Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Kicking ID to the Gutter
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has a problem with Biologos.
Mohler, a young-Earth creationist, uses the same arguments we've all come to know and laugh at:
Dr. Falk, representing the position of BioLogos, insists that the evolutionary "scientific enterprise" is the authoritative world of true science. "For hundreds of years now science has been successfully informing us about the natural world," he insists. Of course, throughout the centuries, many scientific certainties have been embarrassingly overthrown.... which, of course, is classic "vindication of all kooks." Science was wrong once and, therefore we can safely ignore it! Naturally, he fails to note that the reason we know that past science was "embarrassingly overthrown" was because other scientists came along and corrected it ... not those who deny the very existence of science:
As for me - I am said to represent "a view that takes on the entire scientific enterprise." He then writes: "To this day, I have not been able to identify a single person who holds a science faculty position in any Biology, Geology or Physics Department at any secular research university in the world who would agree with Dr. Mohler's view of creation." Well … ouch. At this point, I am supposed to yield to the authority of science and relinquish my theological concerns and be quiet.In short, Mohler will only accept science when it confirms his "presuppositions."
I am willing to accept the authority of science on any number of issues. I am fundamentally agnostic about a host of other scientific concerns - but not where the fundamental truth of the Gospel and the clear teachings of the Bible are at stake.
As I have stated repeatedly, I accept without hesitation the fact that the world indeed looks old. Armed with naturalistic assumptions, I would almost assuredly come to the same conclusions as BioLogos and the evolutionary establishment, or I would at least find evolutionary arguments credible. But the most basic issue is, and has always been, that of worldview and basic presuppositions. The entire intellectual enterprise of evolution is based on naturalistic assumptions, and I do not share those presuppositions. Indeed, the entire enterprise of Christianity is based on supernaturalistic, rather than merely naturalistic, assumptions. There is absolutely no reason that a Christian theologian should accept the uniformitarian assumptions of evolution. In fact, given a plain reading of Scripture, there is every reason that Christians should reject a uniformitarian presupposition. The Bible itself offers a very different understanding of natural phenomena, with explanations that should be compelling to believers.
Which is fine. He's allowed, in a free society, to be an ignoramus.
But it also puts the lie to ID. Mohler is not, in any way, seeking a "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," as Casey Luskin and the Wedge Document would have it. They are seeking a "science" subordinated to their peculiar theology.
If you think there's a dime worth's difference between Mohler and the Discoveryless Institute, you're not paying attention.
At least we're on the same page...
Serves Em Right, eh, Randi....
Do you think that astrology and witchcraft are real and useful? ... In which case, why shouldn't they be taxed like any other "profession"?
Or do you think the entire government of Romania is going to succumb to a "black pepper and yeast" curse? But wouldn't that "prove" your point? ... Whatever the heck that is?
But I'm glad to see you've toned down your rhetoric. After the events in Arizona, the authorities are less likely to be tolerant of the loony rantings of people on the web.