How should I engage 22 antievolutionist apologists at a Dallas megachurch?

Faith & Science Conversation
11

(@Shawn_Murphy – Luck, in the strict theological sense of the word? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:)

Being a fairly recent convert to recognizing the legitimacy of evolutionary science, what was compelling to me was to learn not very long ago that neo-Darwinism, aka “the modern synthesis”, has been falsified and replaced by the neutral theory of evolution and population genetics. (It is fairly concisely noted here and here.)

Not long before that, I was recognizing that biological design cannot be demonstrated empirically.

On top of that was this comment that really clinched it for me:

…the most common mutations, transitions, are not really “copying errors,” because the keto-enol transition of the base is driving them and the polymerase is working correctly. So if you’d like, that can be seen as providence more than chance.

The reason that was the tipping point is because, as I said in my request to have my ‘title’ changed from ‘Creationist’ to ‘Providentialist’,

Since I have what appears to be unusually extensive experience with God’s providence in my life (the extent of it is surprising to most who know me, including me :slightly_smiling_face:), and also since God’s providence violates no natural law in its supernatural timing and placing and is thus immune to scientific detection, it makes perfect sense that his design and implementation of it in the biological realm need not be scientifically detectable either. I still very much believe in intelligent design, but lowercase ‘id’. [Evolution was itself designed.]

So, @jbabraham88, what I would start with is to say that Darwinism has been disproven and that God’s sovereign direction of evolution in his providence removes the atheistic ‘blind chance’ component that is rightfully offensive to Christians, adding that design cannot be empirically proven (including ‘specified complexity’, etc.).*

(Of course, it is significant that I was already an ‘Old Earth Creationist’, and had been for over half of my adult life – I am a septuagenarian, or in my early geezerhood, as I quip. :slightly_smiling_face:)

*I was once a fan of Michael Behe. Now, not so much.

1 Like