Custom Search

Monday, June 21, 2010

4. Maybe the coffin is still empty because no one actually bought it?

While we are here anyway, Karl Giberson also wrote, at the Huffington Post, "Intelligent Design's Coffin Is Still Empty". That would not surprise a lot of people; if it were not for court orders and tax funding, it is Giberson's Darwinism's coffin that would not be empty. But here is what he actually says:
ID's coffin is far from being nailed shut. Several things are propping it open:

1) The complex designs of many natural structures that have not yet been explained by science. As long as there are ingenious devices and intricate phenomena in nature (origin of life, anyone?) that we cannot understand, there will be ID arguments.

2) The remarkable, finely-tuned structure of the cosmos in which the laws of physics collaborate to make life possible. Many agnostics have had their faith in unguided materialism shaken by this, most recently Anthony Flew.

3) The widespread belief that God -- an intelligent agent -- created the universe. The claim that an intelligent God created an unintelligent universe seems peculiar, to say the least.

4) The enthusiastic insistence by the New Atheists that evolution is incompatible with belief in God. Most people think more highly of their religion than their science. Imagine trying to get 100 million Americans to dress up for a science lecture every Sunday morning -- and then voluntarily pay for the privilege.

ID's coffin will remain open -- and empty -- as least as long as these props remain. Science is working successfully only on the first prop above and is a long way from having explained all the mysteries of nature. The argument that because science has explained many things, it can explain all things, is not entirely compelling in a world as wonderful as this one. Many people think that sounds like blind faith. And long lists of bad designs in nature are not really more effective than short lists, especially when they seem attached to an anti-religious agenda.
Not what he would apparently like, of course.

Some responses: So, in other words, the answer can never be design. So the late Antony Flew, the best known 20th century academic atheist must be an idiot if he changed his mind? Anyway, who experiences the universe as unintelligent? I never found it so. Giberson's whole schick is patronizing beyond the level of disgust, and one can only pity any theist taken in by it. Most of the Americans who go to church/synagogue/mosque/gurdwara, etc., are as fully capable as Giberson is of making reasonable decisions about their lives, much as he obviously doubts it, from his tone and manner.

And so what follows from his performance? The very slightest tap on the wrist to aggressive atheists attempting to dominate the public square. Fact is, "science" will never get anywhere with key questions as long as it is wedded to materialism. And what about these "bad designs" in nature? As all things must die, bad designs are a way of building in the fatal flaw. If nothing could die, nothing could be born. That would sure put an end to any kind of evolution.

Go here for the next segment: 5. Here is what troubles me most about this whole Giberson and Biologos front for Darwinism

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Labels: ,

5. Here is what troubles me most about this whole Giberson and Biologos front for Darwinism

The project of rescuing Darwin is, and should be, unattractive at best to a Christian. Darwin honestly believed that African Americans were closer to baboons than white Euro-Americans were. And, let me begin by saying that that was and remains an entirely logical and obvious outcome of Darwinism. Darwinism teaches that varieties split into separate species, and also that relentless struggle for survival between such groups is the engine of massive progress, including the creation of the intricate machinery inside all of our cells.

Oh yes, the Darwinist will acknowledge that there are other engines of evolution, but Darwinism is the only one he is really interested in, because that is the one that excludes divine action. Darwinism is purely random except for naked and ruthless competition (God = 0). That is why Darwinism is the only theory of evolution that is generally controversial - and for good reason, in my view.

It is both the creation story of atheism and generally lacking in real, specific evidence, other than paltry stuff that no one would dispute (changes in size of finch beaks) or stuff that runs counter to Darwinism's claims (antibiotic resistance usually develops through junking complex equipment, not creating it).

Yet, Darwinism simply cannot be true within the life of this universe. The data is in, and it does not work for Darwinism. So why believe it?

Karl Giberson believes it.
Raised a fundamentalist who firmly believed in creationism, Giberson abandoned his creationist beliefs while working on his Ph.D., but not his belief in Christianity. This book explores the history of the controversy that swirls around evolution and shows why - and how - it is possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time.
The cover of his book features a fetching picture of Jesus, which is totally unlike the one that causes my fellow parishioners and me to fall to our knees. Not a fetching pic ture at all, but rather a reminder that the lamb of God took away the sins of the world by suffering. Hardly Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” He was the fittest, but did not survive. And after that, what can I say?

For whatever reason, in the face of massive lack of evidence for Darwinism, some self-declared Christians say that we would all be better off to embrace Charles “survival of the fittest” Darwin.

Oh, wait, you have heard about the “massive evidence” for Darwinism, right? No, that is a confusion cleverly created by Darwinist tax and donor burdens.

What they do is they cleverly confuse two concepts: One is evidence for evolution. Few doubt that, in my experience. Does anyone doubt, for example, that the tyrannosaur is no longer among us? Well, a simple question would be, can anyone produce one?

But the Darwinist always conflates it into evidence for Darwinism: That time and chance alone can produce intricate machinery within cells, which accounts for the life we see around us. That is flatly unbelievable.

One thing belief in Darwinism would do is relieve us of a burden of guilt, right? We can make all issues of racism or eugenics into political correctness issues, rather than issues of fact. To this day, Darwinists become evasive when I ask them to confess well-known Darwinist sins re racism and eugenics.

More re Karl Giberson.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Labels: ,

Who links to me?