New book explaining why EC is wrong

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@pevaquark

So those that don’t hear the voice of God warning against EC… are not his sheep. Nice one Speir.

@pevaquark,

Maybe our friend r_speir is bucking for a Section 8? I’ll be watching to see if he can pull himself out of a tailspin!

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

What I really found interesting for possible discussion fodder was the conjecture about the public being pro-science on inquiry, but anti-science on authority. That interests me and sounds plausible. Thoughts?

I think this is a video that has some implications for your inquiry (not only on how science is really done, but the distinction that DeGrasse Tyson makes on moving beyond the scientific question and getting politicians to focus on what to do with the scientific consensus):

Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science

Now of course, the scientific consensus is meaningless for the ID community and most Christians believe that there is some form of global conspiracy coming from science.

My personal take: it’s an empty statement. It’s like, we care about science you guys, we really do even though we literally wrong hundreds and hundreds of pages refuting the entire field of biology (it rallies the Christian troops and emboldens them to think they have a solid Biblical and Scientific foundation yet it causes non-Christians to roll their eyes at the same old same old BS). And the authority argument is a big one with Christians which most Christian groups or gatherings have the Bible being authoritative in all matters… including science.

My second personal take: A translation of the idea-- We like science until it illustrates our cherished personal beliefs about reality are wrong. Then we don’t like it.

The final part about theistic evolutionists trying to repress the advancement of science in collusion with the scientific establishment is so incredibly painful to read and so incredibly ironic. Very crazy but it makes perfect sense as I used to think this way too.

[joshuahedlund]

@Bill_II

I did notice this tidbit, “This book is not about the age of the earth. We are aware that many sincere Christians hold a “young earth” position (the earth is perhaps ten thousand years old), and many others hold an “old earth” position (the earth is 4.5 billion years old).” Interestingly they want to go “big tent” for ID but then imply that EC is a “little tent” where everyone believes the same things.

Indeed, I find this fascinating. In my experience the YEC community in particular is so committed to the strict dichotomy of “Biblical YEC” vs “atheistic evolution” that they promote ID folks as foot soldiers in the war against evolution without fully appreciating the implications of ID positions and how they significantly blur the lines. I feel like some pay lip service to a big tent on the age of the earth without realizing how close OEC (with new kinds specially-created over billions of years) is to divinely-guided (in some way) evolutionary creationism. How many non-evolutionists who read or heard about Behe’s first book but not his second don’t even realize that he goes even farther… he believes in universal common ancestry! (I certainly didn’t appreciate this for the longest time)

Once you lift the first hard line around your own doctrinal commitment and start allowing that sincere Christians can have views different than yours about difficult questions of science and theology, it becomes more difficult to remain intellectually honest and still draw a hard line a little farther out.

[T_aquaticus]

@Bilbo

ENV has a snippet today of an interview of J.P. Moreland:

“The quality of Christian literature is getting better and better when it comes to showing that the Bible gets it right. Both theistic and naturalistic evolution are rationally inferior to Intelligent Design theory theologically, philosophically and scientifically.”

I will leave the philosophy and theology to others, but Moreland is clearly wrong when it comes to the science. There are no scientists doing research using Intelligent Design. We aren’t seeing them publish peer reviewed research papers using ID. We aren’t seeing them submit grants based on ID. Intelligent Design is a scientific dead end. A quick look at the ENV site shows that they only thing they are capable of is arguing against the theory of evolution. They aren’t able to marshal any positive scientific evidence in support of ID.

[T_aquaticus]

@joshuahedlund

Indeed, I find this fascinating. In my experience the YEC community in particular is so committed to the strict dichotomy of “Biblical YEC” vs “atheistic evolution” that they promote ID folks as foot soldiers in the war against evolution without fully appreciating the implications of ID positions and how they significantly blur the lines.

They are more interested in culture wars than they are in science, and their articles show it.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Likewise George Gaylord Simpson, one of the architects of neo-Darwinism, in The Meaning of Evolution, wrote that neo-Darwinism implies that “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”12 But if apparent design is an illusion— if it is just an appearance— as both Darwinists and modern neo-Darwinists have argued, then it follows that whatever mechanism produced that appearance must be wholly unguided and undirected. For this reason, the third meaning of evolution— the definition that affirms the creative power of the natural selection/random mutation mechanism and denies evidence of actual design in living systems— raises a significant issue for any proponent of theistic evolution who affirms this meaning of evolution.

@Bill_II,

For all the negativity on both sides the quote above taken from the Foreword by Steven Meyer presents a wonderful opportunity for reconciliation between ID and TE.

While Meyer would be right if TE and BioLogos did deny the existence of design through evolution, which he seems to affirm. I believe that currently BioLogos does say that evolution does result in rationally structured or designed organisms. If it has listened to me it would clearly say that evolution is based on ecology which is in turn based on God designed creation.

We need to use this Foreword by Meyer to demonstrate that BioLogos does not blindly accept all that Dawkins & Co. say and believe that it is clear that rationally designed humans live in a rationally designed universe created by a rational God.

[Bill_II]

@Relates

While Meyer would be right if TE and BioLogos did deny the existence of design through evolution, which he seems to affirm.

BioLogos is a big tent and there is a wide range of positions taken by the people who comment here. So it is incorrect to say that “BioLogos denies” anything that is not included on the “What We Believe” page. My biggest heartburn with the book is the focus on one particular set of beliefs which the authors then take as applicable to every TE. It’s almost like they construct a strawman which they then knock down.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II

“At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe,”

This statement seems clear to me. I think we need to discuss this.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Bill_II

BioLogos is a big tent and there is a wide range of positions taken by the people who comment here. So it is incorrect to say that “BioLogos denies” anything that is not included on the “What We Believe” page. My biggest heartburn with the book is the focus on one particular set of beliefs which the authors then take as applicable to every TE. It’s almost like they construct a strawman which they then knock down.

@Bill_II

I want to understand your “heartburn” issue. Could you re-state it again? Tell me/us what position you think is getting the short end of the stick?

[Bill_II]

@gbrooks9

I want to understand your “heartburn” issue. Could you re-state it again?

First a few quotes from the Introduction

But this is a book about theists who contest the place of modern science in Christianity. The charge laid at the doorstep of theistic evolutionists is that the doorstep is exactly where they leave their religious commitments when they enter the house of science.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Some proponents of theistic evolution openly affirm that the evolutionary process is an unguided, undirected process.

In any case, where theistic evolution is understood to affirm the creative power of the neo-Darwinian and/or other evolutionary mechanisms and to deny actual, as opposed to apparent, design in living organisms—i.e., the third meaning of evolution discussed above—the concept becomes deeply problematic.

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Bill_II

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

@Bill_II

I would agree with your observation as a general conclusion. But there does seem to be the occasional exception!

When i first arrived at the BioLogos forums, I did get some strange “vibes” … there seemed to be a few contributors who:

1. told me that God doesn’t touch genetic molecules;

2. challenged the very idea that God would use external energy (like gamma rays, or any form of photons) to alter a genetic molecul;

3. that God would rather “hide the future” than get involved in any specific manipulation of human evolution.

For a very short time, I thought this was going to become a prevailing issue … but it doesn’t appear to have been more than temporary “blip”.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

That introduction is tragic.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Seriously, they are still saying this? They have learned nothing from the last 1,000 years of interaction between Christianity and science. They are still making the same argument as that church we’re not allowed to identify, in its argument over a subject we’re not permitted to describe, with that man whose name we can’t mention.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Bill_II

First a few quotes from the Introduction

But this is a book about theists who contest the place of modern science in Christianity. The charge laid at the doorstep of theistic evolutionists is that the doorstep is exactly where they leave their religious commitments when they enter the house of science.

I commend this book as providing an unprecedented opportunity for educated nonscientists to revisit the spirit of the Reformation by judging for themselves what they make of the evidence that seems to have led theistic evolutionists to privilege contemporary scientific authority above their own avowed faith.

Theistic evolution should be understood as a deformation that results under these conditions. Its advice to the faithful is to keep calm, trust the scientific establishment, and adapt accordingly, even if it means ceding the Bible’s cognitive ground.

Some proponents of theistic evolution openly affirm that the evolutionary process is an unguided, undirected process.

In any case, where theistic evolution is understood to affirm the creative power of the neo-Darwinian and/or other evolutionary mechanisms and to deny actual, as opposed to apparent, design in living organisms—i.e., the third meaning of evolution discussed above—the concept becomes deeply problematic.

The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.

I wrote this a few days ago…

"Kremlinology"? Discovery Institute's Glass House

I completely agree with David on this point. There were a lot of “shenanigans” during that time period. From my relatively sparse interactions with ID proponents over the last few years, I do believe that they are headed in the right direction integrity-wise. However, the common sentiment seems to try ignore those incidents rather than confront and reject them.

Now I find myself questioning if I’ve let a few nice people fool me.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II[quote=“Bill_II, post:30, topic:37121”]
The basis of the book appears to be EC’s don’t allow God to be behind the process of evolution. I don’t know any EC that would affirm this.
[/quote]

Bill, I understand your frustration and I agree with you, even though your statement about BioLogos being a big tent organization seems to indicate there are some EC’s who might think this way.

I have said before that the evolution debate is not about science, but about something else. YEC are defending their view of the Bible. It seems that scientists in defending evolution as unguided are defending their rejection of Aristotelian philosophy which was accepted by the Church as authoritative.

Meyer (and Scientism) make the false dichotomy of natural processes or God directed design. I must admit that I do not really understand this argument, but it does seem to be real. What I do understand is that Western dualism is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced by a philosophical world view that better meets the needs of both science and theology.

Until we understand this and begin to address it, we will continue to be frustration by this lack of communication and understanding. This writing by Stephen Meyer is an opportunity to begin this process.

[Bill_II]

@Relates

This writing by Stephen Meyer is an opportunity to begin this process.

I wouldn’t hold your breath. The whole tone of the book (based on the part that I have seen) is We’re Right and You’re Wrong. And they don’t always say that in a nice way.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Bill_II

The whole tone of the book (based on the part that I have seen) is We’re Right and You’re Wrong. And they don’t always say that in a nice way.

I understand that speaking truth to those who do not want to hear it is not easy. It requires patience and wisdom, but it needs to be done.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

Due to some of the concerns raised about the book, I did a bit of reading over at Evolution News. There is one post (here) that explains in some further detail why EC is wrong. I found this particular paragraph quite interesting:

29. Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament
    Guy Prentiss Waters

This chapter claims that theistic evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament. It surveys the passages in the New Testament that address Adam and Eve (as reported in Genesis 1–3) and also passages that reflect on the period of history covered in Genesis 4–11. It shows that the New Testament writers regarded the entirety of Genesis 1–11 in fully historical terms. The chapter also gives closer attention to two of the most extended New Testament expositions of Adam: 1 Corinthians 15:20–22, 44–49; and Romans 5:12–21. Paul understands Adam to be as historical a figure as Jesus of Nazareth, and the biological parent of the entire human race. He also attributes the entrance of sin and death into the human race to the first sin of Adam, and shows that Adam’s one sin is imputed to his natural posterity. The chapter finally shows the ways in which leading proponents of theistic evolution depart from the New Testament writers’ testimony to Adam and Eve, thereby calling into question the historical underpinnings of the gospel.

These are the exact theological arguments that YECs use to explain why EC is wrong. This introduction to the chapter goes as far as saying that death did not occur until Adam’s sin. People can write all they want about the “big tent” nature of ID, but it is quite clear that the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC. So despite all protests to the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) the ID proponents are unified only in their common fight against evolution, in one form or another.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@cwhenderson

These are the exact theological arguments that YECs use to explain why EC is wrong. This introduction to the chapter goes as far as saying that death did not occur until Adam’s sin. People can write all they want about the “big tent” nature of ID, but it is quite clear that the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC. So despite all protests to the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear (to me, anyway) the ID proponents are unified only in their common fight against evolution, in one form or another.

Yeah this book makes it really clear that ID is opposed to evolution, and is opposed on these two grounds.

1. Theology.
2. Culture conflict.

So the scientific arguments are just window dressing.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@cwhenderson

the driving theological sentiment is indeed aligned with YEC

Perhaps so. I am sure not all ID folks have that mindset, but it seems the loudest voices do.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@jpm

Perhaps so. I am sure not all ID folks have that mindset, but it seems the loudest voices do.

I’m certain not all ID proponents share the exact same theology. It just seems that deviation from the party line is tolerated as long as you oppose evolution in some fashion.