Well, the BioLogos website, once headed by Francis Collins and perpetually funded by the Templeton Foundation—both of whom declared Intelligent Design dead on arrival—has sold its soul to Satan. In other words, it’s taken to publishing essays by William Dembski. Not only that, but essays that undercut the very mission of BioLogos: to reconcile evangelical Christianity with science.
Dembski’s latest piece of afflatus, “Is science theologically neutral?“, deals with the question of whether Darwinism is compatible with Christianity. He first takes out after Michael Ruse’s brand of weak-tea compatibility, which I criticized in my review of his book Can A Darwinian Be a Christian? Dembski and I both get big LOLs at how, in that book, Ruse comported the ressurection with science (these are Ruse’s words):
Even the supreme miracle of the resurrection requires no law-breaking return from the dead. One can think of Jesus in a trance, or more likely that he really was physically dead but that on and from the third day a group of people, hitherto downcast, were filled with great joy and hope.
Shades of Eliot Sober and the God-guided mutations! This is taking special pleading to its limit. Dembski finds that ludicrous, but also criticizes pure Biblical literalism:
Ruse claims Darwinism compatible with Christianity, but by Christianity he means a liberalism gutted of miracles. On the other hand, special creationists interpret Genesis as teaching a form of creation that disallows any large-scale evolution. Although I don’t think the evidence supports large-scale evolution, both approaches are too easy. Ruse essentially has to redefine Christianity. And special creationists face challenges to their interpretation of Genesis. For instance, Genesis claims that humans are made of dust, at one point even referring to humans as dust (“dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” – Genesis 3:19). But if humans are dust, then so are other animals, and thus when Genesis says that humans were made from dust, what is to prevent God from transforming preexisting ape-like primates (who are dust) into humans (who are also dust) by some evolutionary process? Let me stress, I personally don’t buy this argument, but it’s one readily advanced by evolutionists against special creationists.
Dembski then lists the “non-negotiable” assertions of Darwinism and Christianity, to see if either undercuts the other:
Non-Negotiables of Christianity:
- (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
- (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
- (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
- (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.
Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:
- (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
- (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
- (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
- (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.
There are others, of course, including the random forces of mutation and genetic drift, the fact of evolution itself (gradual transformation of the genetic composition of populations).
So what does Dembski think? He finds that the continuity of human with animals violates Christianity, but that methodological naturalism may comport with Christanity:
Methodological naturalism is a weaker claim, allowing that God may have acted miraculously (in salvation history, say), only not in areas under scientific investigation (such as biological evolution).
That’s bogus, because certain supernatural claims can be investigated with the tools of science. Any claim that God is theistic makes him or his actions subject to scientific investigation. I’ve never heard methodological naturalism defined in the way Dembski does, which verges on the tautological. And, curiously, he claims that Darwin went beyond “normal” methodological naturalism (the idea that scientists assume that phenomena have natural causes):
Darwin himself was more than a methodological naturalist. Once he became convinced of evolution by natural selection, he gave no credence to God ever having acted in contravention of natural law.
Well, I don’t know of anywhere Darwin says that, or denies explicitly that miracles could never have taken place. Darwin hedged his agnosticism, if it be called that, quite carefully, and never, as far as I know, said explicitly that there was no God (what Dembski would call “philosophical naturalism”). At any rate, Dembski finds human exceptionalism the sticking point between evolution and faith:
Looking at these two lists of non-negotiables, we find certain tensions that are not readily resolved and that suggest (D1)-(D4) do in fact undercut (C1)-(C4). Note that I call them “tensions” rather than outright contradictions. Strict logical contradictions are difficult to find in the science-theology dialogue because the language of science and the language of theology tend to be so different. Even the clash of (C3), Human Exceptionalism, and (D3), Human Continuity, might be finessed by arguing that a sufficiently large difference in degree can appear as a difference in kind. So, [in the second half of this essay] I’ll focus on the tensions between these two lists of non-negotiables and how, in particular, (D1)-(D4) undercut (C1)-(C4).
Stay tuned for part two. In the meantime, we see BioLogos, which was dedicated to the idea that Christianity and science were compatible, publishing an essay asserting that they’re not.
As I’ve noted here many times, believing in creationism (by whatever label) requires you to decry the laws of basic epistemology and joined-up thinking as lies. Those who posit miracles keep ignoring that if miracles existed back then, their absence now is Bayesian evidence against God. “At some point you just reach probabilities lower than ‘There is a pony behind my sofa, but it teleports away whenever you try to look at it, by sheer coincidence’.”
When I hear ‘arguments’ like this for some reason I picture an industrial manure spreader, powered by a jet engine from a 747.
This is progress, right? Biologos previously claimed science and religion were compatible, and that was wrong. It now has Dumbski claiming science and christianity are incompatible, and that is right.
People like Dembski are empty handed and empty of mind for legitimate evidence for their foolish dogma, so they spin in place, weaving webs of lies and wild-ass speculation in order to convince people to support their dogmatic pronouncements. This is just more of that. Pathetic.
Methodological naturalism is a weaker claim, allowing that God may have acted miraculously (in salvation history, say), only not in areas under scientific investigation (such as biological evolution).
—
Perhaps but how does Dembski know that?
Is this what they call an “own goal” ?
Good one!
I’m waiting for a theologian to argue: evolution created man, but WHO created evolution?
No need to wait – I believe that this is basically the position of Darrel Falk, BioLogos and other TE folks.
That’s really stretching credulity in that interpretation…
Is there any possibility to discuss different “kinds” of dust?
Silica dust, carbon dust, gold dust, diamond dust, pearl dust, plain old-dust and any permutation combination of them?
While “from dust back to dust”, not all dust are created equal, and hence they all go back to where they came from, but they came from different places, you know!
😀
WARNING : OFF TOPIC:
I don’t know where else to ask this:
the commenting system here sort of stinks, and stinks worse on mobile.
it stinks because there is no editing, but I can live with that really – what is absolutely atrocious is how on mobile – which WordPress is clearly formatted for – compresses comments into one word per line when a thread goes deep enough.
if anyone knows how I can adjust this, or where I ought to ask, please say so.
ok, thanks and apologies for being off-topic.
You clearly misunderstood the intention of this article. It’s part of series on answering the concerns from people in the Southern Baptist community. BioLogos then responds in turn with the theistic evolution view. In no way does BioLogos support Dembski or other ID proponents.
Does Dembski know that?
Tim – you and Leigh are correct in that this is part of an arranged series of ‘dialog’ among xian leaders. However, my impression is that initially BioLogos held that as far as the science goes, this is not a debate. Thus xians who deny the science would have to be challenged to reformulate their theology/dogma in light of the science. Alas, Dembski and his ilk remain steadfast in doing the opposite.
Yes, the ‘language of science’ tries to be clear, precise, comprehensible, and specific — and the ‘language of theology’ tries as hard as possible to be the opposite.
I see that Biologos have arranged a dialogue between Dembski and Darrel Falk. Falk rejects ID. So given the nature of the theological beast that Biologos partly is – a scientific-religious chimera – inviting Demski to speak is not exactly earth shattering news. ID is precisely such a chimera itself.
Dembski claims that ID is compatible with (or is) science and is compatible with Creation. Falk claims that evolutionary creationism is compatible with science and Creation. They necessarily have to jiggle science and Christian faith to comport with one another in some way, shape or form.
Dembski says that Darwin was more than a methodological naturalist. This term really is all over the place. Oh well.
He says that methodological naturalism allows that God may have acted miraculously in history. Lord knows why he says it. If one is going to bind science to that term then methodological naturalism covers all the available evidence of the evolution of our universe in toto from the moment of “creation”.
Interesting that he says Biologos founder and human genome decoder Francis Collins won’t accept total continuity with other species. Let’s see where Falk goes with that. Adam and Eve, take two?
I dug up this statement of faith at Biologos taken verbatim from Paul:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”
So Biologos don’t accept that methodological naturalism could apply to any scientific evidence of the death of Jesus – if there were such evidence – using Demski’s formulation: the physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.
So there is some common ground between Dembski and Biologos. The laws which science assumes to never break, did break when Jesus died and came back to life.
That last line of Paul’s caught my eye.
“(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.”
All life on Earth does indeed appear to be descended from a common ancestor, but if that were not the case that would not invalidate evolution by even a smidgen. Whether two or more distinct separate lineages existing on a hypothetical world are the result of a surprising survival from early in that planet’s history or the result of introduction by aliens is moot – in both cases the lineages are subject to evolutionary opportunities and struggles. Evolution does not care what your lineage is, your diversity is still going to be affected by differential reproduction and survival. Evolution is even tougher than a Honey Badger!
That UCA claim caught my eye too.
Btw, this may amuse you:
In thread last night on the claims that our increased population makes selection more efficient, which first surfaced in paleoanthropology I believe and now genomic sequencing (more rare alleles to account for vs false positives of the statistical methods), I had reason to compare evolution to “the Hulk (of natural processes)”.
[As in: “Evolution kicks ass. The more ass there is, the more ass it kicks.”]
I would not read too much into that. They are allowing an essay from Dembski, in order to disagree with it.
Don’t get too excited after part 2 by Dembski, other authors respond. Go to their site http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptist-voices-is-darwinism-theologically-neutral for the drivel follow ups by Kenneth Keathley http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptist-voices-a-biologos-response-to-william-dembski-part-i and part 2 http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptist-voices-a-biologos-response-to-william-dembski-part-ii
Sorry, its Darrel Falk, not Kenneth Keathley…
The introduction to Dembski’s talk says “Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation.”
That seems clear enough.
Doesn’t Dembski still owe the Templeton Foundation a book for the advance he pocketed? Maybe he is working it off in instalments!
The creationist Todd Wood gives a better dismissal of Dembski:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2012/05/two-interesting-essays.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2012/05/methodological-naturalism.html
but I (Todd C Wood) don’t think Dembski has made a very good case for incompatibility.
Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:
.
Ignoring the “Darwinism” reference, science does not have non-negotiables. Even the points listed by Dembski are open to negotiation – when Creationists can produce convincing evidence against them. But they can’t. So they call us closed-minded for not being convinced by the evidence they have failed to produce.