- The world as a global app. 24/03/2017
- Secularism, autonomy and the loss of self 21/03/2017
- How I became a societal misfit 18/03/2017
- The distinguishing marks of the impossible 15/03/2017
- Minor Theological Footnote to a Good Series on BioLogos from Snobelen and Davis 12/03/2017
Author Archives: Edward Robinson
I’ve often criticized BioLogos on this site, but, wishing to give credit where credit is due, I can recommend the latest series hosted by Ted Davis, written by historian of science Stephen Snobelen with some bits of introduction and commentary by Ted. It examines the claims of the New Atheists and connects their work to the “Warfare Thesis” of White and Draper. There are plenty of quotations, links, etc. to enable non-historians to get up to speed on what Snobelen is talking about. It’s a great takedown of the New Atheists as well as of the Warfare Thesis.
Over at BioLogos, a vigorous discussion is going on under the column entitled “Signal and Noise”. Cornelius Hunter has returned to debate the soundness of evolutionary theory, and, predictably, he is being ganged up on by all the usual suspects.
Does God Sustain the Universe by Batteries or Power Cords? Or Are Both Notions Shocking Misconceptions?
Over on BioLogos, Jon was kind enough to comment on a discussion I was having with GJDS and several others about Deism, God’s involvement in evolution, etc. He wrote: Eddie’s caution about the limitations of speaking of God’s “sustaining” everything in being is that we have all seen that word drained of its historical theological content (I suppose in a quasi-scientific way), so that it simply means God keeping objects in existence as they go about their business autonomously and he is passive.
Sy Garte has replied to a post of mine on BioLogos. Because I am temporarily suspended from BioLogos, I’m replying to him here. I’ll write in the form of a column, but with some references to his own statements.
On BioLogos today, a frequent and apparently well-meaning poster, George Brooks, wrote the following: God COULD arrange an entire Cosmos at the very moment of creation. Or God COULD nudge and prod during the entire course of the Cosmos. It could work either way. And the difference in one scenario or another is based on premises that might be embraced or rejected by an entire denomination …. or by individuals within a denomination. Trying to compel BioLogos to BE SPECIFIC is a diversion … and not productive … when faced with Christian real estate that varies completely depending upon time and place…. and doesn’t really matter to the BioLogos mission. … Continue reading
I have mixed feelings about the work of John Walton. While I don’t object to much of what he writes about how to interpret Genesis, I don’t like the way he applies his knowledge to defend the project of TE/EC. Take his latest column on BioLogos, “Natural” and “Supernatural” are Modern Categories, Not Biblical Ones. I would ask the reader here to read that column first, before reading what I write below.
The BioLogos Forum is a useful venue for exchanging ideas about creation and evolution, and religion and science generally. But it is not as useful as it could be. Though it features many columns which spark discussion among its readers, in very few cases do the writers of those columns engage effectively with the BioLogos readers. The BioLogos columnists can be divided into two groups: Ted Davis, and Everyone Else.
Over at BioLogos, President Deborah Haarsma has posted a column on ID/TE relations that is in some respects admirable, and certainly an improvement on many past things written about ID on BioLogos. Here I present in full my response to her column. I am publishing it here because it is rather long, and I suspect BioLogos may not want to publish such a lengthy piece in the comments section.
It is not often that I agree with Jerry Coyne. Nonetheless, his recent column on the results of a new Gallup poll about creation and evolution hits some nails on the head. This Gallup poll that has been run every two years since 1982. Here are the results, up to and including this year’s:
Over on BioLogos, in the context of discussing the Ham-Nye debate, several people have resumed a much earlier BioLogos discussion about the Resurrection, in which it was argued (apparently under the inspiration of N. T. Wright) that the Gospel reports concerning the women at the tomb of Jesus provide proof, or at least very strong evidence, for a physical resurrection. I don’t wish to take up the specific argument, but I do wish to point out the general form of the argument, and show why all arguments of this form will be of no avail until a greater problem – naturalism – is dealt with.