This is a tour de force of inflammatory falsehood. [content deleted by moderator]
TE/EC due to its immense funding by Templeton (Biologos has received over $9 million and that does not include other grants) and its acceptance by the scientific community, it has became the only de jure methodology for discussing science and religion. I do not expect TE to do everything (however it must do more than other approaches as it as become the standard), but it has done nothing. Have you seen how quickly TE proponents are humiliated in debates with atheists? Also why do TE change their minds every time they talk or write something. Francis Collins talked about fine-tuning and the moral law as evidence for God - both have been dropped. Kenneth Miller said that Evolution being random and undirected was an inappropriate scientific question at the Dover case https://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/ken_millers_random_and_undirec/. But now claims that evolution is indeed random and undirected. In fact Miller seems to regard religion with contempt “There are many religions but only one science” and “Science plays the pipe and religion dances to its tune”. I could go on.
“On Guard” is a popular level book for teenagers and those coming to philosophical theology for the first time.
I agree, in my experience, apologetics for the Christian faith has been rather weak from the TE side. In fact, in my (as yet unfinished) review of The Language of God, I make clear that one of my major objections to the book is its philosophical and theological naivete.
That said, I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
Since when is a theological truth claim (God created the diversity of life we see in our world using the process of evolution) “accepted” by the scientific community? It’s not science. If you mean scientists are more open to dialogue with people who aren’t seen as casting aspersions on the entire scientific enterprise or painting scientists as brainwashed or complicit in a grand deception, well, that’s not hard to understand. (And I don’t mean to imply that all ID supporters are out to undermine the credibility of mainstream science. But a perusal of Evolution News and Views will certainly leave you with the impression that mainstream science is suspect.)
TE is not a person, and cannot be expected to “do something.” Saying I am a Christian who accepts evolution tells you about as much about the nitty-gritty details of my belief system as saying “I am a Christian.” There are lots of flavors and differing doctrinal commitments and even views on evolution science itself represented among people who claim to follow Christ and claim to accept evolution. There is no “TE” faith one can be baptized into, no doctrinal statements to pledge allegiance to, no charter to uphold. So, how about we stop talking about “TE” like it is a monolithic belief system and start asking personal questions to the people here about what they believe as Christians who accept evolution and why they find ID less than compelling.
I’m interested in why you think “TE” should be apologetic in nature in the first place. As far as BioLogos and it’s mission goes, it is directed first and foremost at the church and secondarily at “the world,” and the goal is to address the false claim that science and faith are incompatible. This claim leads to disunity in the Body of Christ and presents a barrier to faith for some and a reason for leaving the faith for others. I don’t see anywhere in the mission statement that the goal is to argue via evolution why Christianity is true, probably because evolution doesn’t have anything to bear on the major truth claims of Christianity.
What’s wrong with evidence? Why is it all about what people say?
Can you point to any instance of that occurring in science, that mere rhetoric changes everyone’s minds?
Then what is BIO-Complexity IYO?
But ID people avoid religious language like the plague. Are you saying that ID is religious?
Are ID people even applying for grants?
You have not posted a transcribe of his podcast but only a faction of it taken out of context from an atheist blogger - at least make an attempt to quote form Craig’s own website . You know that Christy and really should stop being so disingenuous. If you want to comment on Craig and Biology have the decency to do so from his written work, website or from his debate with Ayala. Or do you think that some people are not worthy of this kind of respect.
What are you on about?
Some of your quotes are wildly out of context, making him seem to say exactly what he doesn’t mean. And where does Ken Miller say that evolution is random? And what makes you think he regards religion with contempt? Nothing could be further from the truth. Notre Dame awarded him the Laetare meda.
I heard Francis Collins invoke the moral law as evidence last week. (He may have invoked fine-tuning as well – I don’t remember.)
Biologos is following the same path that religious belief went through from the 1930 to 1960’s. It defines what is or not acceptable from an outside discipline - it used to be logical positivism now it is evolutionally biology. Michael Murray in the superb collection ‘Analytic Theology’ describes this as the battered spouse model of science and religion. The dominant partner makes more and more demands and the battered spouse puts up with it just to keep the relationship alive. That is why some philosophers think the epistemological approach is wrong and unwarranted. Of course having greater awareness of history they have seen it all before.
Perhaps I was unclear. I didn’t mean that it should be. I merely meant that those who are TEs generally give a rather weak defense of the Christian faith. I mentioned Collins as an example of that; I mean, the tagline of his book is, “A scientist presents evidence for belief.” That is directly apologetic. Don’t get me wrong: on the whole, the book was pretty good, and if it has helped people in their own thought on these issues, great.
Yes, I agree.
You are correct again. I did not mean to insinuate that BioLogos’ mission should be to evangelize folks (contra Answers in Genesis). It is a Christian ministry for Christians. That’s all well and good. Like I said, I only meant that the apologetic material coming from TEs is typically less than great.
If Matt likes ID debates, try this Great Debate from the American Museum of Natural History. The debate took place on 4/23/2002.
The moderator was Genie Scott.
The science team included Ken Miller and Robert Pennock
The ID team included Michael Behe and Bill Dembski
I was there that evening and a good time was had by all (except for Dembski).
You’re a real treat, Matt. This kind of attributing negative motivations to others instead of interacting with the content of what they said is a violation of our guidelines, for the record.
Quote from Craig’s website, his written work or a debate. Am I asking too much? Does this violate your safe space?
Why? I don’t have any points to make about William Lane Craig, and I have lost interest in whether he is best described as an old earth creationist or not.
Oh yes I agree the ID side lost. But why do you think I am a supporter of ID?
It’s been a while since I’ve read Miller, and I know he can (or so it seemed to me at the time) come off as a bit abrasive, but wasn’t he a Catholic? Is he still? If what I remember about him from his book is correct, he wouldn’t generally hold religion in contempt so much as he might hold some recent manifestations of it. But I’m here to be educated and listen.
And that is exactly why it’s my speed! I’m learning things from it too. You should hang around here and listen a bit more. You might learn a few things and get brought up to speed about what a few earnestly Christian ECs really think. We celebrate having more light and less high temperature, and would gladly try to help you get clear from the vitriolic contempt that too easily ensnares any one of us.