New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O’Leary slam “Christian Darwinism” in forthcoming book

Lord bless this effort. it is impossible for evolution to be compatible with Christianity. Too much opposition to the nature and origin of man and so to God. Other stuff can be ignored. Yet why ignore? I am a biblical creationist. If biology can be wrong then so can geology.Most of evolution is based on geological presumptions. without the geology there is no such thing as a cambrian explosion. yet this keeps popping up on i.D radar. Robert Byers

StephenB @ 39 "Theistic evolutionists want to have it both ways, Drawing on the Darwinist paradigm, which is purposeless by definition, while claiming that there is, nevertheless, a purpose in back of the purposelessness. It doesn’t get any more irrational than that." If the neo-Darwinian theory says "God didn't do it" then the TE position must be to say God did it by not doing it. Agree, what could be more irrational, i.e. intellectually degenerate. tgpeeler

mikev6, 'they’re rhetorical talking points to impress the gullible.' Well let's hope a few of the gullible 39% who swallow that neo-Darwinian tripe are impressed shall we! bornagain77

bornagain:

Well I guess if you totally ignore the fact that practically the entire media, from print to TV, is ‘indoctrinating’ known Darwinian falsehoods (which is the proper use of the word by the way) then I guess you can say what you said without being totally wrong, but alas I cannot turn blinders on as readily as the Darwin faithful can to the overwhelming evidence for a Darwinian propaganda machine. Thank goodness Darwinists cannot block the internet, nor those brave few outlets of press which will not cow down to the rhetoric of neo-Darwinists.

Some 80% of the US population is Christian, and only 39% of the US population accepts evolution. Who do you think is better at "indoctrination"? Unless you have some independent numbers to back your claims, they're rhetorical talking points to impress the gullible. mikev6

StephenB: Aha - thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding - perhaps I'm not used to evaluating statements on this blog from the POV of theistic evolution. Generally I step aside when one group of Christians tells another that they're 'doing it wrong'. It's easier to avoid now that it doesn't normally escalate into open warfare. I'm curious, however, how such a book will be responded to by other Christians. mikev6

---CannuckianYankee: However, many of them get their theological “soundness” from a twisting and omitting of biblical passages, for which they claim biblical soundness." I get your point. I guess you could say that our individual characterizations of the TE folly fit nicely in complementary fashion: Ignore Scripture when possible, read passages selectively when pressed, and twist then when necessary. StephenB

StephenB, _________________________ —”CannuckianYankee —”So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t biblical.” You: "This is a very interesting comment, and I don’t doubt that there is an element of truth in it for some TEs. However, my impression is that most of them avoid the relevant Biblical references like the plague, and will address the point only when there is no means of escape." __________________ Yes, I would have to agree with that. I think my statement could have been better worded: The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t theologically sound. However, many of them get their theological "soundness" from a twisting and omitting of biblical passages, for which they claim biblical soundness. CannuckianYankee

It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me that theistic evolutionists are so willing to submit themselves to a naturalistic worldview when it comes to biology, and appease those who dogmatically maintain a 150 year old (outdated) scientific paradigm, but then seek to salvage some morsel of genuine faith in acknowledging God's creative role in the design of the universe. Do they really, truly believe that God is disinterested in the biology of His creation, or is their emphasis on global, universal design (of the universe) merely reflect a guilty conscience? Bantay

mikev6 this song reflects exactly how I feel about the censoring of any opposing evidence to Darwinism, by Darwinists, in the mass media as well as in the public school classroom; Kutless - Shut Me Out (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXCFdWStLg bornagain77

mikev6 you state, 'Regardless of what you call it, Christianity seems better at it, at least in the US.' Well I guess if you totally ignore the fact that practically the entire media, from print to TV, is 'indoctrinating' known Darwinian falsehoods (which is the proper use of the word by the way) then I guess you can say what you said without being totally wrong, but alas I cannot turn blinders on as readily as the Darwin faithful can to the overwhelming evidence for a Darwinian propaganda machine. Thank goodness Darwinists cannot block the internet, nor those brave few outlets of press which will not cow down to the rhetoric of neo-Darwinists. bornagain77

---mikev6: "I don’t get this statement. Are you saying that the development of humans was inevitable under evolution?" Mike, I am not clear on what you are not clear about? Darwinists say that evolution is, without question, a purposeless, mindless, unprogrammed process that did not have man in mind. Design theorists, as scientists [not philosophers] say that evolution, if true, was likely [not without question] a purposeful, mindful, programmed process which did have man in mind. If evolution was programmed with man in mind [a reasonable proposition from an Intelligent Design perspective] then obviously the development of humans was inevitable; if evolution did not have man in mind [a Darwinist dogma], then the development of humans was not inevitable. [A good philosopher could explain why evolution, if true, was, without question, programmed. Science cannot make any claim with apodictic certaintly owing to the probabalistic nature of inductive reasoning, a fact that Darwinists obviously do not get. Theistic evolutionists want to have it both ways, Drawing on the Darwinist paradigm, which is purposeless by definition, while claiming that there is, nevertheless, a purpose in back of the purposelessness. It doesn't get any more irrational than that. StephenB

StephenB:

evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, except that it did, in the final analysis, have man in mind, after all.

I don't get this statement. Are you saying that the development of humans was inevitable under evolution? mikev6

bornagain:

Sorry mikev6 but true Christianity is not so much indoctrination into a false belief system as neo-Darwinism currently is, or as say the false belief system of Nazism was, as you seem to think it is, but true Christianity is more of a introduction into a personal relationship with the living Creator of this universe and all life in it

My statement has nothing to do with the truth of either side. Gil used the word "indoctrination" in his orginal comment, and my point was that it could be used to refer to either side depending on your point of view. Not surprisingly, you would use it directed at evolution. Regardless of what you call it, Christianity seems better at it, at least in the US. mikev6

mikev6, you state:

I will say that, IMHO, the Christian side of the equation generally is better at the indoctrination process. Considering how easy it is to get through formal schooling with no biology at all, evolution indoctrination seems a distant second place.

Sorry mikev6 but true Christianity is not so much indoctrination into a false belief system as neo-Darwinism currently is, or as say the false belief system of Nazism was, as you seem to think it is, but true Christianity is more of a introduction into a personal relationship with the living Creator of this universe and all life in it: This song goes well with Barry's topic: Nicole Nordeman - What If http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f658EuiDRAc bornagain77

Gil:

Nevertheless, some people like me do manage to throw off the shackles of atheism and recognize the evidence around them.

Sure - and I don't have a problem with anyone's individual choice in this matter - I was just struck by your particular choice of phrase. I will say that, IMHO, the Christian side of the equation generally is better at the indoctrination process. Considering how easy it is to get through formal schooling with no biology at all, evolution indoctrination seems a distant second place. mikev6

riddick, thanks for the quote. That was indeed, interesting. StephenB

Sure, SB. I think TE is a philosophical cul-de-sac, among the most gutless positions one could take. It just so happens that a new pastor has come to my fair city to lead a flock of self-described "progressives." He was quoted in yesterday's paper. "One of our signs says 'God is Still Speaking.' Scripture was written at a time when most people thought the world was flat and they had no scientific data that we work with every day of our lives. To not progress theologically to the point of incorporating that kind of modern thinking into our scripture just doesn't make sense anymore." Well. Isn't that sweet. And he looks like such a nice guy in the accompanying photo. Probably a dad, perhaps even a grandfather. Maybe he leads sing-alongs on his guitar like you-know-who. riddick

---riddick: "And if you don’t see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can’t help you." Inasmuch as there is no reason to believe that Scordova or any other ID advocate desires to deny anyone's freedom of speech, it is evident that your perception of an "implicit desire" to the contrary is made up in your own mind. On the other hand, we have mountains of evidence to show that Darwinists suppress freedom of speech at every turn, a fact that was well documented and dramatized in the movie, "Expelled." Excuse me for changing the subject, but do you have an opinion about theistic evolution, which is the subject matter of this thread? StephenB

---riddick: “It’s fine by me if you and scordova want to get your panties in a wad about an editorial written by people with no power to hire or fire anyone at NIH, let alone the director. And if you don’t see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can’t help you.” I didn’t get my panties in a wad about anything. You mischaracterized Scordova’s thread, which has nothing to do with this one, and I simply corrected your mischaracterization. In the process, you falsely attributed a “non-sequitur” to me while stumbling into two of them yourself, both of which I identified. ---“Turning to the larger issue, what’s up with the positive slant and crocodile tears concerning FC and the NIH, anyway? As an independent conservative/libertarian, I’m curious about UD’s apparent embrace of a huge government agrency whose mission is, in part, “to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems…” The larger issue is on this thread, which you continue to avoid by way of distraction. If you haven’t heard, it is about theistic evolutionism and its internal contradictions. It has nothing at all to do with Scordova’s thread, which, as I indicated earlier, you misread coming out of the gate. This would be a good time to abandon the issue and attend to the subject matter under discussion. StephenB

oops. "Who's" in my post above should be "Whose". riddick

I thought Dembski provided a way of accomodating Darwinian evolution in his book, The End of Christianity. In it he argues that the Adamic Fall works backwards in times as well as frontwards. This means that ancient life in an old earth would have been subject to the effects of the Fall, and would be subject to the law of natural selection. So I am confused why Dembski thinks that there is no way to accomodate Darwinism and Christianity. Bilbo I

SB, It's fine by me if you and scordova want to get your panties in a wad about an editorial written by people with no power to hire or fire anyone at NIH, let alone the director. And if you don't see the implicit desire to deny free speech (see my post @ 12), I can't help you. Turning to the larger issue, what's up with the positive slant and crocodile tears concerning FC and the NIH, anyway? As an independent conservative/libertarian, I'm curious about UD's apparent embrace of a huge government agrency whose mission is, in part, "to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems..." Who's misguided notion was this? Does anyone on this blog want to argue that this is a proper role of the federal government? No, I don't think FC should be fired for being a Christian. But I do think the NIH should be shut down because it's rapidly becoming the plaything of the nanny state, suggesting to us, among other things, what or what not to eat, when to see a doctor, and encouraging us to get needless flu shots. If the Obamas have their way, these and many more suggestions will soon become mandates and laws (think ObamaCare). And the distractive rants of Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al, will fade into obscurity as we slide into the gray haze of a totalitarian state. riddick

---"CannuckianYankee ---"So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn’t biblical." This is a very interesting comment, and I don't doubt that there is an element of truth in it for some TEs. However, my impression is that most of them avoid the relevant Biblical references like the plague, and will address the point only when there is no means of escape. When I pressed Stephen Barr and Ted Davis at the First Things blog, for example, each tried to reconcile Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19 with Christian Darwinism [only after I explained the relevance of each passage to the problem of a TE world view] and contrived the most tortured arguments you have ever heard. To the question, "Did God reveal himself in nature or didn't he," here is my interpretation of their answer: God revealed himself with respect to cosmological design but then went back into hiding with respect to biological design. How's that for a schizophrenic world view? This is typical TE thinking: God revealed himself in nature, except that he didn't; God designed the world, except that he didn't; God programmed evolution, except that he didn't; evolution is a purposeless, mindless process that did not have man in mind, except that it did, in the final analysis, have man in mind, after all. And so it goes. A thing can be both true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. They want their God and their Darwin too, but they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin, even as they claim that God is their main concern and that coherence is their main objective. Unbelievable! StephenB

Let me correct the last part of the above paragraph, which is all gibberish. It is meant to read - The ambiguous convoluted case of Woodrow at Columbia Seminary (which got a lot of publicity at the time) is worth looking up for anybody interested in the history of the Church's clash with Darwinism in the late 19th century. zephyr

I've always been fascinated with the way theistic evolutionists contradict and contort themselves in order to reconcile their theism with their faith in neo-Darwinism. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are among the most conspicuous I suppose.. Interestingly Francisco Ayala has a recent article selling this dupery at Standpoint Mag, entitled "Evolution can be Religion's friend". http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3073 Interestingly before the ID movement really got going, I think it was not well clarified or less well understood (even largely forgotten) that neo-Darwinism if seen as the sole mechanism of evolution is blatantly anti-religious in content and spirit. I always think men like Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dennet, Provine, E O Wilson and the rest of the atheistic Darwin club should be commended for at least being consistent and forthright and following the implications of Darwinism to its logical philosophical conclusions. Some of my biggest heroes in science were and are in fact theistic evolutionists, however they tend to be, in fact are in their entirety, of the older generations whose time is gone. I don't think, for all their strengths, that they tended to give too much thought to what Darwinism really is and more pertinently nor do I think they were really aware of how weak and limited the Darwinian claims actually are (for example Haeckel's recapitulation was not well recognised for the fraud that it is several decades ago), as was the case several decades ago. I'm assuming this new book gives considerable attention to the likes of Teilhard de Chardin whose influence in selling theistic evolution was considerable and perhaps second to none. Also it is worth mentioning those in the 19th century who did much to legitimise and sell the new Darwinian faith to religious believers. In America the notables here were John Zahm (very much a predecessor to Chardin), John Fiske and James Woodrow - all were fascinating characters in their own right. The ambcase of Woodrow at Columbia Seminary is vital to anybody interested in the history of the Church's clash with Darwinism in the 19th cnetury zephyr

“In the authors’ view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution – or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.” That sounds a lot like P.Z. Myer’s, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins who see that there is no possibility of any kind of accommodation between science and religion. Ironically Darwin himself, though he was personally skeptical, was very accommodating when it came religion and religious belief. Consider the following: “Darwin stopped attending church after his father died, yet he played an active role in parish life. His children were baptized and confirmed at the parish church, where the family had both a pew and a plot. Darwin entrusted the education of his four younger sons to carefully chosen Anglican clergy. He maintained a lifelong friendship with the local vicar, supported the local church and five Sunday schools, and helped supervise church finances. Emma, like a good pastor’s wife, held family prayers on Sundays, took the children to services and dispensed food and medicine to the elderly, poor and sick. She also organized a drop-in centre/reading room for local workers as an alternative to the pub. She and Charles supported the work of evangelists who came to the village preaching temperance.” http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2009/11/rescuing_darwin/ Of course I am using accommodation as a implying toleration not endorsement. I would also argue that there are different kinds of theistic evolution, some of which are more compatible with biblical theology than Darwinian forms of TE, which is basically dysteleological. The problem I have with the Darwinian TE’s is not that they are seeking accommodating (tolerant) and civil dialogue and debate with materialist’s, it is that they are often very unaccommodating towards other Christian positions. john_a_designer

Nevertheless, some people like me do manage to throw off the shackles of atheism and recognize the evidence around them. GilDodgen

Bantay & CY: I'm staying out of this one from now one so I don't make myself look even more stupid. You guys know a lot more about TEs than I do. But thanks for the insights and comments. ellazimm

Gil:

The other possible explanation is that some people have been so completely indoctrinated, for so long (perhaps their entire lives), that they believe it just has to be true, no matter logic or evidence to the contrary.

Fully agree. Nevertheless, some do manage to throw off the shackles of theism and recognize the evidence around them. mikev6

ellazimm, TEs basically accept that God exists, but they don't believe his work can be detected scientifically. This is not a biblical position in light of Romans 1: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1: 18-20, NIV) So the debate here is a theological one. The TEs defend their position by claiming that design detection isn't biblical. Well, is it not? Romans goes so far as to say that even God's "invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature" are also detectable through what has been made. Surely detecting design would be the first way of knowing this. CannuckianYankee

--riddick: "SB, Your post @ 3 is a non sequitur." Apparently, you don't know the meaning of "non-sequitur" inasmuch as none exists in my post. ---"Scordova’s thread had more to do with wishing to deny free speech to the writers of the editorial critical of FC." Now that is a non-sequitur. [Scordova complains about Darwinists who display bigory toward Christians, therefore, one gathers, Scordova would withhold their freedom of speech] See how that works? So a bunch of Darwinists aren’t happy that a Christian has a position in government!" You are showing signs of life. ---"Are you going to abridge someone’s right to say that?" Your return to rationality did not last very long. Do you labor under the misconception that those who complain about Darwinist bigotry would deny freedom of speech to the offending bigot. ---"The first amendment is there to protect speech with which one disagrees." Thank you for that profound observation. StephenB

D'Souza manages to put forth an honest assessment and argument for intelligent design. And he does so by using the very words of the atheist. He points out that much that science has "discovered," does not debunk the Bible, but rather supports it. Throughout it's pages, D'Souza manages to make intelligent design the direct result of scientific research. Which is something that many Christians are lacking in this debate.

http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-so-great-about-christianity.html Mung

Highly respected christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza believes in macro evolution and and for reasons I don't understand is quick to dismiss the scientific arguments for ID. I hope your new book counters the criticisms of ID that I hear from respected intellectuals like Dinesh. 3dcajun

Well, I don't see it on Amazon, so I don't believe it. I did however find this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981520405/ref=ox_ya_os_product Mung

Ellazimm@8 You said "I’d like to see a good exploration of how theistic evolutionists’ views compare and contrast with ID proponents. That’s informative." I agree. It's about time theistic evolutionists (or people who wouldn't know any better) have access to a group of people representing a wide range of religious (and non-religious) views. I think what they will discover, is that ID as a science of design detection, holds to no particular religious viewpoint. At times, I consider theistic evolution to be a spiritual battle in which some Christians have (unknowingly) compromised one orthodox belief in order to maintain another. In other words, they have mistakenly thought that by giving up God's biological design in science, that somehow global, universal design is purchased and on the shelf, never to be disturbed. Unfortunately, they are not aware that the devil is in the details. From a cultural perspective, if naturalism were to get a foothold in the biological sciences, it will not be long before the TE cherished global, universal design will be next to fall. In my opinion, the ID movement has come at none too late of a time to prevent this kind of catastrophe. Theistic evolutionists would be wise to get on board, instead of remaining in passive appeasement of those who represent a worldview that 1. is not in line with increasing scientific evidence and 2. will ultimately, eventually seek to destroy even the theistic evolutionist's perspective. I look forward to Dembski & O'Leary's new book "Christian Darwinism" and I hope it will resonate deep within the minds and hearts of theistic evolutionists, and/or those who would not know any better. I'm halfway through Dembski's "End of Christianity"...So far it's outstanding, scholarly and captivating. I expect no less from the new book. Bantay

CY: I'm not on the fence at all!! But I should probably stay out of any debates involving theology where I have no expertise or understanding. And your point is taken and I agree: debate is positive and good and healthy. It's the same basic process underlying science. I was just responding to the tone; slamming Christian Darwinism sounds more adversarial than I thought it needed to be. And, bottom line, I personally agree that theistic evolution involves a lot of cognitive dissonance. But I'm not a theistic evolutionist so really I should just shut up. I'm not really good at shutting up. Keep telling me when I should and I'll learn . . . I hope! hahahahahah Just to reiterate my position: I believe in the modern evolution synthesis. No question about it in my mind. But I'd like to understand what it is that other people are saying. I don't want to be another ID basher. It's really important to me that, as Jacob Bronowski put it so well in The Ascent of Man, we learn to touch people. ellazimm

EL, There is a long held tradition among Christians to debate the merits of a position as it relates to Christianity. Christianity has survived for such a long time partly because its followers have stood up for what was right and true, and have challenged what was not. This book, appears to be in that tradition. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is great, but there are limitations when doubt seems to be more applicable than benefit. From my understanding this book deals with the theology of TE, and not so much with the science of ID. As such, Christians have defended biblical perspectives, and challenged perspectives, which appear to side with metaphysics, which go against a biblical perspective. Theistic Evolution seems to be very similar to some forms of Scientific Creationism. Some SC attempts to force science to fit with metaphysical assumptions disguised as theology, while TE attempts to force theology to conform to metaphysical assumptions disguised as science. It's only right that the truth should be exposed. I appreciate your tone, but you seem to be riding the fence on a lot of these issues, not wanting to offend. I think eventually you have to get down off the fence to one side or the other. Maybe this book will help. But it looks like you'll have to wait a while. CannuckianYankee

lanrdu, 1) Where did I ever say that "scordova likes Collins’ theology"? 2) scordova: "It just occurred to me that the editorial may be encouraging illegal activity. In the US, it is considered a violation of civil rights to discriminate against people of faith with respect to employment." above @ 10: "What place do these charlatans have in attacking an appointed NIH director on religious grounds? Is this even legal?" It seems pretty clear to me that scordova and above suggest that the writers of the editorial are breaking the law simply by expressing their opinion. How do you read their statements? 3) Maybe you and everyone else on this blog need to be reminded that FC can't lose his job because of the ranting of scientists in an editorial. FC was appointed by POTUS, and he can only lose it the same way. If Obama fires FC for being a Christian, than we have a whole new ball game. But until that day, rest assured that FC will continue in his position as head of NIH. riddick

Gil: I agree with you, I think the worldviews are incompatible but they don't think so. I'd like to respect their approach as much as possible without calling into question their motives or upbringing. I really enjoy debating the science. But I don't like casting aspersions on heartfelt beliefs on any side. Slamming Christian Darwinism seems to be to be too devisive and conterproductive. (Pardon my spelling; it's late and I can't figure out what my spell checker is objecting to). I'd like to see a good exploration of how theistic evolutionists' views compare and contrast with ID proponents. That's informative. But surely it doesn't have to be so confrontational. I hope so anyway. I'm here trying to learn what other people think. In a spirit of openness and honesty. I've read some of Kenneth Miller's work. He seems to be honest and true and having thought out the options. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt just as I do you. ellazimm

I think the obvious reason for Christian Darwinism is that some of its proponents fear being called creationists, and thus having their reputations or even careers destroyed. Darwinian orthodoxy has metastasized so thoroughly throughout academia that to challenge it in any way makes one persona non grata. The other possible explanation is that some people have been so completely indoctrinated, for so long (perhaps their entire lives), that they believe it just has to be true, no matter logic or evidence to the contrary. Those in either situation are therefore required to come up with some means of rationalizing the coexistence of two completely incompatible worldviews. GilDodgen

riddick, you are changing the subject from your first, failed claim, that scordova likes Collins' theology, to another, barely more defensible claim, that he's wishing to deny free speech. He's doing nothing of the kind. He's disagreeing with a bunch of Darwinists' opinion that Christianity disqualifies someone from any official scientific position, and asking the obvious question that this opinion raises - if religion is used to disqualify someone for a job, isn't that illegal? landru

SB, Your post @ 3 is a non sequitur. Scordova's thread had more to do with wishing to deny free speech to the writers of the editorial critical of FC. So a bunch of Darwinists aren't happy that a Christian has a position in government! Are you surprised at that? Are you going to abridge someone's right to say that? The first amendment is there to protect speech with which one disagrees. riddick

hmmmm...

...scordova is defending Dr. Collins because he/she (scordova) doesn’t find the prospect of religious discrimination intolerable

should have read "tolerable" instead of "intolerable". Sorry. ciphertext

Can Francis Collins’ theology and science be good one week and poor the next? -- riddick

I assumed that scordova was highlighting a case of alleged, religious discrimination being applied to Dr. Collins. I see the two postings as distinct, except with their reference of Dr. Collins. I don't think whether or not Dr. Collins's philosophy of science affects his theology (or vice versa) was the point of scordova's post. I'm not even sure I can reasonably infer that scordova agrees with Dr. Collins's theology from the post. I can only assume that scordova is defending Dr. Collins because he/she (scordova) doesn't find the prospect of religious discrimination intolerable.On the other hand, I do believe that both O'Leary and Dembski have issues with Dr. Collins's theology. At least with the presumed integration of a materialist philosophy (Darwinian in this instance) into a theology that is, at its root, materialism's antithesis. ciphertext

I sincerly congrtulate both William Dembski and Denyse O'Leary for writing this book. It fulfills a desperate need. Inquiring minds need to know that Christian Darwinism does not and cannot work as a coherent thought system. For that reason and others, I look forward to reading the book. StephenB

---riddick: "Perhaps Dembski and O’Leary need to have a chat with scordova." ---"Can Francis Collins’ theology and science be good one week and poor the next?" Scordova does not defend Collin's irrational Christian Darwinism nor does he even approach that subject. His theme is that Collins, as a Christian, deserves the right to free speech. I suspect that I have asked this question a hundred times, but here we go again. Do Darwinists ever read for context? StephenB

riddick, Well, of course they can have a difference of opinion. The topic can be rightly debated here. Congrats to O'Leary and Dembski. I heard one Christian evolutionists say that evolution is like the gospel. Good people go to heaven while the bad people are weeded out. I don't think I've ever heard a more corrupt doctrine. It sounds like Tashlan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tash_(Narnia)#In_The_Last_Battle Collin

'How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” Sorry - not sure yet which tags to use to introduce quotes... I should say that I'm not a theistic evolutionist. I'm a non-theistic evolutionist without complete certainty in evolution... But theistic evolution can accommodate this quite easily I think. There is evidence that groups of people are stronger and more resilient if individuals behave in a loving way to other members of the group. This could (in theory) translate into increased reproductive success for members of successful groups. Personally I don't mind group selection arguments such as this - but if you object to those, note that it's plausible that human groups in the past consisted of relatives - so linking this to 'selfish' gene concepts. God could have set things up so that this kind of behaviour arises through natural selection with other humans as the objects of sacrificial behaviour - and then arranges that this behaviour is transferred to him. Peepul

Perhaps Dembski and O'Leary need to have a chat with scordova. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/nature-editorial-attacks-christianity-of-francis-collins/ Can Francis Collins' theology and science be good one week and poor the next? riddick