Darrel Falk: You’re nothing but a pack of neurons and you must accept that

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responds to BioLogos (= Dawkins’s scissors, applied to Bible in Jesus’ name):

Then, after chiding the church for paying too much attention to anti-evolutionary voices, he offers a sentence which, taken seriously, represents a breathtaking intellectual commitment:


Scientific knowledge is not seriously flawed and we cannot allow ourselves to be led down this pathway any longer.


That is nothing less than a manifesto for scientism. Science, as a form of knowledge, is here granted a status that can only be described as infallible. The dangers of this proposal are only intensified when we recognize that “scientific knowledge” is not even a stable intellectual construct. Nevertheless, these words do reveal why BioLogos pushes its agenda with such intensity.


[ ... ]


Dr. Falk ends his essay with a paragraph that includes this key sentence: “If God really has created through an evolutionary mechanism and if God chooses to use BioLogos and other groups to help the Church come to terms with this issue, then three three huge challenges will begin to melt away as God’s Spirit enables us to look to him and not to ourselves.” I will simply let that sentence speak for itself.

Yes indeed. Let all mortal flesh keep silence.

Especially wise to keep silent when we consider that only a flawed understanding, not corrected by the truth of science, leads us to believe that there is a Holy Spirit. Just as the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will) and really believe in their rag and bone shop, the overwhelming majority of neuroscientists believe that the sacred calling identified for BioLogos is simply a meaningless dance of neurons in Darrel Falk’s brain. So why hasn’t he accepted the verdict of science yet?

Scientific knowledge is not, remember, seriously flawed.

Al Mohler vs. Mark Sprinkle: Is all this about being right or being nice?

Recently, Southern Seminary prez Al Mohler responded to claims from Mark Sprinkle at BioLogos (Christian Darwinists’ site) that he had unfairly characterized them as not Christian

... in any but a nominal or diminished way, not authentic followers of Jesus no matter what we say and despite the evidence of the Holy Spirit both in us and working through us ...

Sprinkle’s prescriptive advice follows,

I invite Dr. Mohler to refrain from condemning (even by faint praise) those whom the Spirit has sanctified and is sanctifying, and through whom He is calling more of the lost to Himself. More, I invite him to join me at the table as a brother and to put off the too-common practice of acting as if we know everything we need to know about those on the other sides of these issues from what we read on-line.

and then an invitation,

As Cornelius asked Peter “to stay with them for a few days” to see what the Lord would be teaching them together, I invite Dr. Mohler to come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of people in the BioLogos community.

Mohler denies he has ever said or implied that the BioLogists are not sincere Christians. Why would he? Lots of folk who follow a church-emptying theology lead exemplary private lives. And we are all thankful that judgment belongs to God alone. But that’s immaterial to the issues at hand.

Two problems I experience with “you will know we are Christians by our love, by our love” as an argument are that

1) I didn’t know this was an exam on virtue. I thought we were discussing the evidence re Darwinism (survival of the fittest) as the great engine of nature.

2) Anyway, protests of virtue sound like a bid for praise, as well as for the repentance of those who think evil of the folk at BioLogos.

When people imply that their lives are the witness to their theology – and no one has volunteered to be their Judge, as it happens – one must assume that one is overhearing a soliloquy, and speak no more.

Mohler points out, re the “Holy Spirit ... working through us”:

That is an interesting statement, but it is nonsensical unless there is some means of evaluating what is and is not authentic evidence of the Spirit at work. And that, of course, would mean some kind of biblical and theological test. The effort to escape theology gets us nowhere.”

Here, in my view, is the BioLogists’ problem:

As Bill and I will show in Christian Darwinism (Broadman and Holman, 2011), there can be no reconciliation between Christianity and Darwinism (survival of the fittest). Nor did Darwin and his circle ever intend one. And Darwinism - the Creation story of atheism - is in fact the only theory of evolution that is vigorously opposed or promoted.

The key characteristic of Darwinism is the belief in the awesome powers of natural selection acting on random mutation to produce all forms of life – and, for most Darwinists, the power to produce mind, consciousness, and moral choice too. And for some, even universes. Darwinism undergirds and embraces everything, like God used to.

Biologos invites us to embrace Darwinism. But any Christianity that survived by embracing Darwinism would be a monstrous perversion, so we have little to lose by rejecting it, come what may.

And now, a question, Dr. Mohler: Won’t we soon be hearing how the Bible can be attributed to the selfish gene at work? And soon after, a Christian Darwinist will proclaim that the Bible can nonetheless be accepted as the authentic Word of God. Wait, better news still: Despite the universal rule of the selfish gene, the Christian Darwinist himself is a nice person and a member of a praiseworthy community.

Fine. Now if they would all just collect their brownie points and depart, we could have a real discussion of the accumulating failings of Darwinism, and what should replace it. That is what we want and need.

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:

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:

More on BioLogos ...

Here, Tribune asks "What problem does Collins have with ID," in response to my post on his new venture BioLogos, "US government genome mapper Francis Collins fronts new BioLogos theory, preferred to “theistic evolution”"

Well, first, truth in advertising, I have written three reviews of Collins's book, The Language of God, two of which were quite favourable, and the third more thoughtful and critical. The first two merely recommend to book as suitable for a student at Christmas, for example, and I would stand by that. If the student comes home raving that he is an atheist because all scientists are, well, Collins thinks otherwise, is famous, and is an easy read.

But while Collins is an outstanding geneticist, I don't find him a deep thinker in these matters. So I am not sure how fruitful it would be to worry about what bothers him individually about ID, in an age when even an atheist like Bradley Monton thinks ID discussable and another atheist, Thomas Nagel, thinks ID discussable in schools.*

I am glad that, as others have noted, he isn't misrepresenting ID as a "God of the gaps" theory (= we can't understand it, so God dunit), when ID is about what we do understand (design). I assume that that is a sign of his good character.

The BioLogos project seems an effort to protect theistic evolution from the charge of practical atheism, by invoking Scripture. I do not think that will work, but I can certainly see how Christian clergy and scientists of a certain generation and religious preference would embrace it.

Theistic evolution got started in an age when it looked like Darwin was right, and people wanted to hang on to their faith. They professed that one could be a Christian and a Darwinist without paying any attention to the fact that it didn't work for Darwin and Darwin's aim was explicitly contrary to theirs, as he made clear to Wallace and Asa Gray.

But now it looks like he was wrong or doubtful, so theistic evolution is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. However, so much has been written in its defense and so many careers built on it that we must not expect it to just go away.

I would predict instead that there will be more efforts like Biologos, as theistic evolutionists try to position themselves in relation to current evidence.

*For the record, as a curriculum writer and sometime advisor, I would say that anything should be discussable in schools if the students actually care about it. Making the teacher or the curriculum irrelevant to students' true concerns is not the way to educate. Not every student who thinks school a waste of time has been wrong, unfortunately.

US genome mapper Francis Collins fronts new BioLogos theory, preferred to "theistic evolution"

Francis Collins, the US government's genome mapper, whose book The Language of God I reviewed here, has launched BioLogos, to advocate a sort of rebranded theistic evolution:

BioLogos

BioLogos is most similar to Theistic Evolution. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, which is the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of physics. (For more on God’s involvement with creation, see Questions 11 and 14 about Miracles and Divine Action.) Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life. Because the term evolution is sometimes associated with atheism, a better term for the belief in a God who chose to create the world by way of evolution is BioLogos. (For more about the definition of evolution, see Question 2 on What is Evolution?) BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the gospel of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Just exactly why Collins is doing this, I am not sure. Giving a new name to "theistic evolution" is like putting ballroom slippers on a horse. It won't help either the slippers or the horse. But I am pretty sure which party will come out ahead.

Why try to rescue theistic evolution? It only ever got started because some people needed a religious belief that squares with the idea that God never intervenes. So you can believe, for all practical purposes, in a God who doesn't exist. That is the key reason theistic evolution is so commonly associated with atheism.

Whether God in fact intervenes at specific times is, in my view, an open question. It is commonly raised in the Catholic Church around the canonization of saints.

Collins offers a reasonably fair assessment of intelligent design theory, compared to many sources. He seems stuck on the idea that Darwinian evolution can actually create huge amounts of new information, which is obviously untrue, but - in my experience - if people need to believe that, well, ...

Of course, Pharyngula calls Collins's view creationism - but what would you expect?

Update: The odd thing is that I am a theistic evolutionist myself, in the true sense. That is, I do not doubt that, in principle, God could cause everything to unfold from the Big Bang. But - he need not have done so and has never been under any obligation to do so. The matter must be determined by evidence, and the typical "theistic evolutionist" or "BioLogist" doesn't seem much interested

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: