Posted in BioLogos, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, Philosophy of Science, Theistic Evolution, tagged Alvin Plantinga, and Naturalism, Christianity Today, Darrel Falk, Michael Behe, Religion, Theistic Evolution, Todd Wodd, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science on July 11, 2012|
Leave a Comment »
It seems the last two big cover stories in Christianity Today covering evolution issues have completely ignored the many scientists and others who accept evolution as the best explanation for some things, but have serious doubts about it as the best explanation for all of biological history. These articles ignore those Christians who doubt evolution based primarily on the scientific evidence, not theology.
The latest cover story deals with the biography of a theistic evolutionist and a young earth creationist. No biography of Michael Behe who was taught theistic evolution growing up, but who came to doubt Darwinism as he delved deeper into the science. Sigh. Christianity Today is dumbing down the church and missing the most interesting questions.
Christianity Today also never reviewed Alvin Plantinga’s book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, in which Plantinga devoted a whole section to Michael Behe’s design arguments, and had very positive things to say about them. CT published an interview with Plantinga, but avoided all discussion of ID.
In the recent article, the author, Tim Stafford, asserts that Darrel Falk “has held to his plea for Christians to love and respect each other while advocating different points of view.” Well, that is not quite right. Falk has claimed elsewhere that he has a kind of “mission from God” to attack other believers:
With all respect for [Michael] Behe as a person, his science has turned out to be highly incompetent in the field in which he writes—biology. Since he chose to take his science to non-professionals many of whom have not had more than one college course in biology (if that), you are correct: BioLogos needs to show that he, bless his heart, is professionally incompetent; one of our God-given tasks (to be frank this is the way we see it) is to demonstrate this to a public which (unlucky as they are) doesn’t have the biology background to know better.
When I asked Darrel Falk to explain how Behe was incompetent, he failed to do so.
Read Full Post »
Posted in BioLogos, Fact-Checking Biologos, History, Philosophy of Science, Theistic Evolution, Theistic Materialism, tagged Adam and Eve, BioLogos, circular reasoning, Darrel Falk, Dennis Venema, logic, philosophy of science, Theistic Evolution on October 21, 2011|
2 Comments »
This dialogue speaks for itself, methinks. Biologos scientist Dennis Venema’s circular reasoning seems fairly obvious to “Rich” (and me), but not to others apparently.
Rich – #8794
April 5th 2010
Your argument seems to be: If we back-reason based solely on our current knowledge of genetics, we must conclude that no single *human* couple could have been the parents of all of mankind.
May I ask a mischievous question? Suppose that the best modern science ruled out the possibility that a female virgin could give birth to a male child by natural means. Following your line of reasoning, would we not need to infer either (a) Jesus had a human father (hopefully Joseph!), and was the “Son of God” only by “adoption”? or (b) Jesus was born of a virgin, but that God overpowered the normal natural mechanisms to make this happen?
You will likely shy away from (a), for theological reasons. But if you adopt (b), then you are saying that sometimes it is legitimate, even necessary, to presume that God altered the normal rules of genetics for his purposes, and that this inference is not offensive to “good science”. So what then, would necessitate a naturalistic approach to Adam and Eve? Couldn’t God have overpowered the relevant natural processes there, as well? Wouldn’t you have a consistency problem in invoking a miracle for the Virgin Birth but denying special creation in the case of Adam and Eve?
Read Full Post »
Comments aren’t working for me at Biologos, so I am posting mine here:
This post is another highly selective treatment of the evidence. It seems that the writer is not asking the question, “Is Darwinian evolution the best explanation for the Cambrian explosion?” He rather seems to be asking: “Can we shoehorn the Cambrian fossils into our favored theory?”
Arguing that the Ediacara fossils are on a continuum with the Cambrian fossils is highly controversial and is not mainstream. See here.
As for the Gould quotes, Darrel says they are too old, but doesn’t explain what has changed to make them obsolete. This post contains a summary and link to Donald Prothero from 2009:
“Thus, over 35 years after the original 1972 paper, we have a different kind of “two cultures” phenomenon of people with different mindsets talking past one another. Paleontologists have agreed for decades now that the prevailing message of the fossil record is stasis despite big changes in the environment.”
Read Full Post »
Darrel Falk, on behalf of Biologos (comment #39672):
With all respect for Behe as a person, his science has turned out to be highly incompetent in the field in which he writes—biology. Since he chose to take his science to non-professionals many of whom have not had more than one college course in biology (if that), you are correct: BioLogos needs to show that he, bless his heart, is professionally incompetent; one of our God-given tasks (to be frank this is the way we see it) is to demonstrate this to a public which (unlucky as they are) doesn’t have the biology background to know better.
That is quite the mission from God. Nothing coming from Biologos shows me that any one there actually understands Michael Behe’s arguments in their strongest form. Biologos has shown itself to be fairly incompetent at reviewing books at times, among other things.
I hate to see people like Darrel Falk ratchet up the rhetoric like this.
Read Full Post »