Audio:Can a Christian be a Darwinist? Karl Giberson vs John West

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading some of these people who reject that evolution is a possible POV for a Catholic, it is clear to me that in some cases the problem is that they misunderstand what the theory says profoundly - no surprise. What is more surprising is that they seem to have a rather profound misunderstanding of theology as well. To believe that “random” mutation doesn’t allow for God is a failure of theological understanding more than of biology. What’s more, it seems to me that if people are confounded by that, they should be having strokes over modern physics and what it says, or mathematics. OTOH, both physics and math seem to lead people to a greater understanding of how God is or could be present in the universe and uphold it.

Perhaps fewer people are exposed to physics, but everyone has heard of evolution?
 
Ed, with all due respect, Cardinal Schonborn’s article was highly controversial within the Vatican and does not reflect the official teaching of the Church. I am a faithful Roman Catholic and a biologist. I’m not an atheist, new or otherwise. Evolution is a rock-solid part of biological science, fully supported by the factual record.

You know, if we rejected ideas just because they were proposed or taught by atheists or adherents to other religions, we would have to reject much of philosophy, science and engineering, literature, the fine arts, etc. Heck, without Aristotle, we wouldn’t have Scholastic theology, would we? Fortunately, the Catholic faith as taught by the Fathers and as is taught today accepts what is good from whatever source.
“Pope Says Evolution Can’t Be Proven”

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/11/international/i144748D65.DTL

Thank you for your respectful reply. I do hope you realize to what extent the “just say yes to evolution” campaign is driven by the purely atheist desire to spread their unbelief. I also hope that you have carefully considered what the Church has declared about Evolution. The encyclical Humani Generis (1950) was quite clear. Communion and Stewardship was also quite clear.

I have no idea what, exactly, in engineering would be rejected or the fine arts. I have studied both and they have zero to do with evolution. In fact, ‘fine art’ has degenerated in the last 40 years. Literature is rarely produced today. Working in publishing, I see a great deal of data regarding what is being published and the quality of it. Plus I do a great deal of reading.

Science has been acquired by those who wish to reinterpret it as science=evolution. This is false since it improperly lumps together various fields of study. When I studied electronics, evolution was never once mentioned.

Perhaps you missed the link I posted that showed very clearly that the theory of evolution has no practical application to the day to day work of scientists.

Finally, I hope you realize that the relative importance placed on evolution here is grossly distorted. Some are presenting it as the new circumcision, a necessary belief. Is this so? God created everything out of nothing. Do you believe that?

Modernism is the fantasy that knowledge, wisdom or enlightenment entered anyone’s head when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century. “It’s the 21st Century!” Yeah. So? (Fortunately) I am going to the same job, paying the same bills, and continuing my walk with the Lord.

People here are telling me one thing but doing another. “Science is silent about the supernatural.” “Science can say nothing about God.” Then: “On page 24 of your holy book, science says that thing never happened.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Ed, with all due respect, Cardinal Schonborn’s article was highly controversial within the Vatican and does not reflect the official teaching of the Church. I am a faithful Roman Catholic and a biologist. I’m not an atheist, new or otherwise. Evolution is a rock-solid part of biological science, fully supported by the factual record…
adowcday, you are quite right. Not only is evolution rock solid and well understood (compared, for example, with the theory of gravitation), but it presents no threat to theology.

Last March we Catholics organized a conference in Rome at the Gregorian University, where 300 scientists, theologians, philosophers and historians spent five stimulating days discussing both the science underlying evolution and the theological implications of the theory. The conference was explicitly theistic in leaning; while there may have been ID Creationists and Dawkinsian atheists in attendance, the thrust of the presentations was to generate serious discussion among people who took seriously both science and theology.

StAnastasia
 
“Pope Says Evolution Can’t Be Proven”

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/11/international/i144748D65.DTL

I have no idea what, exactly, in engineering would be rejected or the fine arts. I have studied both and they have zero to do with evolution. In fact, ‘fine art’ has degenerated in the last 40 years. Literature is rarely produced today. Working in publishing, I see a great deal of data regarding what is being published and the quality of it. Plus I do a great deal of reading.

Science has been acquired by those who wish to reinterpret it as science=evolution. This is false since it improperly lumps together various fields of study. When I studied electronics, evolution was never once mentioned.

Peace,
Ed
I believe his point was that if we rejected all ideas put forth or supported by non-Christians we would be in big trouble. We’d lose “0” among other things.

Electronics is strictly speaking a technology, but it is of coursed based on physics. I think you could find lots of places where physics is important in the study of chemistry, which is fundamental in biology.
 
I am a Roman Catholic and also a Ph.D. biologist. There is no conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian faith. Pope John Paul II spoke to this issue – Catholics ARE allowed to believe in evolution. You don’t have to exclude God from creation in order to believe in genetic mutation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest.
Any evolutionary theory must reconcile the following:

Adam and Eve first parents
Eve from Adam
bodily immortality
freedom from irregular desire
freedom from sickness
infused knowledge
original sin

preternatural gifts
 
The theory of evolution says that every living thing, no matter how complex, was created through a process of random mutations, which are then filtered by natural selection. If your work has proven that e.g. man has come about from some single cell form of life, please share that with us.
I would like to see that proof also.

In the meantime, I did find this.

Was Darwin Right? The new theory of evolution

Nature Physics 5, 531 (2009)
doi:10.1038/nphys1352

This article points out that new data on changes in genetic populations could potentially falsify Darwinian theory. The article admits that science is ignorant about how and why gene transfers work – and has a complete lack of knowledge about how the process could have originated. If genes possess the “impressive capacity to to actively alter their genomes”, where did this capacity come from? There is zero evolutionary explanation for this. Evolutionary theory thus far does not even understand the scope of the problem, much, much less how these powers to transfer and change themselves originated in genes. Once again, the so-called “simplest” organisms defy even a basic understanding and there is no evolutionary pathway given that can explain how these functions arose.

From the article …

A coming revolution in biology, some suggest, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution (in its modern form) from its position as the key explanatory process in biology …

Biologists have only begun exploring the various environmental factors that promote or limit horizontal gene transfer, and know almost nothing of how this mechanism of genetic sharing influences the overall logic of the evolutionary process itself.

[T]he apparent ubiquity of horizontal gene transfer implies that microorganisms have an impressive capacity to actively alter their genomes in response to environmental stresses or opportunities, and this capability is intimately linked to their involvement in a larger community in which the diversity of genetic material resides.
 
Any evolutionary theory must reconcile the following:

Adam and Eve first parents
Eve from Adam
bodily immortality
freedom from irregular desire
freedom from sickness
infused knowledge
original sin

preternatural gifts
True - there are a number of potential conflicts there.

Here’s something else. One of the most prominent evolutionists in the U.S. (certainly highly-regarded among the Darwinian-community as spokesman for evolutionary theory) teaches that evolution is without purpose and therefore, there is no moral law:

Unfortunately, from my perspective, knowledge is not one of those things on which one can compromise — you’ve either got evidence for something, or you don’t. We do not have evidence for purpose in evolution, and if anything, all the evidence is against the idea that evolution has a direction or that natural selection can be anything but an unguided response to local conditions.

Furthermore, his example doesn’t work. He’s all hung up on the “moral law”, and even cites C.S. Lewis. He wants to argue that the existence of morality, even if it isn’t derived from a god, is still an indication of the existence of a general directedness or overarching nudge from the laws of the universe, and therefore we should all just get along and accept this awesome pan-galactic force.

Nope, says I. First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; **you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest **(it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

evolutionnews.org/2009/09/on_atheism_and_morality_a_repl.html

So, if we listen to evolutionary theorists like P.Z. Myers, we can go on a “murder spree” if it contributes to our “self-interest”. Additionally, if we kill someone who is not a part of our “social support system” – that is not a problem either.

That is logical and consistent with evolutionary theory. Physical nature does not command or forbid human behavior on a moral basis.

But this is an obvious contradiction with Catholic teaching. Beyond that, it’s very dangerous spiritually and socially.
 
True - there are a number of potential conflicts there.

Here’s something else. One of the most prominent evolutionists in the U.S. (certainly highly-regarded among the Darwinian-community as spokesman for evolutionary theory) teaches that evolution is without purpose and therefore, there is no moral law:

Unfortunately, from my perspective, knowledge is not one of those things on which one can compromise — you’ve either got evidence for something, or you don’t. We do not have evidence for purpose in evolution, and if anything, all the evidence is against the idea that evolution has a direction or that natural selection can be anything but an unguided response to local conditions.

Furthermore, his example doesn’t work. He’s all hung up on the “moral law”, and even cites C.S. Lewis. He wants to argue that the existence of morality, even if it isn’t derived from a god, is still an indication of the existence of a general directedness or overarching nudge from the laws of the universe, and therefore we should all just get along and accept this awesome pan-galactic force.

Nope, says I. First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; **you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest **(it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing ‘out there’ that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you’ve inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

evolutionnews.org/2009/09/on_atheism_and_morality_a_repl.html

So, if we listen to evolutionary theorists like P.Z. Myers, we can go on a “murder spree” if it contributes to our “self-interest”. Additionally, if we kill someone who is not a part of our “social support system” – that is not a problem either.

That is logical and consistent with evolutionary theory. Physical nature does not command or forbid human behavior on a moral basis.

But this is an obvious contradiction with Catholic teaching. Beyond that, it’s very dangerous spiritually and socially.
Hmm… First, the page you linked to is the discovery institute, which I can’t see having a fair analysis of what they feel is the opposition. Second, I feel like he was simply saying that the things keeping you from going on a murder spree are much smaller and simpler than a God. In short, he’s not condoning murder sprees, he’s saying that the reasons we don’t do them are different than morality from God in his opinion.
 
Hmm… First, the page you linked to is the discovery institute, which I can’t see having a fair analysis of what they feel is the opposition.
I seems like you were a little confused here. What you should do to find the original is go to the site I linked. Then, there’s a link in the text that I quoted . You then click on that and it takes you to the original text by Myers. When you do that, you’ll see the text I quoted.
Otherwise, you’d have to assume that I’m lying or I just fabricated the text (or the page I linked to fabricated it, etc), as you seemed to do here. But if you follow the instructions I provided you’ll actually be able to find the original quoted text.
Second, I feel like he was simply saying that the things keeping you from going on a murder spree are much smaller and simpler than a God. In short, he’s not condoning murder sprees, he’s saying that the reasons we don’t do them are different than morality from God in his opinion.
I can understand why you’d want to put a spin on what he actually said. But the points he made are very clear. He stated explicitly the only reason why a person does not go on a murder spree.

The fact that you’re trying to reinterpret what he actually said tells me a lot about your own embrace of materialist atheism and serves as a proof against it. You’re uncomfortable with the obvious and logical conclusions that flow from evolutionary theory – even after seeing one of the most prominent evolutionists spell that conclusion out in crystal-clear terms.

It’s my belief that most atheistic-evolutionists do not want to deal with the consequences of their theory. This is precisely what Myers and Coyne were ridiculing with Robert Wright’s newfound interest in a semi-deist origin of morality.
 
I seems like you were a little confused here. What you should do to find the original is go to the site I linked. Then, there’s a link in the text that I quoted . You then click on that and it takes you to the original text by Myers. When you do that, you’ll see the text I quoted.
Otherwise, you’d have to assume that I’m lying or I just fabricated the text (or the page I linked to fabricated it, etc), as you seemed to do here. But if you follow the instructions I provided you’ll actually be able to find the original quoted text.

I can understand why you’d want to put a spin on what he actually said. But the points he made are very clear. He stated explicitly the only reason why a person does not go on a murder spree.

The fact that you’re trying to reinterpret what he actually said tells me a lot about your own embrace of materialist atheism and serves as a proof against it. You’re uncomfortable with the obvious and logical conclusions that flow from evolutionary theory – even after seeing one of the most prominent evolutionists spell that conclusion out in crystal-clear terms.

It’s my belief that most atheistic-evolutionists do not want to deal with the consequences of their theory. This is precisely what Myers and Coyne were ridiculing with Robert Wright’s newfound interest in a semi-deist origin of morality.
I realize how to get to the original text. I was talking about the discussion of it on the page you linked to, which I was assuming is where you got your opinion of the matter. You believe what you want, I stand by my analysis of his words because that’s how it sounds to me. It’s moot anyway though, since even if he did mean it the way you think he did, it doesn’t mean he’s right, it would mean I disagree with him, and he’s not like the president of atheists or something - he’s just a guy with an opinion based on his work.
 
It’s moot anyway though, since even if he did mean it the way you think he did, it doesn’t mean he’s right, it would mean I disagree with him, and he’s not like the president of atheists or something - he’s just a guy with an opinion based on his work.
True, it doesn’t mean that he’s right. But I think he’s more than just a guy with an opinion at the same time. He’s one of the most prominent voices of evolutionary science in America today and he’s drawing conclusions from evolutionary theory. In other words, he’ll get a lot more credibility for his ideas than the average person will.

For myself, I think it’s important that he affirms exactly what many people (like myself) have said about evolutionary theory – namely, that it proposes a universe without purpose and with no moral law. Even more than that, any human behavior can be justified in that worldview.
 
It should be noted that people like PZ Myers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins get a certain amount of press. When someone like PZ Myers takes a host, puts a rusty nail through it and throws it in the trash, that means something. When he tells people “it’s just a f***** cracker!” That means something.

From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. One priest commented out of genuine concern that something is bothering this man that causes him to do and say these things. He was not quite sure what.

Sam Harris has decided that religion is a big problem:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

He thinks that religious belief has broken up the world not so much into countries but into geographic zones of belief. But I think that could be said of any group of human beings who hold the same or closely similar beliefs. Atheists have been implying or bluntly saying that there is no big, central Atheist HQ. I suggest visiting the American Atheists web site to dispel that idea. In it, you will see a line that says now is a good time to remind people that atheists are not behind the world’s problems. There are no atheist drug smugglers, international arms dealers or criminals? Atheists, just by being atheists, opt out of the same temptations and bad choices afflicting others? I don’t think that statement is logical.

It is very, very clear that a mindless, non-goal oriented process just sprung to life with no ‘higher power’ to initiate it would be the perfect explanation or excuse for some. I’m in charge. My life is mine to do with as I will. No one can tell me what to do.

If you save your life you will lose it, if you lose your life for my sake you will keep it.

Evolution, as presented here, is another religion. Evolve beyond belief – worship the mind of man as embodied by science. I used to have greater trust for science but I cannot any longer. “Science is silent about the supernatural. Science is silent about God. Show me one scientific paper that mentions God.” Then, on this forum: “According to science, your holy book is wrong, here, here and here.”

Some chemical reaction, somewhere, somehow, just started creating life. I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed
 
True, it doesn’t mean that he’s right. But I think he’s more than just a guy with an opinion at the same time. He’s one of the most prominent voices of evolutionary science in America today and he’s drawing conclusions from evolutionary theory. In other words, he’ll get a lot more credibility for his ideas than the average person will.

For myself, I think it’s important that he affirms exactly what many people (like myself) have said about evolutionary theory – namely, that it proposes a universe without purpose and with no moral law. Even more than that, any human behavior can be justified in that worldview.
Well I agree with that part of it. I just don’t think it opens the door to mass murder sprees. As I mentioned though, I don’t think that’s what he was saying either.
 
There are a number of prominent biologists who are devoted Christians. Francis Collins is just one of many, many examples. You choose to pick some who are atheists. A straw man argument isn’t pursuasive. I’m not how doing how doing so advances your implicit argument that no one who believes in evolution (that is, just about every Ph.D. biologist I know) can also be a Christian. The Church says that you can be a Christian and accept evolutionary biology. You disagree. I’ll go with the teaching of the Church, thank you very much.
 
There are a number of prominent biologists who are devoted Christians. Francis Collins is just one of many, many examples. You choose to pick some who are atheists. A straw man argument isn’t pursuasive. I’m not how doing how doing so advances your implicit argument that no one who believes in evolution (that is, just about every Ph.D. biologist I know) can also be a Christian. The Church says that you can be a Christian and accept evolutionary biology. You disagree. I’ll go with the teaching of the Church, thank you very much.
Adowcay, I append below the list of scientists who accept religion and theologians who accept evolution, from among the list of fellows of the ISSR, the prestigious International Society for Science and Religion. I include the list down to the letter “H”; for the complete list see http://www.issr.org.uk/issr-members.asp:

Dr. Denis Alexander,
Director of the Faraday Institute for Science & Religion, St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, and Senior Affiliated Scientist at The Babraham Institute, Cambridge,
Cambridge University and The Babraham Institute, UK.

Dr. Munawar Anees,
President,
KnowSys, USA.

Dr. Anindita Balslev,
Philosopher and organiser, cross cultural conversation,
Denmark/India.

Professor Ian G. Barbour,
Professor of Physics and Professor of Religion (Emeritus),
Carleton College, USA.

Professor Henk Barendregt,
Professor of Foundations of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Professor John Barrow,
Professor of Mathematical Sciences,
Cambridge University, UK.

Professor David J. Bartholomew,
Emeritus Professor of Statistics,
London School of Economics, UK.

Professor Peter Berger,
Professor of Sociology and Theology, College of Arts and Sciences and School of Theology,
Boston University, USA.

Professor Robert J. (Sam) Berry,
Professor of Genetics Emeritus,
University College London, UK.

Revd. Prof. John Bowker,
Formerly Professor of Religious Studies, University of Lancaster, Dean and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London.

Professor John Hedley Brooke,
Andreas Idreos Professor Emeritus of Science & Religion, and Emeritus Fellow Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford. Also Honorary Professor of the History of Science, Lancaster University,
Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, UK.

Dr. Warren S. Brown,
Professor of Psychology and Director of the Travis Research Institute,
Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA.

Professor John A. Bryant,
Professor Emeritus of Cell and Molecular Biology,
University of Exeter, UK.

Revd. Prof. Frank Budenholzer,
Professor of Chemistry,
Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.

Professor Geoffrey Cantor,
Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science,
University of Leeds, UK.

Professor Philip Clayton,
Professor of Philosophy; Professor of Religion; Ingraham Professor of Theology,
Claremont Graduate University; Claremont School of Theology, USA.

Professor Ronald Cole-Turner,
H. Parker Sharp Professor of Theology and Ethics,
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, USA.

Dr. Francis S. Collins,
Director,
National Human Genome Research Institute, USA.

Professor Simon Conway Morris,
Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology,
University of Cambridge, UK.

Revd. Dr. Christopher Corbally,
Vice Director,
Vatican Observatory, USA.

Professor Ramanath Cowsik,
Professor of Physics & Director, McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences,
Washington University, USA.

Professor George Coyne,
Director Emeritus, Vatican Observatory; Adjunct Professor, Department of Astronomy, University of Arizona,
Vatican Observatory; University of Arizona, USA.

Professor Pranab Kumar Das II,
Chair and Professor of Physics,
Elon University, USA.

Professor Paul Davies,
Director of Beyond: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Sciences,
Arizona State University, USA.

Professor Celia E. Deane-Drummond,
Professor and Director of the Centre for Religion and the Biosciences,
University College Chester, UK.

Professor Dr. Willem B. Drees,
Dean & Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics,
Leiden University, The Netherlands.

Revd. Dr. Denis Edwards,
Senior Lecturer in Theology,
Flinders University, Australia.

Dr. Noah Efron,
Chair, Graduate Program in Science, Technology & Society (also, President, Israeli Society for History & Philosophy of Science),
Bar Ilan University, Israel.

Professor George Ellis,
Professor Emeritus and Research Associate,
University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Dr. Carl Feit,
Dr Joseph and Rachel Ades Chair in Health Sciences,
Yeshiva University, USA.

Professor Menachem Fisch,
Joseph and Ceil Mazer Professor of History and Philosophy of Science & Chair of the Gradaute School of Philosophy,
Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Professor Lodovico Galleni,
Professor of General Zoology and of Environmental Ethics,
University of Pisa, Italy.

Professor Owen Gingerich,
Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA.

Professor Mehdi Golshani,
Professor of Physics,
Sharif University of Technology, Iran.

Professor Ulf Görman,
Professor, Ethics,
Lund University, Sweden.

Revd. Prof. Niels Gregersen,
Professor of Systematic Theology,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Professor Frederick Gregory,
Professor of History of Science,
University of Florida, USA.

Dr. Bruno Guiderdoni,
Director of Research,
Paris Institute of Astrophysics, France.

Professor Dr. S. Nomanul Haq,
Visiting Faculty at the rank of Associate Professor,
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Pakistan/University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Professor Peter Harrison,
Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion,
University of Oxford, UK.

Professor John F. Haught,
Distinguished Research Professor,
Georgetown University, USA.

Professor Sir Brian Heap,
Research Associate,
Von Hugel Institute, UK.

Revd. Prof. Philip Hefner,
Professor of Systematic Theology Emeritus,
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, USA.

Revd. Prof. Michael Heller,
Professor, Faculty of Philosophy,
Pontifical Academy of Theology, Cracow, Poland.

Professor Noreen Herzfeld,
Professor of Theology and Computer Science,
St. John’s University, USA.

Dr. Peter M. J. Hess,
Faith Project Director,
National Center for Science Education (NCSE), USA; also Saint Mary’s College, Moraga, California, USA.

Professor Martinez (Marty) Hewlett,
Professor Emeritus, Biology
University of Arizona, USA.

Sir John Houghton,
Retired,
President, John Ray Initiative; Honorary Scientist, Hadley Centre, UK Meteorological Office, UK.

Professor Nancy R. Howell,
Professor of Theology and Philosophy of Religion,
Saint Paul School of Theology, USA.
 
Adowcay, I append below the list of scientists who accept religion and theologians who accept evolution,
Interesting list. When a person has to concoct a novel theology which departs from apostolic Christianity (that is, Catholicism) in order to give the illusion that Christianity can be fully reconciled with Darwinism, then I wouldn’t say much about that theological system in itself. It’s clear evidence also that science dictates to religion and not the other way around.

But aside from that …
Professor Owen Gingerich,
Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA.
Since he is a theist as well as a historian of science and a cosmologist, Gingerich has been asked several times to comment on matters concerning the interplay between science and faith. One of these, Intelligent design, he calls an issue with “immense incomprehension from both the friends and foes.” On the one hand, he says that it is unfortunate that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among its critics that ID is simply Young Earth creationism in disguise. On the other hand, he says that, while ID supporters make a good case for a coherent understanding of the nature of the cosmos,

they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers. [9]

… Gingerich is a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he does not accept metaphysical naturalism, writing that

Most mutations are disasters, but perhaps some inspired few are not. Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, and frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other. Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative (name removed by moderator)ut in the long chain of being

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich

Interesting also – there are two kinds of “evolution” according to this member of the prestigious International Society for Science and Religion. There is “atheistic evolution” and “theistic evolution”.

So when we hear claims that “evolution is true” – according to Gingerich’s view, that is clearly false, except when speaking about “theistic evolution”.

That’s good to know. It’s solid proof that all biology textbooks and academic courses that fail to teach about “theistic evolution” are necessarily false.

Additionally, Gingerich that there has been creative (name removed by moderator)ut in the long chain of being,and that’s a good refutation of Darwinism right there. Precisely what “creative (name removed by moderator)ut” did God have? What limits are there on the (name removed by moderator)ut? Since God did have this (name removed by moderator)ut, then mutations cannot be claimed to be random, purposeless, non-teleolgical, and products of blind unintelligent processes - and Darwin’s theory is falsified.
 
So when we hear claims that “evolution is true” – according to Gingerich’s view, that is clearly false, except when speaking about “theistic evolution”.

That’s good to know. It’s solid proof that all biology textbooks and academic courses that fail to teach about “theistic evolution” are necessarily false…/QUOTE

Then this too must be true:

'It’s solid proof that all physics textbooks and academic courses that fail to teach about “theistic gravity” are necessarily false
 
reggieM;5672293:
So when we hear claims that “evolution is true” – according to Gingerich’s view, that is clearly false, except when speaking about “theistic evolution”.

That’s good to know. It’s solid proof that all biology textbooks and academic courses that fail to teach about “theistic evolution” are necessarily false…
You didn’t hear the news?
 
'It’s solid proof that all physics textbooks and academic courses that fail to teach about “theistic gravity” are necessarily false
I didn’t know that members of the prestigious International Society for Science and Religion claimed that there was such a thing as “theistic gravity” and “atheistic gravity” the way Professor Gingerich did regarding evolution.

If so, I’d like to see the reference.
If not, then the analogy fails. Although, you could inform Mr. Gingerich about his errors, and perhaps get him kicked out of the prestigious ISSR.

Meanwhile, since you think it’s necessary to ridicule the ideas of members of the very organization that you held up as a shining example, we can only wonder what equally ridiculous views the rest of the members of ISSR proclaim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top