Theists Don’t Have Problems With Gradual Processes…

I’m here at the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science Conference in Austin, where I’ve enjoyed hearing from Stephen Meyer, Hugh Ross, Darrel Falk, Dan Heinze, and more in presentations to a large auditorium of conference attendees. It’s interesting and I think good to bring together so many different perspectives on science and origins, though sometimes distinctions seemed purposefully blurred so as to preserve unity. An example of this might be Biologos’ Darrel Falk’s plenary session, where he discussed his view of “evolutionary creation” (he doesn’t like “theistic evolution”) as God working through a gradual process. He is right that most of the theists in the room do indeed agree on the point that God is creative and creator, but Read More ›

Randy Isaac on “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”

“Creationism” In my previous post, I discussed Randy Isaac’s distinction of “evolutionism” and “evolution” in his essay “Science and the Question of God,” published at the BioLogos Foundation website. After proffering a distinction between “evolution” and “evolutionism,” Isaac talks about (young earth) creationism. I have some quibbles with what he says on the subject, especially with respect to biblical authority; however, I do share his concern that many young earth creationists appeal to the “tu quoque” argument. That is, many argue (in effect) that since everyone holds arbitrary presuppositions, it’s no problem for Christians to do so. But saying that everybody begs the question is hardly a reasonable rebuttal to the charge that I’m begging the question. This strategy makes Read More ›

Randy Isaac on “Evolutionism”

The BioLogos Foundation recently published a scholarly essay (with several accompanying blog posts) titled “Science and the Question of God” by Randy Isaac. Isaac is a physicist and executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)–a scholarly society of Christian natural scientists. In his essay, Isaac examines, as he puts it, “three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.” In this and two follow-up posts, I’ll respond to some of the themes of Isaac’s essay. When I began to read “Science and the Question of God,” I worried that Isaac would define ID as an explicit attempt to prove the existence of God. But, happily, Isaac doesn’t make that mistake, Read More ›

Would St. Thomas Have Been an Evolutionary Psychologist?

Over at the Huffington Post, that organ of sophisticated theological analysis, Matt Rossano argues: If he were alive today would Aquinas be an evolutionist? His writings suggest a mind already resonating with many evolutionary concepts. My sense is that Aquinas, like Aristotle and Albert before him, was just too curious and too smart not be at the intellectual vanguard wrestling with exciting new knowledge. Limping weakly behind with whiny unimaginative creationists would have been far too boring for a mind such as his. In fact, Rossano actually tries to marshal St. Thomas for the least plausible part of the Darwinian program–evolutionay psychology. Rossano finds some simlarities between Thomas’ thought and the ideas of evolutionary psychology. But any two schools of Read More ›

What I Really Believe

Recently I asked Larry Moran of Sandwalk: what do you, as a New Atheist, really believe? To focus the discussion I asked eight fundamental philosophical questions. The insistent New Atheist claim has been that belief in the supernatural in any form- traditional Christian belief seems to rile them the most- is nonsense and has been shown to be such by modern science. New Atheists claim the mantle of logic and reason, as against irrationality and superstition of theists. Dr. Moran replied to my questions, courteously, and as I have promised I will answer the questions in the same spirit. For clarity, I will give the original question, then Dr. Moran’s answer, and then mine. A little background on my perspective: Read More ›