Debate over Theistic Evolution Heats Up, as Does Interest in the <i>God & Evolution</i> Anthology - Evolution News & Views

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Evolution News and Views
Faith and Science NEWS
 

Debate over Theistic Evolution Heats Up, as Does Interest in the God & Evolution Anthology

g&eworld.005.jpg

The debate among evangelical Christians over Darwin's theory of evolution has returned to front stage this summer with the publication of two separate cover stories on the issue by leading Christian magazines. Christian news magazine World has announced that it will name two books critiquing "theistic evolution" as its "Books of the Year" in its upcoming July 2 issue. World called the evolution debate in churches and religious colleges "the biggest current battle both among Christians and between Christian and anti-Christian thought." And, in its June cover story, Christianity Today reported on how Christian proponents of Darwin are challenging historic beliefs about Adam and Eve.

One of the two books honored by World is God and Evolution: Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Explore Darwin's Challenge to Faith (Discovery Institute Press, 2010). The other is Should Christians Embrace Evolution? edited by noted British medical geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin (published first in England, republished in the United States in May).

God & Evolution's editor, Dr. Jay Richards, commented, "We wanted to clear away the fog and fuzzy-thinking on this issue. Our book makes clear that to the degree theistic evolution is theistic, it will not be fully Darwinian. And to the degree that it is Darwinian, it will fail fully to preserve traditional theism."

GE_FINAL_Smalljpg.jpgGod and Evolution features essays by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars critical of the growing effort by advocates of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins to persuade leaders of the faith community to change their theology without hearing from scientists who are skeptical of the claims of unguided Darwinian evolution.

Here is the beginning of the book's introduction, penned by Richards:

When someone asks me: "Can you believe in God and evolution?," I always respond: "That depends. What do you mean by 'God' and what do you mean by 'evolution'?" No one seems to be very satisfied with this retort, which seems evasive; but it's the honest answer, since the initial question, as it stands, is hopelessly ambiguous. Without more detail, it's susceptible to almost any answer.

Asking whether one supports so-called "theistic evolution" has the same problem. Unless you define "theistic" and "evolution" very carefully, it might refer to positions that, on closer inspection, are more different than they are alike. One version might be an oxymoron, one a triviality, one an interesting proposition, and another, a complete muddle.

Besides being vague, these questions, and practically every answer to them, are controversial. Perhaps no subject now inspires more heated arguments at family reunions and cocktail parties. Whether in religious or secular, scientific or literary circles, giving the "wrong" answer can put you on the fast track to being labeled a heretic. A scientist in an academic setting who expresses any doubt about Darwinism, for instance, may find himself in a battle for tenure and funding. In his church, the same scientist may be suspected of creeping liberalism because he doesn't think the word "evolution" means atheism. Or he may be thought a "fundamentalist" because he thinks his faith has something to do with his science, and vice versa.

Such countervailing social pressures don't encourage clear thinking or clear speaking. So when they encounter the question, many people, especially academics, choose obfuscation over clarification. If pressed, they may attempt to stake out a moderate both-and position: "I think evolution is God's way of creating." For the conflict-averse, this may be a reassuring response, but what does it mean?

In the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, Christians, Jews, and other religious believers have not only pondered its truth--or lack thereof--they have grappled with how to make sense of it theologically. So far, they haven't reached a consensus and tend, instead, to argue among themselves. It can be quite confusing. In fact, the whole subject of God and evolution, and especially what is called "theistic evolution," is an enigma wrapped in a shroud of fuzz and surrounded by blanket of fog.

The purpose of this book is to clear away the fog, the fuzz, and the enigma.

You can download the entire introduction as a PDF here.


23 Comments

The same evidence that supports common descent also supports special creation. At issue is systematic theology. Does the Bible give true history? Starting when? Is the Bible inspired by God? Were the writings of the apostles inspired? Did Jesus understand creation properly? I say yes to all those questions, but common descent tells another story, with what it says about Adam. The stakes are indeed high. Read the World magazine books of the year and this will be clear. So, considering both science and theology, special creation is the better choice.

Like it or not, evolution is a quite well-established scientific theory. Although it has weaknesses, there is a large amount of empirical support for it. That support may be much more quantitative than qualitative, but the sheer volume makes it difficult to make headway with discussions of its shortcomings. And the negative cultural associations that over many years have been woven around the Scopes trial represent another major obstacle.

On the other hand, abiogenesis--the origin of life by natural causes--is a highly speculative hypothesis with negligible scientific support and hardly any baggage. Evolution might possibly be an adequate explanation for all the forms of life that have ever existed. However science has not identified any natural mechanisms that could create both the genetic code (software) and the cellular structures (hardware) necessary for that code to function in order for natural selection to occur and evolution to actually work. And as scientific knowledge of the complexity of life increases, the likelihood of discovery of such mechanisms becomes increasingly remote.

Why then do we keep trying to beat a dead horse by putting so much time and effort into attacking Darwinism, at the expense of focusing on the much greater vulnerability of the inadequate explanations for the absolutely necessary prerequisite of the origin of life? Are we trying to prove to Dawkins et al that we really are as stupid as they say we are? And to demonstrate yet again that "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?"

Jerry:

Good question.

The scientific theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t make any claim about who this designer is. However, the simple foundational assumption that there is a designer is critical for continuing the discussion regarding the nature and identity of this entity. That discussion is not limited to the realm of naturalistic science (which deals only with measurable materialistic phenomena) but also includes the “supernatural” exercises of logic, historical study, theology, and examination of your own conscience.

Like an historical scientist would compare competing theories I would suggest you compare the explanatory power of various competing religions to see which provides the best fit to the available evidence. Here are some websites you may find valuable in this exercise:

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage
http://www.bethinking.org/news-and-views/
http://www.thetruthproject.org/

Of course, you should check the trustworthiness of any expert’s opinions on which you base your understanding. Any “expert” whether they are scientific, historic or religious will have personal motivations that introduce bias into their positions. Original source information and observation will always be your most accurate.

If your experience is like mine, I trust you will find that the God of the Bible and the Christian faith compares favorably to any other religious interpretation of the evidence. That however, is for you to determine yourself so that your “faith” is your own, not just a label you wear to be a part of a group.

Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that there is only one answer to how you, (as a living organism) came to be. Thus, there is only one explanation as to who is truly responsible. It is not intellectually acceptable to say that you can believe one story and I can believe another.

According to John’s account of Jesus’ "trial" with Pilate, Christ reveals:

“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.” – John 18:37 KJV

If you are seeking the truth, and are willing to follow paths of evidence that may take you in ways that appear to be detrimental to your materialistic comfort, you may be more of a follower of Christ than you thought.

Sometime in my fifties I gave thought to random evolution and concluded that we are not the result of random mutations of a cell. After reading Stephen Myers "Signature in the Cell" I thought that I was and am correct. Does that mean that God is the designer? I don't think so, hard for me to picture God writing or specifying code. I think it's a mistake to go any further than acknowledging that there appears to be intelligence involved. My sense is that we are not the result of one designer but many. That's how I explain for myself the abundance of flowers, butterflies, and so forth.

Or this peace

Science and the Bible

Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works. {Ed 128.1}
Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. {Ed 128.2}
Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, "The evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, "He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word? {Ed 129.1}
It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth's crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God. {Ed 129.2}
Akin to the theory concerning the evolution of the earth is that which attributes to an ascending line of germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds the evolution of man, the crowning glory of the creation. {Ed 130.1}
When consideration is given to man's opportunities for research; how brief his life; how limited his sphere of action; how restricted his vision; how frequent and how great the errors in his conclusions, especially as concerns the events thought to antedate Bible history; how often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth's development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another,--considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him"? Genesis 1:27. Shall we reject that genealogical record,--prouder than any treasured in the courts of kings,--"which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"? Luke 3:38. {Ed 130.2}
Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature. {Ed 130.3}
In the hymn recorded by Nehemiah, the Levites sang, "Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all." Nehemiah 9:6. {Ed 130.4}
As regards this earth, Scripture declares the work of creation to have been completed. "The works were finished from the foundation of the world." Hebrews 4:3.
But the power of God is still exercised in upholding the objects of His creation. It is not because the mechanism once set in motion continues to act by its own inherent energy that the pulse beats, and breath follows breath. Every breath, every pulsation of the heart, is an evidence of the care of Him in whom we live and move and have our being. From the smallest insect to man, every living creature is daily dependent upon His providence.
"These wait all upon Thee. . . .
That Thou givest them they gather:
Thou openest Thine hand, they are filled with good.
Thou hidest Thy face, they are troubled:
Thou takest away their breath, they die,
And return to their dust.
Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created:
And Thou renewest the face of the earth." Psalm 104:27-30.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
And hangeth the earth upon nothing.
He bindeth up the waters in His thick clouds;
And the cloud is not rent under them. . . .
He hath compassed the waters with bounds,
Until the day and night come to an end."

"The pillars of heaven tremble
And are astonished at His rebuke.
He stilleth the sea with His power. . . .
By His Spirit the heavens are beauty;
His hand hath pierced the gliding serpent.
Lo, these are but the outskirts of His ways:
And how small a whisper do we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand?"
Job 26:7-10; 26:11-14, R.V., margin.
"The Lord hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm,
And the clouds are the dust of His feet." Nahum 1:3. {Ed 130.5}
The mighty power that works through all nature and sustains all things is not, as some men of science claim, merely an all-pervading principle, an actuating energy.
God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image. As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. Jesus, the outshining of the Father's glory, "and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3), was on earth found in fashion as a man. As a personal Savior He came to the world. As a personal Savior He ascended on high. As a personal Savior He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers "One like the Son of man." Daniel 7:13. {Ed 131.1}
The apostle Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, declares of Christ that "all things have been created through Him, and unto Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:16,17, R.V., margin. The hand that sustains the worlds in space, the hand that holds in their orderly arrangement and tireless activity all things throughout the universe of God, is the hand that was nailed to the cross for us. {Ed 132.1}
The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. "The Lord's throne is in heaven" (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit He is everywhere present. He has an intimate knowledge of, and a personal interest in, all the works of His hand.

"Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,
Who humbleth Himself to behold the things that
are in heaven, and in the earth!"

"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit?
Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there:
If I make my bed in the grave (see Psalm 139:8, R.V.;
Job 26:6, R.V., margin), behold, Thou art there.
"If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Even there shall Thy hand lead me,
And Thy right hand shall hold me." Psalm 113:5, 6;139:7-10
"Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising,
Thou understandest my thought afar off.
Thou searchest out my path and my lying down,
And art acquainted with all my ways. . . .
Thou hast beset me behind and before,
And laid Thine hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain unto it." Psalm 139:2-6, R.V. {Ed 132.2}
It was the Maker of all things who ordained the wonderful adaptation of means to end, of supply to need. It was He who in the material world provided that every desire implanted should be met. It was He who created the human soul, with its capacity for knowing and for loving. And He is not in Himself such as to leave the demands of the soul unsatisfied. No intangible principle, no impersonal essence or mere abstraction, can satisfy the needs and longings of human beings in this life of struggle with sin and sorrow and pain. It is not enough to believe in law and force, in things that have no pity, and never hear the cry for help. We need to know of an almighty arm that will hold us up, of an infinite Friend that pities us. We need to clasp a hand that is warm, to trust in a heart full of tenderness. And even so God has in His word revealed Himself. {Ed 133.1}
He who studies most deeply into the mysteries of nature will realize most fully his own ignorance and weakness. He will realize that there are depths and heights which he cannot reach, secrets which he cannot penetrate, vast fields of truth lying before him unentered. He will be ready to say, with Newton, "I seem to myself to have been like a child on the seashore finding pebbles and shells, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me."
{Ed 133.2}
The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man's unaided reason, nature's teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright. "Through faith we understand." Hebrews 11:3. {Ed 134.1}
"In the beginning God." Genesis 1:1. Here alone can the mind in its eager questioning, fleeing as the dove to the ark, find rest. Above, beneath, beyond, abides Infinite Love, working out all things to accomplish "the good pleasure of His goodness." 2 Thessalonians 1:11. {Ed 134.2}
"The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are . . . perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity." Romans 1:20, R.V. But their testimony can be understood only through the aid of the divine Teacher. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 2:11. {Ed 134.3}
"When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." John 16:13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning "was brooding upon the face of the waters;" of that Word by whom "all things were made;" of that "true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned. {Ed 134.4}
Only under the direction of the Omniscient One shall we, in the study of His works, be enabled to think His thoughts after Him. {Ed 134.5}

Science and the Bible

Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony. By different methods, and in different languages, they witness to the same great truths. Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works. {Ed 128.1}
Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. {Ed 128.2}
Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, "The evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, "He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word? {Ed 129.1}
It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth's crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God.
When the churches stop cross bearing to reach out to those in sin "Transgression of GODS law and to help them see there need of a Saviour they lose there power "The Holy Spirit" There for they go to the state to sustain them. Only those who now can see/discern this will escape the Mark of the beast test. The Human mind is influenced by holy anges and evil angels we make the decision and the choice. Though in these last days evil angels are acting as though they were Holy Angels and that's how Rome comes to power for "one bible hour" The "image to the beast" represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. Revelation 13:14,15 {FLB 286.4}
As the sign of the authority of the Catholic Church, papist writers cite "the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday." . . . What then is the change of the Sabbath, but the sign, or mark, of the authority of the Roman Church--"the mark of the beast"? {FLB 286.5}
Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. {FLB 286.6} Revelation 14:9-11
And it is not until the issue is . . . plainly set before the people, and they are brought to choose between the commandments of God and the commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression will receive "the mark of the beast." {FLB 286.7}
When God sends to men warnings so important that they are represented as proclaimed by holy angels flying in the midst of heaven, He requires every person endowed with reasoning powers to heed the message.

Evidence of intelligent design simply suggests the existence of an intelligent designer of some sort. That evidence along with evidences from other fields of study give us good reasons for believing in an intelligent First Cause. That's what is meant by "God." At this point, we cannot say that this God--the First Cause--is the God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other faith tradition. Finding possible support for identifying the God we discover through the study of design, physics, and biology with the God of a known faith tradition would require us to examine an entirely different group of evidences--for example, an investigation of the Resurrection claims of Christianity.

I am a political liberal, pro-choice, religious agnostic, but find myself on the side of religion in the evolution debate. Certainly the materialists have labeled me an "ignorant creationist pig" for my views on the subject. I personally see the intelligence involved ID as a natural force. However if intelligence of any form is involved in biological organization, life is "intelligently designed". Whether or not a deity is involved cannot be scientfically determined. I wish you would make more effort to incolude us agnostics in your movement.

A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Hey Jerry,
You asked, "...do you mean a God that sits in Heaven, gave humans the Ten Commandments and the Bible represents this God?"

Was that serious question?

I mean no disrespect.

God and Evolution is a tremendous resource for me. C. Luskin (Chapt. 3) cuts through the fog. If, as evolutionists insist, there are no forces other than natural forces and no causes other than natural causes, the atheistic basis of doctrinaire evolutionism is crystal clear. As one who has had a career in science, I have yet to find anyone (including me) who can point to an evolutionary principle or discovery which assited them in making a scientific advancement or discovery. On the other hand, the expectation of intelligent design led to some significant discoveries -- the carrier for copper ion in blood, for example.

You know, in my online dealings with atheistic sorts, one of their favorite arguments goes something like this: "Given enough time and permutations randomness can do the same thing, so you don't need a designer". Today I found an article on MyWay talking about the age of a bit of stone-age art. I managed to link directly to a photo of it (using TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/6ysdw98 ), and used the subject line of a forum post to ask, "How do they know it's not just random?" with the URL as the entire body of the post.

So far not one of them has tried to answer my question. The funny thing is, if their high priests would allow it, they could simply ask the Fellows of the CSC and get a clear-cut, well thought out answer. Don't hold your breath on that, though. :-)

Things follow the laws of information, therefore Reality can be modeled by an information process.

Some problems can only be solved by evolution and some problems can't be solved by evolution.

Reality's cause is an information process designed by God! Recognizing this fact is the starting point of Real science because the denial of God leaves Reality with out cause.

Quantum computers are able to access information behind Reality and instantaneously return results that normal computers require long sequences to derive. This proves reality was designed. "Laws" of science are initialization factors defining behavior, not behavior's cause.

Human consciousness is a quantum event elements in Reality follow and mimic. Reality was created by God to enable beings to grow into creatures willing to join in Love, the Deceiver wants to join us by force.

In the Garden men were deceived into meddling in the lives of others and are still doing it today. Evolutionists meddling involves suppressing evidence of design and force feeding children the absurd theory Chaos is god.

The brand of climate science revealed by the disclosure of the Climategate e-mails and recent revelations about the inner workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) closely resembles the kind of science practiced by some evolutionary scientists. Both these versions of science blend authentic scientific methodologies and claims to be the entrenched paradigm with suppression and inappropriate manipulation of data, misleading graphics designed for public consumption, interference with the peer review system and ad hominem attacks directed toward opponents. Most climate scientists I know are professionals, but there is a vocal minority that reminds me of their counterparts in the evolution community.

The Universe does have design to it. Darwin evolution is missing many well made points but what does this have to do with the Christian God or any organized religion's God? When you say design proves God do you mean a God that sits in Heaven, gave humans the Ten Commandments and the Bible represents this God?

I am not trying to be disrespectful. Can you send some thoughts on this with your emails.

Well Bob, when the SETI scientists are searching the heavens for other intelligence they have a
criteria, what is from intelligence source and what is not. When you look into the human cell and see DNA RNA and other molecular machines programmed to perform specific functions what do you see? A Guiding Organizing Designer or the
process of mindless mutations???

Why do supporters of Darwinian evolution appear to be unwilling to look at the theory from an information theory perspective ?

@ Atheist Bob

I am a truth-seeker, and I have no desire to prevent publication of data supporting competing world-views, or to ridicule those who do not agree with me regarding life's origins.

My goal is that everyone be presented the known data so that each individual can make fully informed decisions, and be respected for their decisions.

Hey Bob, if your goal is to follow the evidence where it leads then maybe you should communicate that to the rest of the scientific community who believes in only promoting or looking at one side of an issue. I myself have yet to hear an reasonable explanation for Haldane's Dilemma or any thing related to Granville Sewell more in-depth look at the second law of Thermodynamics amoung other holes in evolution's dogma- unless you consider censoring Sewell's article in a peer reviewed journal after it was peer review and ok'd to be published "following the evidence." If you are a scientist then take a look at both sides of evidence and follow the truth.

I thought that Science was to find the truth and as such we should not be hiding bits of evidence which could change verdicts simply because we have a bias. yet this happens any way.

So seriously, Tell them all about your goal and make sure they follow it to the letter (Which in this case means to look at both sides of an argument and not ban them simply because you do not like them.) See what they say.

If there was a mass extinction event unleashed on humanity tomorrow, how will the long term survivors recall what the word Christian means? There is the need to define Christianity in this debate; what it truly teaches and its set practices. The only way people in that scenario can understand what Jesus Christ is all about is to refer to him directly from scripture. In our time however, Christianity can mean practicing and believing a whole host of ideologies and lifestyles. And again, there is the political meddling constantly dividing the loyalty of each denomination.

The Bible is clear enough on the issue of Creation. Neo-Darwinism is also clear enough on its proposals. Jay Richards’ comment, "We wanted to clear away the fog and fuzzy-thinking on this issue.” is at least addressing the fact that that fog exists and it’s simply not a case that each individual has a choice on what he or she believes.

Jesus’ statement: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” - John 5:17 shows God is interested in the running of the Universe and specially the earth. He does not micro-manage everything, but delegates various overseeing tasks, much like a CEO of a modern corporation, but with much better foresight and ethical motives. But we come back to the issue of suffering, which I propose is the reason why some Christians hold to Neo-Darwinism; an unguided process seems to absolve God from the suffering of humanity. The Bible does hold the answers: Jesus was well aware of our suffering.

Congratulations to Jay Richards on this wonderful accomplishment! World Magazine is becoming more and more a flagship outlet for Christians who want to engage in serious thinking about cultural issues, so this is a real honor.

I think that many theistic-evolutionists in the church today have bought into some fuzzy thinking that goes something like this:

Premise A: We need to stay 'relevant' and reach the world for Christ.

Premise B: If idea X isn't popular with the world, then we ought to reject X so X won't get in the way of the world coming to Christ. (By 'world' they generally have in mind smart, popular secular-minded people who have cultural influence.)

There's nothing wrong with premise A, and sometimes premise B can have its place too. But increasingly, some fuzzy-thinking Christian Darwinists are stopping their analysis at this point.

Unfortunately these theistic evolutionists forget that Paul said to "Test everything, hold on to the good," and thus fail to engage in a crucial third stage of analysis:

Premise C: If X is true and important to Christianity, then it ought not be rejected, even if it is unpopular with the world.

If X is intelligent design, then God and Evolution shows not only that X is true, but also that belief in -X (e.g. the theistic evolutionist's belief in Darwinian evolution) has exceedingly detrimental consequences for the Christian doctrine of creation, and many other important Christian theological doctrines. God and Evolution shows forcefully that intelligent design passes Premise C with flying colors.

And if ID does have important theological consequences, then in the long term, by adopting theistic evolution you won't be winning the world for Christ. You'll be winning the world for something else.

I think one of the main reasons people adopt theistic evolution over ID is that ID is regularly mocked (unfairly of coures) in the media and in academia, and so it is definitely not popular with the world (so defined as I have above). Many theistic evolutionists don't really care much about truth seeking--they just want to do whatever will make them popular with the 'world'. And it's easy to rationalize this doing the 'popular' thing when you pretend this will win the 'world' for Christ. Unfortunately, the search for truth is tossed out the window along the way.

Now we just need to convince the rest of the church that seeking the truth, and being faithful to the truth, is more important than being popular.

@ Dempsey

I am an atheist, and I have no desire to "make God unnecessary" or to "reduce man to a 'smart' dumb animal." My only goal is to follow the evidence where it leads.

Defining God is easy; the Creator of the Universe and giver of life: He being the source of life (information about life also). Defining Neo-Darwinism, “the common descent of all life on earth, from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection,” its slightly more wordy – but still - not that difficult.

The problem that nominal Christianity now reaps is due to the accretion of various doctrines accumulated throughout all the centuries it has endeavoured to survive in a generally morality hostile world. There have been many compromises in “Christian doctrines” and many bolt-ons that have been permitted. In fact one can distinguish the various denominations by their doctrinal diversities. Added also, the political meddling in which the State has manipulated the Churches for its own purposes: notably - The Arian Controversy. It’s no surprise that another, modern day “controversy” such as this, is unsettling the various denominations. Yet the only sure fire way to remove such controversies is to return to the Bible. Let that be the last word in any dispute. Sadly, for some, the Bible is so “uninteresting” and so lacking in intellectual appeal, they reject it outright; maybe it’s simply not fashionable to cite scripture at the dinner table or at family gatherings.

On the point of Adam and Eve; here are a few places in the New testament where there is a clear reference to the Genesis account: Luke 3:38, 1st Tim 2:13, 1st John 3:12, 1st Cor 15:22

Atheists, desiring to obfuscate the issue, really have only two goals in mind: discredit God (make him unnecessary) and reduce man to a “smart” dumb animal, that doesn’t have any characteristics above the other animals (lacking a soul/spirit). The lay person, not understanding what is really at stake and fearing to appear ignorant, buys in to this explanation without realizing the true implications. It’s all a game but the atheist/evolutionist achieves his goal and the believer accepts this explanation as it “satisfies” both perspectives. Lucid definitions of the words used and complete explanation will reveal the true agenda of the atheist/evolutionist. But that is not the desired objective.