that I would...
- Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!) criticizing mainstream science in favor...
- Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists? As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d like to get my readers’...
An article from Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk of the BioLogos Foundation appeared in U.S. Today on Sunday (August 9, 2009). Admittedly, its title (“We believe in evolution – and God”) and first line (“The ‘conflict’ between science and religion in America today is not only unfortunate, but unnecessary”) had me rolling my eyes: can you say, “well-trod territory”? But that’s only because I’ve been involved with this debate so long that I’ve become calloused to the fact that this is an effective opening salvo for Christian scientists to make to those not currently embroiled in it, both the anti-science believer and the unbeliever who thinks rejecting science is part and parcel of Christianity. The territory covered throughout the rest of this opinion article by the co-presidents of BioLogos, while not untrod, is certainly not as well-trod, and fully capable of inviting the potentially interested to the site of the BioLogos Foundation, a fledgling project that in addition to being useful for beginners has shown a clear commitment to growth and high visibility (this article being an example of the latter).
Related posts:- Where do we go once leaving Paul’s Adam? (BioLogos) I have really enjoyed Pete Enns‘s contribution to BioLogos of late. His latest frames the Adam/Eve question in an interesting and honest way. Here’s an excerpt related to my last post:...
- Human interpretations of Scripture and nature This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks, author of God’s Word in...
- Beneficial mutations observed As a follow up to a post of mine from June 2008, I thought I’d take this opportunity to point out the excellent blog from the BioLogos Foundation called ”Science and the Sacred“,...
Science is just a buddy system of evolutionists who routinely turn a blind eye to methodological rigor in order to make sure evolution looks credible. Peer review’s a sham, meant to give the predetermined results a little added credibility. Right?
Remember the story a couple years ago about how a couple scientists claimed they were able to extract some protein residue from the femur of a 68 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex? The article published in Science made the phenomenal-if-true claim that the peptides in the T. rex were startlingly similar to those of a modern chicken, which would appear to demonstrate the accuracy of long-held postulations about the evolutionary relationship between saurischian dinosaurs and birds.
But as Carl Sagan noted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wired Magazine chronicles the story of how the 2007 claim that astounded the scientific community with its audacity was put through the ringer and consequently rejected by scads of the most qualified experts, and how the scientists behind the original claim were forced to go back, retest, and republish. The results of the team’s latest study are quite interesting.
Related posts:- Missing link found? From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey...
- Beneficial mutations observed As a follow up to a post of mine from June 2008, I thought I’d take this opportunity to point out the excellent blog from the BioLogos Foundation called ”Science and the Sacred“,...
- The BioLogos campaign at work An article from Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk of the BioLogos Foundation appeared in U.S. Today on Sunday (August 9, 2009). Admittedly, its title (“We believe in evolution – and...
Cliff Martin’s thought-provoking and thought-soliciting post, Two Categories of Beliefs/Opinions, asks the question,
Which type of belief/opinion is the more easily dislodged? that is, from which type of opinion is a person more easily persuaded to accept an alternate view? Support your answer.
A) Chosen beliefs/opinions
B) Evidence-based beliefs/opinions
Cliff was asking this specifically in reference to the refusal of many Christians to accept evolution as a valid explanation of the scientific evidence. As may be obvious from earlier posts of my own (such as “Why creationists are creationists“), I agreed with Cliff’s conclusion that type B (evidence-based) beliefs are easier to dislodge than those adopted for other reasons, and supported my answer in the comments of his post. But it is cloudier than this simple question makes it appear: it’s not that creationists have nothing but opinions and evolutionists have all the evidence. Rather, the creationists’ most trusted evidence is derivative from their less evidentiary opinions on how the Bible’s account of creation must be read. I believe they have chosen a tenet based upon non-scientific (which isn’t necessarily to say invalid) evidence that evolution contradicts central aspects of their theology, which for type A reasons they refuse to allow to be modified for type B reasons.
Related posts:- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
- You can’t just ignore the evolution debate I generally like World magazine. Oh, there’s plenty I disagree with in every issue, but one thing editor Marvin Olasky and his team just seem to get that so many...
- Evolution and evangel(ical)ism The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time, 99 votes were cast. Today...
Okay, okay. Don’t read this if it annoys you when I call out Gary DeMar on his incessant Campaign for Idiocy. I questioned whether I should even bother writing this, but then I decided that as long as he keeps making these ridiculous arguments and has an audience willing to snatch up whatever scraps he gives them, I will not feel it amiss to call him on it.
His May 1st podcast was entitled, “Swine Flu is an Effective Evolutionary Extermination Plan”. Yeah, you can see where he’s going here.
He begins by sarcastically wondering aloud why his archenemies, those he has identified as leaders of “modern day humanistic thought” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.), have not been out there publicly cheering on the swine flu, hoping that it kills as many of “the weak” as possible. In an attempt to “answer his fool by his own folly” (Proverbs 26:5 – has he happened to read Proverbs 26:4?), he goes on his own sarcastic rant in favor of a world-wide swine flu epidemic:
Related posts:- Florida science standards dethrone God! Details at 11 Talk about a love/hate relationship… I highly commend Gary Demar of American Vision for a number of reasons. Chiefly, he is on the front lines in arguing against the immobilizing...
- DeMar Tickles Creationists’ Ears In a recent article on his website, Gary DeMar tries to pick a fight with a strawman to encourage his anti-evolutionist choir. This has bothered me so much that I...
- Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these special creationists have had quite...
Some Christians who accept the mainstream science view of the origin of the species (evolution), in a fair-minded and an admirably conciliatory way, throw a bone to the Intelligent Design movement’s pursuits by allowing that some good may come of having the consensus view challenged, acting as a good exercise routine for the theory of evolution. “After all, we wouldn’t know how the bacterial flagellum evolved if scientists hadn’t studied it for the purpose of debunking the claim of irreducible complexity attached to that particular trait.” Now, as I intimated above, I appreciate this even-handed and humble approach of people we disagree with. But something has always bothered me about this and now recently, in my own private study of economics, of all things, I put my finger on it. Bear with me: what I’m about to say is not at all an arcane or esoteric dissertation on economics. It’s all rather rudimentary reasoning, actually.
Related posts:- Intelligent deception One of today’s posts on Science and the Sacred is called An Artist or An Engineer? The author argues that we shouldn’t expect the precision of an engineer in creation...
- Detecting design and declaring independence Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design. http://www.youtube.com/v/iE5JIzJ0yUs http://www.youtube.com/v/pqVJsmYJvDQ And while I’m linking around,...
- ID movie exploits overblown Cambrian controversy Have you heard about this yet? Intelligent Design Documentary to Premiere at Smithsonian Affiliated California Science Center Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life:...
Related posts:Studies at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm have yielded startling evidence of the connection between ancient meat-eating dinosaurs and modern-day birds, according to a study released this week.
A team of paleontologists, studying a unique set of 198 million year old fossilized handprints and footprints at the site, contend the prints provide the most compelling evidence yet that some dinosaurs had bird-like arms and hands, with inward-facing palms capable of pivoting up and down. The motion, impossible for humans, is the same motion modern-day birds use to fold their wings.
The prints, first discovered in 2004, were left when a two-legged, meat-eating dinosaur — called theropods — sat down along thee shores of what at the time was a large lake, now called “Lake Dixie.” It extended its arms into the sediment, leaving the prints. The imprints turned to stone over the years, preserving the unique marks.
- Why I am convinced of common descent (and why I think you should be, too) These well-made videos from the Cassiopeia Project are excellent and accessible primers about evolutionary theory. I appreciate that, despite their emphasis on why the evidence is clearly and uniformly in...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
- Missing link found? From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey...
Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.
Related posts:By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.” The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” The point is that making a master teacher into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching. So let us now kill Darwin.
- Would he be having a happy birthday? Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait until there were 100 results...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
- What peer review looks like Science is just a buddy system of evolutionists who routinely turn a blind eye to methodological rigor in order to make sure evolution looks credible. Peer review’s a sham, meant...
Early last year I had the pleasure of reading a book entitled Beyond the Firmament. The author’s site is on my blogroll, so you may have noticed it. Here’s my review on Amazon:
Related posts:
The whole conflict between faith and science has been trumped up. Does this surprise you? This book will convince you.
This book is divided up into four sections. “What do we know and how do we know it?” is a preliminary, basic overview of what is called “epistemology” in fancy terms, making distinctions between natural and special revelation that carry the next two sections. “What can the Bible tell us about nature?” is a look at the special revelation in the Bible and discusses the boundaries of what it can tell us and why we can’t just assume over-literalized interpretations when interpreting it. In the next section, “What can nature tell us about itself?”, Glover describes what science can tell us about the beginning of the universe and the origin our our solar sytem, and then describes why radiometric dating methodology is reliable. The last section, “What about evolution?” is a summary of evolutionary theory.
- Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these special creationists have had quite...
- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins debate. He states, I have...
Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation, conducted by CanadianChristianity.com. Check it out!
On a side note (and I do think that this is just a side note), Lamoureux has spearheaded an effort to change the term theistic evolution (TE) to evolutionary creation (EC). At the same time, he ardently rejects scientific concordism, which assumes agreement between the science reflected in the Bible and the reality as God knows it; the scientific conceptions of the authors of Scripture that bleed through the pages (e.g., the firmament, the fixed earth, the heart as the organ of thought) were never the intended message and so were not under providential review. He maintains that the science and even some of what is nowadays considered (in violation of cultural/literary context) to be historical accounts were merely culturally relevant vehicles for the “Message of Faith”, the spiritual truth that is the subject of the Bible and the manifestation of inspiration (this is theological concordism). I am on board with this. However, in my oh-so-justifiably-humble opinion, trying to change the name of our belief in both evolution and Christianity is helping folks strain at a gnat while insisting that they swallow the camel of what amounts to the rejection of inerrancy that I just described.
Related posts:- The trouble with intramural accommodationism Can one be consistent in accepting both the common form of inerrancy as described in the Chicago Statement and universal common descent? This question is something I struggle with when...
- My position on the origins question Josh recently commented on another thread, “I want to hear your explanation of the origin of life on earth. I have heard the positions you are against. So how did...
- Dembski on theodicy and a young earth William Dembski, a father of the Intelligent Design movement, has recently become comfortable calling himself an old earth creationist who, as a good Baptist, accepts the historicity of Adam and...