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.
I thinks its incorrect to make the observation (or claim) that science is automatically being thrown out…these individuals are going to great lengths to promote science. I think the difference is they are denying that neo darwinism version of it is still a strong theory…to these guys its a dead horse and better alternatives should be promoted.
One should also note that ID guys still seem to reside in the camp of old age earthists
What are you basing this on?
Just like Flat Earthers have podcasts where they deny a Globe Earth is still a strong theory . . . to those guys it’s a dead horse and better alternatives should be promoted.
Until they actually address the evidence, they are just denying science. Here are a few examples from the 2005 chimp genome paper:
In summary:
Why do differences at CpGs make up such a disproportionate number of differences between the chimp and human genomes?
Why does the rate of divergence between the chimp and human genomes differ across the length of the chromosome, and why does it correlate with known differences in mutation rates?
Why is the ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous substitution rates (KA/KS) the same as the ratio of non-synonymous to intron substitution rates (KA/KI)?
I would challenge any ID/creationists to try and attempt to explain these observations, and also explain why this isn’t exactly what we should see if chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor and diverged through the observed mechanisms that produce mutations in modern populations.
Worth noting, this is just a tiniest fraction of the data that could discussed. The fact that over 99% of chimp endogenous retroviruses are shared with humans is yet another powerful data set.
As someone who used to be very anti-Bologos, I dislike some of the rhetoric from Discovery. I wish they had been a bit more careful with their words. (I think RTB does a better job with this ). I like hearing from all sides of this debate as an OEC, even some YECS like Let’s Talk Creation but AIG Ken Ham is too dogmatic. And I wish everyone got along.
I am assuming you are speaking about rhetoric as it applies to how they debate in a public relations sense, which is understandable.
For us scientists, all we can find in their arguments is rhetoric. They don’t deal with any data, but instead make rhetorical arguments that have no connection to actual biology. They offer subjective opinions about what they think looks designed, but never deal with objective tests or scientific hypotheses in an empirical manner. For example, you will hear them talk about Complex Specified Information, but they never (to my knowledge) apply these concepts to comparisons between genomes in an objective or empirical fashion. It’s all rhetoric, no data. This is why ID and the Discovery Institute haven’t made any headway in the scientific community.
I don’t dare to speak for us non-scientists, but for myself, I don’t understand the motivation for denying evolution - unless it is simply what has been called “pithecophobia”, the revulsion of the thought of being hysically related to apes. Or simply a misunderstanding of evolution. I welcome any other explanation. As far as comparing evolutionary biology with other sciences, on the one hand, the evidence for evolution, as understood by even a layman, is at least as convincing as other sciences, such as modern astronomy. On the other hand, it seems less threatening than other accepted sciences, such as reproductive biology.
Your post caused me to hear Charlton Heston saying “Those darned dirty apes” in my head. I do think pithecophobia is part of it. I think this is one of the reasons Darwin didn’t talk at all about human ancestry in Origin of Species so his ideas could get out there with as little baggage as possible. He then went on to write The Descent of Man separately.
Another hurdle is just tradition. Young Earth Creationism was very prominent in Christian congregations, especially in the US. It takes time for these types of traditions to change.
That is an interesting comparison. No one has a problem if we developed from a single cell in 9 months, but somehow 3.5 billions year to go from single cell to human is problematic.
My belief is that a lot of it is simply that evolution denial became a tribal marker for a certain worldview. (Not meaning that in a derogatory way – beliefs tend to come in bundles even when they’re not all logically connected because they’re shared by a group, and that can apply to all sorts of groups.)
oh i dont know…perhaps earlier posts on this thread and statements from commentators in the youtube podcast that was referenced. You did actually watch it right? 
So which is it…literary translational issues from the earliest of church fathers who wrote after Christ or, a modernist approach to reading ancient scripture hashed out by Ellen White and resurrected by a recent follower of hers in the 1960’s?
Id suggest that you need to read some atheist authors on the subject…
[Philosopher] Nagel argues that natural and social sciences are unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness of man. Methodologies for inquiry about this aspect must be revised. He writes that mind is a basic aspect of nature and that any philosophy of nature that cannot account for it is fundamentally misguided.[1] He argues that the standard naturalistic view flies in the face of common sense
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False is a 2012 book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel. Wikipedia
The reason why the hurdle…evolutionary claims are increasingly failing under scrutiny even by atheist commentators/authors.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
Once again, Bible based Geocentrism is a perfect stand in. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t remove Galileo’s books from the banned list until 1835, well after it was established that the Earth moved about the Sun. This was due to the inertia of tradition.
The theory of evolution isn’t a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. As discussed in other threads, biological reproduction and embryonic development are much more on topic for the question of human consciousness and the mind than evolution is. Evolution is actually a step removed from those two processes.
Also, an argument based on common sense is a logical fallacy. There is no reason why common sense has to be true, and it often isn’t.
“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.