Marvin Olasky on theistic atheism - oops, I meant theistic evolution

Journalism dean Marvin Olasky notes,

Today's three great cultural flashpoints are abortion, same-sex marriage, and evolution. We can hedge on them and justify our hedging: Playing it cool here will help me gain for Christ people who would otherwise walk away.

I'm not knocking such considerations. Nor am I assuming that anyone who tries to meld eternal truth and contemporary trends lacks courage: Some do so on evangelistic principle, others because they believe what they're saying is true. But attempts to unify antitheses generally defy logic.

Over the past 15 years I've tried to explain some of the problems of Darwinism. Last year I raised questions about the "theistic evolution" that Francis Collins espouses, but didn't offer answers—and several WORLD readers have pressed me for more (see "Theistic evolutionist," July 10, 2009).

Darn. He’s on to the story of the century, and I thought I had it all to myself. He continues,

To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0."

Right, exactly, that is the project of “theistic” evolution, so far as I can see. Helping theists get used to a world run by atheists and their values, while still hollering fer Jesus irrelevantly somewhere.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Here’s Jewish lawyer Ezra Levant on the flop of the recent anti-Christian Canadian book - also anti-ID.

Apparently, Canadian Marci McDonald’s Random House anti-Christian book is a commercial flop. Go here, here, and here for intelligent-design related “marcis” = obvious errors such as claiming that proud Presbyterian Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial , had become a Catholic.

At some point, truth needs evidence, not conspiracy thinking.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: