2009 sees the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th of his Origin of Species and so it was appropriate to have pastor and scientist Dr Stephen Lloyd speaking on Darwin to Dawkins. He began by noting how nervous many evangelicals are about Darwinism. They feel intimidated scientifically and theologically. Also it is feared that the debate with Darwinism is divisive and a non-starter apologetically. Further, there is a fear that it may prove a distraction. Finally, creationism is thought of as dated. Yet, in the secular world they do not think Darwinism as dated. In the move from modernism to post-modernism it has remained intact. Dawkins etc are saying nothing new just asserting what has long been believed.
The media is interested in Darwinism because people are interested. Despite general apathy there is a great interest generally in the subject of origins. So we can't avoid it. Further we should turn it to our advantage. It can unite rather than divide. It is also not a problem evangelistically and can be helpful pastorally too. Now is a good time for debate. What Dr Lloyd did then was to helpfully update us on three areas of the debate where the cultural and scientific landscape has changed – the intelligent design movement, creationism and biblical understanding.
1. Intelligent Design
The movement began in the USA through lawyer Philip Johnson. On a sabbatical in Oxford, still then unconverted, he bought and read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker and Michal Denton's Evolution - Theory in crisis). He saw that the debate was not a scientific one by definition. He pointed out the circularity of evolutionary arguments. The debate is set up in terms of a religion/science debate but it is not. Evolution is always the assumption. Naturalism rules. Dawkins is determined to take this view regardless of facts. Religion is put in the non-real realm. Evolutionary theory is not so much anti-God as anti-science. Johnson argued that we must be more scientific and follow the facts wherever they lead (Darwin on trial 1991 also note Reason in the balance 1995). At first the ID movement was not so much anti-evolution but a reaction to new science and discovery.
We were shown a clip of Michael Behe (Darwin's Black box) and Scott Minnich speaking of the complexity in humanity (as discovered since the fifties) and how it speaks so clearly of design. Darwinism has no way of explaining such things. The cell is outrageously complex - the opposite of what 19th Century scientists expected.
Mathematician William Dembski wrote The Design Inference in 1998 seeking to set out a rigorous mathematical way of detecting design. His publishers CUP were happy with the idea but became nervous about the application to biology. Dembski speaks of evidence of design very narrowly and certainly does not seek to identify the Designer. (Dembski would not see a snowflake as designed). CUP also published (2004) Debating Design.
Anthony Flue is one who has now moved, because of ID arguments, to a belief in a God. ID has had a high media profile. Christians are unclear what to think. The media often lump it in with creationism but it is only a scientific theory and not necessarily biblical. It is useful for puncturing the naturalism bubble. Unlike creationism some scientists are at least willing to consider ID. It cannot save but it is our friend. ID is like the airforce and creationism the ground forces!
(To be continued)
The media is interested in Darwinism because people are interested. Despite general apathy there is a great interest generally in the subject of origins. So we can't avoid it. Further we should turn it to our advantage. It can unite rather than divide. It is also not a problem evangelistically and can be helpful pastorally too. Now is a good time for debate. What Dr Lloyd did then was to helpfully update us on three areas of the debate where the cultural and scientific landscape has changed – the intelligent design movement, creationism and biblical understanding.
1. Intelligent Design
The movement began in the USA through lawyer Philip Johnson. On a sabbatical in Oxford, still then unconverted, he bought and read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker and Michal Denton's Evolution - Theory in crisis). He saw that the debate was not a scientific one by definition. He pointed out the circularity of evolutionary arguments. The debate is set up in terms of a religion/science debate but it is not. Evolution is always the assumption. Naturalism rules. Dawkins is determined to take this view regardless of facts. Religion is put in the non-real realm. Evolutionary theory is not so much anti-God as anti-science. Johnson argued that we must be more scientific and follow the facts wherever they lead (Darwin on trial 1991 also note Reason in the balance 1995). At first the ID movement was not so much anti-evolution but a reaction to new science and discovery.
We were shown a clip of Michael Behe (Darwin's Black box) and Scott Minnich speaking of the complexity in humanity (as discovered since the fifties) and how it speaks so clearly of design. Darwinism has no way of explaining such things. The cell is outrageously complex - the opposite of what 19th Century scientists expected.
Mathematician William Dembski wrote The Design Inference in 1998 seeking to set out a rigorous mathematical way of detecting design. His publishers CUP were happy with the idea but became nervous about the application to biology. Dembski speaks of evidence of design very narrowly and certainly does not seek to identify the Designer. (Dembski would not see a snowflake as designed). CUP also published (2004) Debating Design.
Anthony Flue is one who has now moved, because of ID arguments, to a belief in a God. ID has had a high media profile. Christians are unclear what to think. The media often lump it in with creationism but it is only a scientific theory and not necessarily biblical. It is useful for puncturing the naturalism bubble. Unlike creationism some scientists are at least willing to consider ID. It cannot save but it is our friend. ID is like the airforce and creationism the ground forces!
(To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment