What does that even mean? BioLogos has consistently maintained that an atheistic worldview is not “scientific.”
Okay. How does one do that while staying within the scope of science?
One fights bad science with good science. Survival of the fittest is bad science. It has not been scientifically verified by experiment or field observation, while the ecological Natural Selection has. I think we discussed this before, and you reported that survival of the fittest was passe, but you could not provide documentation that ecological selection was the current standard.
If you have access to the BioLogos library, check out my book, Darwin’s Myth for the scientific case against Dawkins’ science, which has become even stronger since its publishing. If you do not, I will send it to you.
I’m long overdue to contribute something to @Jon_Garvey on the Hump, and Wright’s book would be great topic for that venue. I had a bit of a slow start in it myself. I resonated with his earlier chapters but it didn’t really grab me until the last chapters in the book where he really ramped up (in my estimate) the provocative challenge for how mainline creedal Christianity thinks of Jesus and what He called us to do in this world. I really resonated with that too, but this time in a “I’m not there yet, but should be” kind of way. As an Anabaptist you would think we would all be all over kingdom theology, but I’m afraid most of us may have mainstreamed by now and may be having some muscle atrophy in that part of our brains.
Jon, the only thing that makes me hesitate, is that I consider myself a fledgling student underneath an author like Wright, and so am not even qualified to do anything like a review, much less any criticism. But maybe that basic layout of what his book is about (giving away his conclusions?) might be appropriate. You can PM me if you have direction on this, I put this here in public view though for Christy and any others that may have interest, too.
1 Like
Go for it, Merv (PM sent).
Jon
1 Like
Biology isn’t my field, so I’m really not up for extra academic reading about the nitty-gritty of Darwinism. I have a very tall stack of theology and linguistics books on my read before I die list. But thanks for the offer. 
I think that you are making a mistake. The most important linguistic is the Word, which is most important to the puzzle of Life and evolution.
You really should not reject something without checking it out first. The issue is not the nitty-gritty of Darwinism, but the theology of Darwinism vs. the theology of the Logos, the theology of no meaning vs the theology of Meaning.
Who says I rejected it? I don’t need to be convinced life is meaningful. I’m on board with that already.
This type of comment amounts to nonsense, especially in the context of this discussion. Next thing from you will be the word is grammatically constructed to be something you imagine. Your constant misuse of the Word as expounded in the Gospel of John is tiresome and inappropriate. Linguistics has to do with languages we humans use amongst ourselves.
1 Like
Of course linguistics deals with languages, which are the primary means of communication for human beings. The important thing is the communication and not the words themselves which is what we get bogged down in through our discussions.
John 1 is most important to Christianity because it brings together three basic disciplines of human understanding. The Greek word Logos comes from the tradition of philosophy. Jesus the Messiah/Savior is part of the Biblical theological tradition, and the concept of Creation is the basis for all modern science.
God the Father is communicating an important insight in how these three disciplines can work together so we can understand our world, ourselves, and God through them using God’s Word the Logos and God’s word, the Bible.
I hope you are not saying that God does not communicate with us human beings? John 1 says that God does communicate and the primary language God uses is the Word/Logos, Jesus the Messiah.
Hebrews says it another way
Hebrews 1:1-3c (NIV2011)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed Heir of all things, and through Whom also He made the universe.
3 The Son is the Radiance of God’s Glory and the exact Representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word.
I apologize for repeating myself to you, but I was communicating with Christy and think that it is important for her to understand the Biblical understanding for human understanding of other people, but also of God through the Word/Logos. I think you for this opportunity to explain more fully.
The issue is not whether there is meaning or not, but an idea of how we understand. You say that you are not interested in the subject matter, because you thank you know what it is about, when you don’t unless you are least look at it for yourself.
Just because some one convinces me to believe in God and Jesus is the Messiah does not mean that I do not have to read the Bible.
I am speechless - you can turn any topic into some type of vast generalisation and then your twist and tern around the term “logos” - amazing 
1 Like
Thank you for your comments.
The difference between myth and logos in the Greek is the difference between a concept based on authority and tradition, and one based on Reality that can be tested. Darwin’s Myth of Survival of the Fittest was not based on scientific reality, because it has not been scientifically verified, so it needs to be rejected as science. I point out that there is abundant evidence for ecological natural selection that is available, but not integrated into the theory, because it requires a different model for understanding evolutionary change that scientists for the most part are unwilling to make.
Agreed. But I don’t buy the idea that exploring ecological evolution in depth is the best avenue for exploring epistemology and cognitive psychology and linguistics. Those are their own fields, ones that interest me in their own right, as do biblical studies and theology and church history. Dawkin’s doesn’t interest me, so refuting him doesn’t interest me.
What a very odd sentence.
The way I usually read this described is:
Darwin’s HYPOTHESIS was that Survival of the Fittest leads to Evolution of a life form’s Phenotype and Eventually Speciation over time.
Darwin’s hypothesis does not deal in genotypes … because he did not know how genetics was transmitted from generation to generation. In any case, Darwin proposed a HYPOTHESIS - - not a myth.
It is no more bad science than the HYPOTHESIS that there is DARK ENERGY. Nobody is quite sure how to TEST this hypothesis. But that doesn’t make the hypothesis of DARK ENERGY "bad science.
George
Apples and oranges. There is evidences for the theory that dark matter exists, although we have not been able to observe it.
The evidence as to whether or not natural selection works like Darwin said it does is all around us. The evidence says that natural selection does not work as Darwin said it works. That is the myth, that the theory is wrong when science says it is right.
Presumably if they had tested it, they would have known it was wrong and tried to find the right answer to the question. Since they did not test, they did not know, so they just went along with Darwin’s myth, unproven knowledge at the time of Darwin and today…
WRONG? Or simply needs enhanced nuances? The underlying truth of speciation survives in all the new discoveries regarding what affects chromosomes.
Was Newton’s science WRONG because he thought time and space never changed?
Roger, I think you and Eddie drink from the same water.
George
If I said that 2 + 2 = 5, would you say I was right because I was off by only 1?
If I said the 2 apples + 2 rocks = 4 apple/rocks, would you say that I was right because the “underlying truth” of math survives?
If I said that God created the universe in six days, would you say that I was right because I was only a few billions of years off?
To say that changes in DNA creates new species is true. We are not talking about Variation, but about Selection. The question is and remains how does Selection work. Darwin got it wrong. Do you have it right?
Newton’s science was wrong in as far as time and space are inter-related. If scientists did not know that, space exploration would not be possible.
It is perfectly fine to say that scientists were wrong … as you say, Darwin was wrong and Newton was wrong.
But they were both scientists, and science can be flawed without being labeled “bad science”. Indeed, flawed science could be GREAT science for the time.
George