I have really enjoyed Biologos as a resource. I read Collins’ book a few years ago. Recently, I have soaked up books by Falk, Alexander, and Coyne. So interesting! It’s like I am learning about a completely different planet from the one I learned about when I was growing up (thanks very much 1980s and 1990s young earth creationism).
I’ve got a little bit of a recent confusion on the Biologos position vs. the Intelligent Design camp, specifically Stephen Meyer’s brand of it (Darwin’s Doubt). I thought I had it figured out. Biologos accepts a harmony between virtually all of science and a Creator God. Intelligent Design rejects scientific consensus on issues like evolution, but often has a sensible view on things like age of the earth. ID tries to exploit “gaps” in scientific explanation to indicate that a Creator must have intervened in some direct way. (They would probably disagree with that framing, but it’s what makes sense in my head.)
I did read Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer recently, and I heard him summarize some of his position in a recent video. In the video, he says there are three types of evolution:
1. Change over time. Animal forms have changed over time. Galapagos
finch beaks, etc.
2. Common ancestry.
3. Unguided, undirected process. Natural selection operating on random mutations giving the
appearance of design
He says that intelligent design does not challenge the first two, but challenges the third (I am aware that most of the folks in the ID camp probably do not buy the second point either). This has me a little bit confused. I know there are incompatibilities with the ID movement and Biologos. How exactly are these incompatibilities framed?
If both camps do not challenge common ancestry, then what is left to disagree on? The mechanism of evolution? ID challenges explicitly that the mechanism behind life’s diversity is unguided random mutations and natural selection. But doesn’t evolutionary creation also hold that there is a creator behind it all? Does evolutionary creation also challenge the third point above, just as ID does? So it seems in some sense there is agreement on the “unguided, undirected” part?
Or does the disagreement just boil down to how science can be used? ID proponents think they can use scientific evidence to gaps that point to a creator (framed differently), but evolutionary creation proponents believe that science points to gaps that can be explained by further science?
In an area where I previously thought I was clear (ID vs evolutionary creation), I now find myself a bit fuzzy. Any thoughts?
(I have read Biologos response to Meyer’s book but still find myself fuzzy.)