Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Evolution, the Bible, and the Book of Nature (RJS)

posted by Jesus Creed Admin

The July/August issue of Books and Culture contains an interview by Karl Giberson with Francis Collins on his views of science and faith – now available on line: Evolution, the Bible and the Book of Nature.

Here is a brief taste of the article – read the whole – better yet subscribe! (pictures from wikipedia)

On the general approach Collins takes to issues of science and faith:

Giberson: You take both the Bible and evolution seriously. Did the harmony you find between evolution and your faith just come naturally?

Francis_Collins ds.JPG

Collins: You know, it really did. When I became a believer at
27, the first church I went to was a pretty conservative Methodist
church in a little town outside Chapel Hill. I’m sure there were a lot
of people in that church who were taking Genesis literally and
rejecting evolution.

But I couldn’t take Genesis literally because I had come to the scientific worldview before
I came to the spiritual worldview. I felt that, once I arrived at the
sense that God was real and that God was the source of all truth, then,
just by definition, there could not be a conflict.

On the claim that scientists are misled by their preconceptions:

Karl_Giberson ds.JPG

Giberson: History shows that paradigms are sometimes
misleading. For example, the paradigm that there couldn’t be change in
the heavens caused people to miss data for many centuries about new
stars. The ID scientists would say that people like you wouldn’t see
the design in nature because you work under a paradigm that excludes
that possibility.

Collins: Sure, we have paradigms that we use to try and
organize things, but one of our goals is to upset these paradigms. If
laboratories did experiments and said, “Hey, wait a minute, here is
some data suggesting that evolution is wrong, it is not capable of
explaining something,” that would be a lightning rod for excited
investigation. This idea would not be ignored because it wasn’t
consistent with a reigning paradigm.

On the key question – which experts should we trust?

Giberson: We are all part of social groups, and people we
trust tell us things. … But how are people
outside the scientific community supposed to navigate this complex web
of social authority, to try and figure out which voices they should
listen to, and which voices they shouldn’t?

Consider credentials. On paper the credentials of
the better creationists and id people are like yours and mine. Take you
and Michael Behe. You both have PhDs. You have both done research and
published articles. So if somebody wants to put Behe up against Collins
and say, “Well, here’s a guy and I like what he says. And here’s
another guy and I don’t like what he says. And you’re asking me to
follow Collins over Behe? Well, why should I do that?”

Collins: Well, that is a fundamental problem we’re facing in
our culture, especially in the United States. It’s why we have such a
mismatch between what the scientific data would suggest and what many
people believe about things like the age of the Earth and about whether
evolution is true or not.

If you ask about data-driven questions, about what is
true and what is the evidence to support it–you would want to go to the
people who are the professionals who spend their lives trying to answer
those questions and ask, “Is there a consensus view?” So you ask, “What
is the age of the Earth?” Well, who does that work? It is the geologist
and the cosmologists and the people who do radiocarbon dating. It is
the fossil record people and so on. So you ask, “Is this an unanswered
question?” And the answer you would get is that the issue is settled.
The age of the earth is 4.55 billion years.

What do you think of these answers – or any of the rest of the article? Lets open the discussion here.

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(29)
post a comment
Rick

posted July 16, 2009 at 7:31 am


Good interview.
I found his insight on coming to the faith after accepting evolution interesting.
Some very good points made by Collins:
I think he really hit on a key, under-the-surface issue when he said,
“This negative reaction to scientific consensus is not about the facts. It’s actually about an atheistic worldview that people fear is behind the claims of science. They’re worried about that?afraid?and therefore ready to reject anything that sounds like it might be colored by that materialistic perspective they assume is hidden there.”
He was very challenging, and correct when he stated,
“I think we should all read the Bible, and I believe in the priesthood of the believer. It’s biblical to do so; it’s certainly the way that Christ seems to be teaching us, but that means responsibility to read the Bible at more than the most superficial level…We must also search through the other book that God gave us?the book of nature. We must not pretend that one of these books is untrustworthy if it seems on the surface to conflict with the other. It’s our responsibility, as individuals and as a culture and I think, frankly, as Christians.”
I hope we can find ways to encourage people in such an outlook.
He put the “controversy” in a good perspective when he said,
“But I have hopes that over time we can come to the realization that the current battle between the scientific and spiritual worldviews is not God’s battle, but is one created by us.”
However, I am curious about a couple of his statements.
He stated,
“Scientists are all about upsetting and overturning things.”
And then later he stated,
“Sure, we have paradigms that we use to try and organize things, but one of our goals is to upset these paradigms.”
Is that what science is really “all about”, and its “goal”. It is those type comments and give some a view of science as having a suspicious agenda beyond just dealing with data.
I know critical thinking is a helpful tool, and such discoveries are certainly exciting. But is not science about dealing with the data, rather than actively seeking change?
If science leads us to view things in new ways, great. However, should not the goal be to better understand, rather than trying to overturn and upset, be the mission of science?



report abuse
 

Rick

posted July 16, 2009 at 7:34 am


Correction-
should read “It is those type comments that give some a view of science…”



report abuse
 

Jjoe

posted July 16, 2009 at 9:11 am


I agree that better understanding ought to be the goal of science, but nothing — nothing — turns an academic on like finding ways to shoot holes in someone else’s theory. If I published a paper predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow, someone will be hard at work refuting my claims, pointing out the holes in my research and the flaws in my thinking.
That’s one of the reasons driving the small amount of scientific disagreement with things like global warming and evolution, IMHO. Not that scripture says otherwise, or that they’ve found a new way of looking at the data, but the simple human need to get attention — and get published.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 16, 2009 at 10:03 am


Collins said:
“Sure, we have paradigms that we use to try and organize things, but one of our goals is to upset these paradigms. If laboratories did experiments and said, “Hey, wait a minute, here is some data suggesting that evolution is wrong, it is not capable of explaining something,” that would be a lightning rod for excited investigation. This idea would not be ignored because it wasn’t consistent with a reigning paradigm.”
This may be true in many contexts, but it is not true when fundamental worldview concepts and metaphysical convictions are threatened. Richard Dawkins cannot fairly consider the evidence for ID, because his prior convictions do not permit it. Many scientists who are less vocal than he are in the same situation. This is one reason why the public does not trust the scientific establishment when it speaks on topics that have metaphysical ramifications.
How the fossil record has been treated is a great example of this. Again, I recommend “Wonderful Life,” by SJ Gould.
RJS- I think a lot of what Collins says is undermined by your last post on the McGrath book.
I recommend reading what atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has written on this. His review of The God Delusion in The New Republic is excellent. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is still available online.
“The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism.”
And elsewhere:
“I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
I found some extended quotes here:
http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2006/10/id-friendly-at-new-republic-3-fear-of.html



report abuse
 

RJS

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:21 am


pds,
I don’t think that Collins’s responses in the interview are as nuanced as I would like (or I would give), but I don’t think that the last post on McGrath’s book undermines what he says either. In essence I agree – if the data did not/does not fit the paradigm – well fortunes are made by being the person to make the leap to the next level.
The discussion of systems biology vs reductionist selfish gene is a case in point – this discussion is ongoing despite preconceptions and assumptions.
But of course many scientists do not think sufficiently critically about the data and their inherent paradigms and assumptions.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:22 am


peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com
I had a hard time making it through this piece because there is so much misinformation about ID and straw man argumentation. It makes me weary . . . and sad.
Why can’t he come out and acknowledge that there is very little difference between him and Michael Behe on many, many points. The key difference is that Collins thinks that God’s design of nature is not detectable in the history of life (except in human morality and altruism), and Behe thinks it is detectable in more areas than that. Collins believes evolution explains most things in the history of life while Behe thinks it explains a lot, but not as much as Collins.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:39 am


RJS (#5)
Ok, to clarify: Looking at McGrath + Collins together, it seems to me that there are paradigms that an individual is happy to knock down, and there are paradigms that are so central to a person’s core worldview that they have hard time questioning them. Collins does not seem to acknowledge the second kind.



report abuse
 

James

posted July 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm


Wow, does anyone else feel like someone who doesn’t know Michael Behe’s work might easily infer that Behe is a YEC, when in fact he believes that the age of the earth is 4.55B years?
I wonder if Collins is either unfamiliar with Behe, was careless, or if he’s trying to disingenuously discredit him….



report abuse
 

RJS

posted July 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm


James,
Collins is quite familiar with Behe’s work here I am sure. The interview is limited by necessity. But this is a key point and it should have been made more clearly in the interview – in fact Behe and Collins agree on almost all of the evolution scenario, including old earth and common descent.
I think that the people who don’t understand this are many Christians who take Behe as opposed to “evolution” – when as I understand it, all he says is that the process appears frontloaded. He takes this position because he suggests that a purely random development couldn’t give rise to some of the complex feature.



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm


“I think that the people who don’t understand this are many Christians who take Behe as opposed to “evolution” – when as I understand it, all he says is that the process appears frontloaded.”
Yes, that is essentially Behe’s position. That means he accepts that all life on earth evolved from a pool of common ancestors millions of years ago. He also accepts common ancestry between human and other primates. Hi finds the human chromosome 2 fusion to be pretty conclusive evidence of that. He accepts the accuracy of the fossil record and rediocarbon dating and finds no unexplained discrepancies.
He does so becasue that is the only reasonable scientific conclusion based on the evidence, that, as a Ph.D, he is very well aware of.
He doesn’t have any evidence for front end loading and there is substantial evidence against front end loading. So… his position there is rejected by all other scientists for lack of evidence. His Nobel Prize awaits if he is correct.
That said, there is substatial confusion in Christian anti-evolution circles regarding Behe, becasue he is offered as a scientific counter example to evolution by Young Earth Creationist organizations. In other words, the confusion is self-inflicted in many cases.



report abuse
 

James

posted July 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm


So given that you agree… Why in the world do you think Collins answered that way?
Inexperienced interviewer perhaps? I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. That just seemed pretty out there as a response to that question.



report abuse
 

AHH

posted July 16, 2009 at 3:21 pm


James,
I agree that as reported the statements about age of the Earth, coming right after the interviewer has mentioned Behe, could be misleading.
Of course we don’t know what got edited out of the original conversation. We see the interviewer talking about competing authorities (certainly this would include Young-Earth Creationists), then mentioning “creationists and ID people” (Behe being in the latter camp although far from its center of gravity, and probably he means YEC by “creationists”), then he mentions Behe specifically. Collins starts his answer by talking about the age of the Earth and about evolution, and then goes on at greater length about the age of the Earth (where he has no disagreement with Behe). Can’t tell if Collins was for whatever reason ignoring the Behe example in the question, or if we are just seeing some bad editing.
As others have mentioned, it would have been useful for Collins or someone to bring out in the story that he and Behe agree about much of “evolution”, particularly about common descent which is really the central point. Behe just sees some need for front-loading or other early intervention that Collins and others do not.
It is unfortunate that the published interview misleads on this point, because so many Christian anti-evolutionists (be they young-Earth or old-Earth) invoke Behe as disproving “evolution” (by which they usually mean common descent). People need to know that the poster-child scientist for anti-evolutionism has views that could easily be classified under the category of “theistic evolution”.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 16, 2009 at 3:37 pm


James (#11)
Unfortunately, straw man arguments can be very persuasive with people who are uninformed.
As for the interviewer, he is a buddy and colleague of Collins at Biologos. The epitome of a “friendly” interview.



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm


And of course, Behe has added to the confusion. He is a memmbr of the Discovery Institute along with a number of young earth creationists and deniers of common descent and ancestry. He does nothing to correct the scientific misinformaiton published by the Discovery Institute.
He himself is responsible for a large part of any confusion that exists. He might consider following the example of Francis Beckwith who diassociated himself with the Discovery Institute when he realized that theistic evolution was incompatible with the Discovery Institute’s intelligent design agenda but perfectly compatible with Christianity.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted July 16, 2009 at 4:21 pm


Unapologetic Catholic,
This is one of the things I struggle with.
I would like to stand with fellow Christians against secularism and/or “spiritualism” of our society. Fellow Christians here could include those who think that God’s method of creation is young earth, old-earth creationism, intelligent design, or theistic evolution. All of these views are consistent with Christianity. I have reasons, strong reasons I think, for taking a theistic evolution point of view – and I will continue to discuss them here. But the other points of view are not non-christian and the discussion is “in-house.”
I find the idea that the dividing line falls between my view and Behe’s view (with mine on the non-christian side) troubling.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 17, 2009 at 11:15 am


RJS (#15)-
UC (#14) is vilifying Behe with ridiculous logic. Behe is responsible for the gross misrepresentation of his own position merely because he is a fellow of an organization that supports intelligent design? That is absurd and mean-spirited.
What I can’t comprehend is your tacit approval (#15) of this kind of comment.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 17, 2009 at 11:23 am


Another interesting aspect of Collins’ attack on ID:
1. ID doesn’t propose any falsifiable hypotheses, so it is not “science.”
2. ID has been falsified.



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 17, 2009 at 3:20 pm


“Behe is responsible for the gross misrepresentation of his own position merely because he is a fellow of an organization that supports intelligent design?”
That’s not what I said. If Behe is an Intellgient Design advocate, I’d expect him to be active in an Intelligent Design organization.
What I did say was that this particualr Intellgient Design organizaiton—aside from Behe–if comprised entirely of creationists. A number of those persons are young earth creationists.
Let’s be blunt. Young Earth Creationism is scientifically untenable. If you are a scientist and cannot find it in yourself to proactively declare that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis whatsoever, then your analytical abilities and motives are very qestionable.
Next, the entire remainder of the Discovery Isntotite is comprised of old earth creationists. OEC’s reject two well understood and well established scientific principles: common descent and common ancestry. Behe claims to accept both (the onbly possible scietifically resonable position to hold).
Again, if you are a scientist and assocciate yourself with a group of people who reject well established scientific priciples, and cannot find it in yourself to proactively declare that Old Earth Creationism also has scientific basis whatsoever, then your analytical abilities and motives are very qestionable.
The best analogy that I can suggest would be if a famous astronomer became a “Fellow” of the The Society for the Advancement of Astrology.” His judgment and professional reputaiton woudl rightly be suspect.
That’s why I raised the example of Francis Beckwith. He has disassociated himself with the Discovery Institute. He appears, since his conversion to Catholicism to accept theistic evolution–a position absolutely rejected by the Discovery Institute.



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm


“Another interesting aspect of Collins’ attack on ID:
1. ID doesn’t propose any falsifiable hypotheses, so it is not “science.”
2. ID has been falsified.”
Not what he said. What he said was “Id doesn’t actually propose any falsifiable hypotheses.” That part is true.
ID, (Behe’s version) claims that certian biological systems are “irreducibly complex” or, in other words, could not have evolved naturally.
Behe cannot provide a scientifically workable definition of “irreducible compexity” as a useable principle for scientists to apply to biological systems. he has conceded his definition is deficient in that regard. Until he does so, then the lynchpin of intelligent design, Irreducible Complexity, is not a scientifically falsifiable concept.
In fairness to Behe, even though he has not provided a scientifically falsfiable concept, he may be able to articulate one in the future.
In the meantime, the concept still has value if he provides examples of biological systems that meet his definition of irreducible compexity and that could not have evolved naturally. Collecting such example may lead to the development of a univesally agreed workable defintion of IC that could be falsifiable.
However, the individual examples can each be demostrated to be false even if the overall IC concept is too vauge to be falsified. If the proffered example does not meet Behe’s own definition (even if the definition is incomplete or deficient) then that particular data point of ID can be demostrated to be incorrect. {Falsifiability cannot be confused with “proven false.” Those are related but separate concepts.)
Behe has provided such examples of unevolvable irreducible complexity–mammilian blood clotting system, for example. Each example he has provided has been demonstrated to have evolved from earlier systems. Hence, his examples of ID provided to date have been proven false. That is different than falsifying ID–but doesn’t help his case at all.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm


(#18) More misinformation about the Discovery Institute, and a lot of it.
(#19) You falsify most ID claims in biology by showing a plausible/probable evolutionary pathway. Collins (in his book) says that this is being done, alluding to Ken Miller’s attacks. Behe, Dembski and many others think that Miller does not succeed. I think Miller’s errors of logic are obvious to anyone who understands logic. You don’t need to be a biologist to see that Miller has obviously not shown a complete evolutionary pathway. Despite that, he claims victory.
More misinformation in #19 as well. I don’t have time to address all of it. I wish only to warn other readers.



report abuse
 

RJS

posted July 17, 2009 at 11:27 pm


pds,
This is like walking on eggshells when talking about Discovery Institute here. I can’t say anything that even remotely appears to agree with a criticism of DI without you jumping on it and complaining.
If Christians at DI don’t draw the line between Theistic Evolution and all other positions – then my comment #15 doesn’t apply them.
Regardless of whether it is a valid criticism of DI or not – it is a valid criticism of a significant group of people, and I find this troubling.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 18, 2009 at 9:18 am


RJS (#21)
Walking on egg shells? Unapologetic Catholic spews misinformation left and right about fellow believers and others and you suggest approval with him and you nit-pick my comments. I think you have a double standard.
I have no problem with good, honest, civil criticism of the Discovery Institute. You do not have to walk on egg shells.
I pretty much laugh every time UC posts something. I respect your posts and comments very much. But you lose me when you condone uncivil comments.
I just see some of your comments as tribal. I know that you want to promote civil discourse. I know that you also want to be loyal to your “theistic evolution” tribe. I think in #15 your tribalism won out.
By the way, on the ID the Future podcast Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute had nothing but good things to say about Francis Collins. I recommend that podcast to anyone who really wants to know what ID is all about (and cut through the propaganda):
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2009-07-15T15_36_28-07_00



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 18, 2009 at 9:30 am


One more thing. The DI, as far as I know, takes absolutely no position on whether TE proponents are Christians. If you have evidence otherwise, let’s see it.
Here is their position on this question:
“Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.”
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign



report abuse
 

RJS

posted July 18, 2009 at 9:42 am


pds,
Case in point – this post on Tiktaalik roseae comments number 27 and 29. Commenter #27 complained that Luskin’s article was all propaganda and no meat – and he desperately wants meat, be cause he would like to be able to fight against the idea of evolution. You ridiculed his comment.
I didn’t dare criticize the ENV article on more than one factual ground as you (and likely others) would have jumped all over me as biased and “spewing misinformation.” But I agree with everything the other commenter noticed in the article. I will go a step further – this style of writing among the worst of what ENV and DI puts forth, and it is why it is hard to think that the organization is actually serious about getting a good conversation going.
I have referred to other ENV articles (like this one by Gage) and said nothing negative, because in fact the article was reasonable – by which I don’t mean I agreed with everything, I mean that ideas were presented clearly and reasonably.
Btw if you respond – I am on vacation – and won’t comment much at all esp. during the day for the next few days.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:27 am


RJS (#24)
You call comment #29 there “ridicule”? I totally disagree. I was challenging the writer to judge both sides by the same standard. If you are going to look at those 2 comments, please also look at comments 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
Have you ever read The Panda’s Thumb blog or PZ Myers? These are “scientists” who are far worse than what Luskin wrote. The Collins interview you post on is far worse than what Luskin wrote. I could cite multiple false or misleading statements in it, but it would take too much time.
I also remind you of the bizarre attack by Karl Giberson:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/wheres_the_dialogue_alas_colle.html
You really do have a serious double standard when it comes to civil discourse, in my opinion. Perhaps it is related to your metaphysics, worldview, paradigm? :)
Here is my olive branch: I know I have my blind spots too. Rest assured, I feel like I know you pretty well and very much respect your knowledge, thoughts and style overall.
Have a good weekend.



report abuse
 

AHH

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:42 pm


If anybody is still reading this thread (perhaps we can hope not), I agree with RJS here.
While there has been occasional lack of civility by various people (probably including me, not any from RJS that I recall), it seems like one cannot say anything remotely critical here about the Discovery Institute without PDS jumping down their throat and hurling accusations of “misinformation”. This happens even with clear points, like that the DI’s outlook is mainly anti-evolution, that they are fighting in the “culture wars”, or that many associated with the DI (Jonathan Wells, Phil Johnson, Dembski’s Uncommon Descent blog) portray theistic evolution (and people like Francis Collins) as despicable. I’m glad Steve Meyer is supporting Collins; there are also some reasonable people associated with the DI and if I have ever implied otherwise I apologize.
Anybody who wants to see if characterizations of the DI are accurate can check out their website (particularly the “science and culture” part; note the prominent promotion of the culture-war film “Expelled” which even some anti-evolutionists like Hugh Ross spoke against), and also the Uncommon Descent blog (where there is currently a nasty anti-Collins thread, started by a post that mainly regurgitates the blog post from a DI Fellow that I pointed to the other day). Or read about their efforts on the “creationist” side in school board controversies in Kansas and other states.
Yes, we all have blind spots. For example (maybe frustrated by seeing harm to the witness of the Gospel among the scientifically literate), sometimes I make blanket negative statements about “ID” that really only apply to some of the movement, and fail to recognize that there are people under that label (or at least lower-case id) who are better behaved (Behe, Mike Gene, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Denton [another theistic evolutionist who left the DI], Telic Thoughts). PDS, if people like me try harder not to paint all ID people with a broad brush, will you drop your apparent stance that they are above criticism?



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm


No need to look far to confirm RJS’s point about the Discovery Institute’s treatment of theistic evolutionists. Just check out Discovery Institute fellow David Klinghoffer’s blog here at Beliefnet.
He has a recent post comparing Fracis Collins to “Peace in our Time” Neville Chamberlain who negotiated an accomodationist peace treaty with Hitler. The Discovery Institute sneeringly refers to theistic evolutionists as “accomodationists.” Very nice touch to compare theistic evolutionists to Hitler. Such a comparison is offensively inaccurate.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/07/peace-in-our-time-with-francis-collins-how-far-is-too-far.html
I had submitted a comment containing links to numerous DI posts criticizing theistic evolutionary “accomodationists,” but apparently it contained so many links that Beliefnet treated it as spam. The accomdationists relentlessly criticized over the years include Collins; physicist Stephen Barr, posting at “First Things;” Kenneth Miller, author of the leading high school biology textbook and “Finding Darwin’s God;” the Catholic Church, the Templeton Foundation and Vatican Astronomer and Jesuit priest, George Coyne. The term “accomndationist” was apparently coined by Discovery Institute Fellow Phillip E. Johnson in “Defeating Darwinism.”
RJS is undeniably correct in the observatiosn regarding the Discovery Institute’s treatment of theistic evolutionists.
I particularly object to the DI’s misrepresentations and mockery of Catholic teaching.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:30 am


AHH (#26)
You said,
“it seems like one cannot say anything remotely critical here about the Discovery Institute without PDS jumping down their throat and hurling accusations of “misinformation”.”
I correct factual errors. All you have to do is be accurate and use civil discourse. If you do not use “misinformation,” I will not point out your “misinformation.”
Your colorful language (“jumping down their throats” and “hurling accusations”) is, well, colorful. And not helpful here.
You said,
“will you drop your apparent stance that they are above criticism?”
I already said in #22:
“I have no problem with good, honest, civil criticism of the Discovery Institute. You do not have to walk on egg shells.”
What is not clear about that? Why can’t you address my position accurately?
I acknowledged in my comments to the post on the Luskin article that Luskin was misleading in his quote. Luskin himself corrected the error in response to the RJS criticism. That is more than many of the TE folks seem willing to do.



report abuse
 

pds

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:38 am


peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com
AHH-
Another interesting aspect of Collins’ attack on ID:
1. ID doesn’t propose any falsifiable hypotheses, so it is not “science.”
2. ID is being falsified. See p. 192 of The Language of God.
AHH- Want to take a crack at defending Collins? Will you admit he is both wrong factually, and inconsistent logically? If so, see my comment #20.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.