Tuesday, October 27, 2009
They Recognize Their Own
Jesus Creed is discussing a white paper commissioned by the Biologos Foundation that surveys evangelical Christian theologians as to what barriers they perceive to be the greatest to accepting "theistic evolution" (i.e. evolution at all). Besides being a fascinating insight into the thinking (or lack thereof) of evangelicals, the study's author, Bruce Waltke, described by one of his book publishers as a "leading Old Testament evangelical scholar" providing "conservative commentary" on Genesis, had this as one of the "barriers" he was asking about:Apologists such as those of the Intelligent Design Movement, fathered by Phillip E. Johnson, have made a sufficient case to reject the theory of evolution and to replace it with a theory of intelligent design.
Christian "apologists" is a nice term for the Discovery Institute drones.
Waltke also has an interesting quote from Phillip Johnson's Darwin On Trial that puts the lie to all the DI's claims that "creationists" are limited to young-Earth believers in a "literal" reading of Genesis:
Waltke also has an interesting quote from Phillip Johnson's Darwin On Trial that puts the lie to all the DI's claims that "creationists" are limited to young-Earth believers in a "literal" reading of Genesis:
The essential point of creation has . . . to do with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a creationist' is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose [italics his].
But wait a minute ... don't "theistic evolutionists" believe in some sort of design and purpose? Apparently not the "right" sort. The "big tent" isn't quite so big after all.
Interestingly, a full 46% of evangelical theologians don't agree and opted for: "None of the above. I can accept the theory of theistic evolution." Maybe the DI has good reason to hate TEs.
.
Interestingly, a full 46% of evangelical theologians don't agree and opted for: "None of the above. I can accept the theory of theistic evolution." Maybe the DI has good reason to hate TEs.
.
Comments:
<< Home
a sufficient case to reject the theory of evolution and to replace it with a theory of intelligent design.
No one has seen a path toward constructing a "theory of intelligent design", or any other replacement for evolution in biology.
Yes, there have been attempts to reject "the theory of evolution", but no one can seriously claim a replacement theory.
(I'm not counting "it all happened by chance" or a few others as being serious candidates.)
TomS
No one has seen a path toward constructing a "theory of intelligent design", or any other replacement for evolution in biology.
Yes, there have been attempts to reject "the theory of evolution", but no one can seriously claim a replacement theory.
(I'm not counting "it all happened by chance" or a few others as being serious candidates.)
TomS
# posted by 
: 10:38 AM
: 10:38 AM
Of course there is an alternative theory ... God said "Let there be ..." and poof it was ... you materialist you!
Post a Comment
<< Home
