On Sean McDowell’s podcast Axe of the Discovery Institute said evolutionary theory was “weak and pathetic.”
They had a good laugh about that.
I am trying two things.
To engage Discovery fans as an evolutionary creationist in dialogue
To witness to a non-Christian biology professor
In a context where university professors today feel under attack, like at Columbia
How should I respond to the fans and to my biology professor friend who feels very antagonized by Discovery, ICR, AIG, etc?
I would respond in a way that’s different from the pseudoscientific nonsense that the others used. I would also do it passively by stating I’m a Christian and I reject that line of reasoning.
Im just trying to make sure i have the right podcast…when i go to Seans website, i found a video:
What is the state of Intelligent Design? How has the conversation on the origin of life changed and been updated in today’s world?’
“my biology professor friend who feels very antagonized…”
Honestly, if an individual who is a professor, that in order to even achieve that level of academia, isn’t capable of absorbing and dealing with differing views…i very much doubt what you say is going to make much of a difference. The individual is clearly very conflicted philosophically and that needs to be dealt with from the perspective of the gospel rather than science…and that is the entire problem with your approach there.
Anyway, if i have the correct podcast…
Science is not the gospel, nor will it ever be. Yeah sure we argue scientific things on these forums amongst ourselves, however, we are not trying to convert anyone to Christ here, the individuals on these forums have by and large already made their beds and are now lying in them.
We are supposed to take the gospel to the world…we don’t do that by talking about scientific processes and theories.
I simply dont see any flaming difference between ID and anyone else in the dilemma of trying to reconcile the bible with science (or vice versa).
In answer to the question “what is at stake here?”, he answers, “i think that what is at stake is your posture towards science”…he says that less than 5 minutes after making the claim of Darwinian Evolution “what is one of the weakest, most pathetic scientific theories that has ever come out…” he is pulpit trashing a foundational scientific theory whilst at the same time trying to claim science is not under attack from ID. People are going to have a hard time swallowing that starting point!
His statement “lets do the science honestly…” i find this a rather absurd statement because essentially he is making the claim that no one else does science honestly. Thats just absolute nonsense, and insulting the intelligence and abilities of many other scientists around the world.
honest science and honest religion…i dont recall God using that kind of statement…God saw two camps, “His chosen people” and “lost sheep” …I think God describes Christianity as a life or death choice, not one of honesty or dishonesty (despite those being fundamental elements of the 10 commandments)
One thing i do note in the podcast is the statememt that even inside Biologos there has been a shift towards “an original couple” an historical Adam and Eve…that this was not the case earlier when Biologos was first founded.
I would respond that the grasp of science by anyone who could say that is weak and pathetic.
I’m curious what the podcaster would have based that on … given that I don’t think “Biologos” has staked out an official side on that question but considers itself a big enough tent to accomodate either way on how historically literal Adam and Eve could be.
Or even if the podcaster was just trying to get a read for what reception each view gets in this forum, even here I would be curious what they base their observation on. Among the ECs here I’m not sure I’ve seen any such migration (in either direction). Not that it’s being monitored or anything like that. Just my general impression from forum discussions. Those of us ECs here who take science and evidence seriously probably lean pretty heavily against the notion of a biologically original couple - given how well genetics (and actual history and just about everything else too) has ruled that out (at least in any timescale within the last ten thousand years where genealogical literalists would need them to be.) But there could be some ECs that do accomodate to an historical couple that existed among other humans but were called and set apart by God in a special way.
I have been hanging around here for 9+ years and while I haven’t read every post in the forum I would say I haven’t seen any “shift”. And remember forum posts don’t constitute Biologos positions. Dr. Swamidass’ idea for a historical Adam has been discussed and perhaps that is where the idea came from. Douglas Axe has also been discussed but that was several years ago.
Just to point out the difference between “we” being each of us individuals, and “we” being a collective: a species or (what some creationist talk about) a “baramin” (a “created kind”, “something like a taxonomic family”).
Each of us as individuals: The theory of genetics says that our genetic inheritance is a random (not quite “cosmic”) mixture of our ancestors’ plus some mutations. Many monotheist believe that we are in a special relationship with our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer. I am not aware of many people who have, ever since the development of genetics, found much of a conflict there. (There was a time, in the 18th century or so, when there was rejection of reproduction, in favor of preformation in one’s ancestors. There is a doctrine of traducianism about the soul, but doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion.)
The collective: Evolution is typically defined as the change in inherited traits in a population over generations. There are many theories of evolution, such as, most famously, that of survival of the fittest.
Gag – we had to read some of that crap from the time of Plato up to about Dante.
OTOH, it wasn’t bad science for the day; they just analogized from what they knew of seeds, not knowing they were missing a great deal of the process.
SO we could say to someone, “You didn’t evolve, just the species”.
That’s something that drives me crazy on some sci-fi shows where individuals are spoken of as “evolving” – IMO that tips them into the realm of science fantasy.
Or the survival of the good enough (as in, “good enough for government work”; it’ll get no prizes but it will pass).
I would suggest the one thing you should keep in mind is to speak to the audience, not necessarily the ID leaders. You could explain why ID continues to fail as a scientific explanation, and discuss the types of data they would need to engage with in order to start making some headway. If they are only interested in bad mouthing science in their little corner of the world (i.e. preaching to the choir), I’m not sure how to best engage with them.
Just be a person who is a Christian and doesn’t feel the need to throw out science. Be an example.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.