Author: John G. West
The Need for Clear Thinking about Evolution: Three Questions for Stephen Barr
One of the most unfortunate aspects of the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design is that so much of it is based on misunderstandings, caricatures, and an unwillingness to engage in genuine dialogue. Sadly, even those who claim to be for open dialogue often aren’t. Thus, Stephen Barr’s willingness to engage in a serious exchange of views on evolution, theism, and intelligent design is commendable — and refreshing. Even if we do not persuade each other about our respective positions, we may help illuminate the real points at issue, and that is certainly a positive result. After Barr’s latest salvo, I can say that we agree on at least one thing: The need for “clear thought” when it comes Read More ›
God and Evolution: A Response to Stephen Barr (part 3)
This is the final installment of three posts responding to Stephen Barr. The first post can be found here, and the second post can be found here. The Collins/Barr Approach: A God Who Misleads? Stephen Barr identifies himself with the position of Francis Collins who argues that although evolution looks like “a random and undirected process,” it nevertheless could have been guided by God. “Evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God’s perspective the outcome would be entirely specified.” [Collins, The Language of God, p. 205.] Barr takes me to task for highlighting Collins’ use of the word “could” because I implied that “Collins is not sure whether God did in fact know beforehand. Anyone Read More ›
God and Evolution: A Response to Stephen Barr (part 2)
This is the second of three posts responding to Stephen Barr. The first post can be found here. Mainstream Theistic Evolution: Directed or Undirected? In the initial decades after Darwin proposed his theory, theistic evolution typically was presented as a form of guided evolution. Although Darwin himself rejected the idea that evolution was guided by God to accomplish particular ends, many of Darwin’s contemporaries (including those in the scientific community) rejected undirected natural selection as sufficient to explain all the major advances in the history of life. Instead, according to historian Peter Bowler, there was widespread acceptance of the idea “that evolution was an essentially purposeful process… The human mind and moral values were seen as the intended outcome of Read More ›
God and Evolution: A Response to Stephen Barr (part 1)
Theistic evolutionist Stephen Barr is a serious and thoughtful man, and on the First Things blog, he has raised some serious and thoughtful objections to an essay I wrote for The Washington Post as well as to reflections on that essay by Joe Carter (also at the First Things blog). Unfortunately, I think Barr’s criticisms confuse matters more than they clarify them. Nevertheless, I’m grateful that he has aired his objections, because some of his misunderstandings are shared by other conservative intellectuals, and they deserve a response. This is the first of three posts responding to Barr. False Dilemma or Wishful Thinking: Is Darwinian Evolution Undirected or Not? Barr first claims that Joe Carter and I “are trapped in a Read More ›
Where’s the Dialogue? Alas, Colleague of Francis Collins at “Biologos” Doesn’t Offer Any
When talking with friendly journalists, theistic evolution proponent Francis Collins typically insists that he wants to initiate a “dialogue” about faith and evolution. But Collins and his colleagues at the Biologos Foundation seem curiously averse to engaging in real dialogue. A case in point is a cranky blog entry posted this week by theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson, Francis Collins’ colleague at Biologos. Giberson, whom I debated at Biola University a few months ago, denounces Discovery Institute’s new Faith and Evolution website as “slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science.” Whew! Giberson’s own post might be charitably described as “almost completely devoid of any real substance.” Giberson goes on to claim: