I located a bounty of Behe’s quotes up to 2007. But then after that, I have found it very difficult to isolate any more timely evidence …with the great proliferation of Google hits on Behe once BioLogos was established.
I have no intention to try to further validate Behe’s credibility. But once you or he manages to find some time to do so on his behalf, I would enjoy drawing additional attention to his credibility.
At the moment, I find the de-facto romance between Behe and the YEC camp, and his fixation on something he calls De-Evolution, as indicators that his beliefs are not quite what you think they are.
As far as I’m concerned, he is not the Old Earth/Common Descent champion that you think he is. But I’m willing to be proved wrong on that score.
First, I should say that I am not seeking to present a definitive answer to this debate, but just to clarify a few things that I think are leading it in unproductive directions. Going all the way back to post #1;
I am a conservative evangelical, as well as @Swamidass, and many others here. About 1/3 of American evangelicals accept evolution. So, what we are talking about is the 2/3 who do not accept it. Why? Eddie’s thesis is that the reason is because TE/EC leaders have not put forward reasonably “God-centered” explanations of how God was involved in evolution.
With all due respect to Eddie, I reject the premise. Instead of just taking a stab at what we think is happening, I suggest that we look at some evidence. The first thing to consider is what makes evangelicals distinctive from mainline Protestants or Catholics, and this is the evangelical commitment to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. For example, the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition emphasizes the “three-legged stool” approach to authority – Scripture, tradition, and reason. Catholicism is similar. Evangelicals, however, proudly fly the Reformation flag of sola Scriptura, and thus the interpretation of Scripture is the core issue, which is what I think @JustAnotherLutheran was getting at:
Digging into the numbers, Southern Baptists are, by far, the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S. (Pew Forum survey.) More than 1/3 of U.S. evangelicals are Baptists, and their views can safely be taken to reflect the conservative wing of U.S. evangelicalism. Among Baptists, 58% say the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally, and 57% believe that “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Of course, some will point out that “correlation is not causation,” but in this case, the causal relationship between belief in the literal truth of Genesis and the rejection of evolution is self-evident. TE/EC leaders can make all the finely detailed theological pronouncements that they wish, but they will not change the opinion of one who holds that the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. That sort of change has to come from a different direction, and it is much harder to make progress since opponents of change will picture it as a “battle for the Bible” and a direct attack on the authority of Scripture. To accept the evolutionary explanation for man’s origins entails the acceptance of a non-literal reading of at least Gen. 1-3, which many people will not do as a matter of principle. That is the majority position among Baptists, and it also dominates their seminaries, as one SBC theologian commented, “I am not aware of any SBC seminary faculty who advocates theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism (EC).” - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/southern-baptist-voices-expressing-our-concerns-part-1#sthash.YbrdLljc.dpuf.
The way forward, it seems to me, is not by presenting more theologically satisfying descriptions of God’s activity in evolution (although these are sorely needed), but by giving the average evangelical Christian a more satisfying biblical hermeneutic than “God said it; I believe it; that settles it!” Obviously, not an easy task.
Eddie and George and Jonathan as bedfellows? Please tell me it ain’t so! I hate to be the constant dissenter, but I reject this dichotomy. I see no reason why these must be the only two choices – full front-loading or occasional supernatural intervention – especially considering how little we really know of divine power, i.e. its use and limits (if any). (More below)
Hmmm. There may be some (Dr. Hunter comes to mind) who reject evolution because of the problem of randomness, but I suspect they are very few, and the core issue, if one could query them at length, would still come down to their rejection of evolution based on their interpretation of Scripture. Since evolution “must” be false, based on their understanding of Genesis, they will grasp at any scientific, intellectual, or philosophical straw to demonstrate that it is false, the problem of randomness providing just one example among many.
I understand that you don’t hold a strong view of God’s sovereignty (as per Calvin et al), but I don’t think you have fully appreciated the position articulated by @Jon_Garvey or @NoahWhite. (Or, perhaps you did, but just find it repugnant? haha). Simply, it is that a known physical cause (atmospheric conditions & gravity/opportunistic and vigorous sperm) does not rule out a spiritual cause (God) in achieving an effect. Jesus could say that God sends his rain on evil and good alike, all the while knowing that clouds produce rain. Both things may be true simultaneously. I’ll let Jon elaborate if he feels the need.
@eddie, Here’s the Information on the BioLogos 2017 Conference. You will be able to meet many TE leaders. I’m sure you’ve gone to conferences before. Perhaps the expenses are tax deductible. Or you could even apply for a scholarship. What do you think?
I cited the fact that 58% of Baptists say the Bible should be taken literally. I suspect that the remaining 42% already encompasses the 33% of evangelicals who accept evolution. What I did not mention is that Calvinists are a distinct minority within the denomination. In fact, according to a Barna study, U.S. pastors identify their congregations as Reformed/Calvinist amount to 30%, while those who identify their congregations as Wesleyan/Arminian account for 31%. I assume the 39% in the middle are just confused.
In short, U.S. churches are about evenly divided between the Reformed and Arminian understandings of Scripture and of God, regardless of whether the theology is conservative or liberal. Thus, we should expect at least two competing “orthodox” versions of how God was active in evolution, one coming from the perspective of Arminian theology and one from the perspective of Reformed theology.
And there’s the rub. EC proponents from the Arminian tradition are fine with explanations that allow the crossing of fingers behind the back. Er, wait, that didn’t come out right. haha. What I meant to say was that Arminian explanations may not fully affirm all those things you specify, but you should not expect or demand that. Jon’s response is the correct one – present an alternate explanation that is consistent with Reformed theology and try to win the battle of ideas. As for BioLogos, unless it decides to take a position in the Arminian/Calvinist divide, it probably should not limit itself just to one or the other theological leaning.
I think you understand the import of my statement quite well. However, you seem to arrive at the same conclusion by very different means, as is quite evident from the fact that all the ECs I have read also agree with me, and yet you disagree with them. Allow me a moment to unravel the noodles.
I and the other EC thinkers with whom I am familiar agree with the notion that the functioning of nature, including the stochastic (“random”) mechanisms we observe such as DNA mutation and quantum mechanics, exhibit in the aggregate a lawlike nature that finds its origin in God’s nature. We apply Romans 1:20 in a manner consistent with that view–i.e., anyone can get a glimpse of God’s power, majesty, and understanding by observing the lawlike operations of nature.
The published views of many ID proponents, however, go far beyond that view. This ID view holds that many natural phenomena (Behe’s irreducible complexities, Axe’s calculations of protein domain configurations, Meyer’s origin of information arguments) cannot and will likely never be explained in a manner consistent with lawlike operations of nature. Therefore, this ID argument runs, the only reasonable explanation of these phenomena is that they are the products of the direct intervention of an intelligent designer outside the mechanisms of natural laws.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, Eddie, but you seem to believe that there should be no distinction between the EC and ID lines of reasoning I have outlined in the previous 2 paragraphs[1]. I.e., you seem to think that nature either points to God or doesn’t, and there is not any real distinction in how you get from the observation of nature to the glimpse of God’s nature. This premise of yours in turn leads you, I think, to believe that those who disagree with Behe’s, Axe’s, and Meyer’s line of reasoning ipso facto also disagree with St. Paul’s.
I suggest, my brother Eddie, that there is a different and better way to think about this issue. If you can make the imaginative leap to grasp the very different lines of reasoning that EC and some ID thinkers propose, you would, I think, be able to understand how EC leaders are at a minimum making a good faith effort to uphold the truth of Romans 1:20.
In the body of Christ we have many diverse but sincerely held interpretations of Scriptures pertaining to baptism, communion, prayer, free will, etc. We do not serve our Lord well if we treat one another with sharp elbows when we discuss these kinds of issues. I would put the EC and ID view of Romans 1:20 in that category, and I hope you would, too.
I recognize as I write this that I, myself, need to be careful that robust disagreement (which is fine) doesn’t spill over into harsh judgment towards my brothers and sisters. Perhaps we all need to exercise such care.
Warm Advent wishes,
Chris Falter
[1] Please note that I qualified the lines of reasoning by stating that I was describing statements I have read. I have read much more widely than the average layman, I think, but I am not an expert in the subject. Other thinkers who count themselves in one camp or the other may hold divergent views on the subject.