William Lane Craig on Evolution
Finally a sensible and informed evangelical opinion on evolution – mostly characterized by a careful definition of terms and a steadfast refusal to accede limply to atheistic interpretations of evolutionary theory.
WLC’s main point is this: if you are careful to define terms such as “random” and keep evolutionary biologists to the actual verifiable scientific claims of evolutionary theory — and not allow unwarranted atheistic philosophical overshoot and naturalistic metaphysical extrapolation — then there is nothing in standard evolutionary theory that is inherently incompatible with Christian theism. Philosophical naturalism is at odds with Christian theism, not evolutionary theory properly stated.
First Alvin Plantinga, now WLC. Eminent Christian scientists, theologians and Christian philosophers around the world who consider theistic evolution to be a valid mechanism for God’s creative exploits can’t all be dismissed as liberal heretics.
WLC has it 100% correct when he pleads with fellow evangelicals to stop shadow-boxing with evolutionary strawmen as defined unilaterally by atheists. A full frontal assault on inaccurate notions of evolutionary theory is a waste of time and energy – and does little to commend the Christian faith to seekers with an understanding of the science. Be prepared to ‘die’ for truth by all means, but not on the wrong hill!
But watch the priests of YEC and devotees of ID tear at their robes and demand the stoning of WLC as a heretic!
Listen to Dr Craig discussing his views on evolutionary theory in Part 1 of his podcast here.
Aaron C.
on September 23rd, 2012
I couldn’t agree more! I’m glad you posted this! It’s a silly position that many theists take when they defend hills that aren’t worth defending.
Raohael V,
on September 25th, 2012
That was a really refreshing feel of sanity for someone who continuously attempts to bring reason to creationists. It is so good to see that known Christian figures are standing up for scientific fact. I have no opposition to a deity, I just have opposition to … people who deny basic scientific fact for a comforting allegory they take litereally
As Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury said:
“A fundamentalist approach to scholarship and scripture is not in any way acceptable to any theologian wishing to study fact”
Tom Rafferty
on September 29th, 2012
You may want to consider an alternative view by reading my book “Making Stuff Up is Unwise.”
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478106123
Edgar Andrews
on November 27th, 2012
Following Tom Rafferty, I would urge readers to read my own book “Who made God? Searching for a theory or everything” to get a completely different view of theistic evolution. I write as a scientist with a dostorate and a higher doctorate in physics and an international reputation in molecular science. In the book I demonstrate the unscientific nature of macro-evolution (common descent) and, of course, I am not the first scientist to do so. Those who oppose theistic evolution are not ignorant of science or anti-science as is commonly claimed but include those who have thought deeply and scientifically about the claims of macro-evolutionary theory and found them wanting.
Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin
on December 2nd, 2012
Nice to see I am not alone , I am highly suspicious of Theistic Evolution, but my doubts are more theological in Nature.
For sure God does not act according to what strikes man as sensible – but if God has anything resembling Omnipotence then theistic evolution just seems beyond strange and (IMO of course) not Gods style.
Millions of years of giant lizards!? Egg layers evolving into live-bearers? (credit, P Johnson) Can you picture a woman laying a nice big egg? lol Now try to imagine how Natural Selection could get her to lay that egg.
Then some centuries before Becoming a Jew, God reveals a story that for millennia was thought to be fairly literal. But around 200 years ago Enlightened (or Anti-God) men showed us the Jews just made that up as some “our god is one and your gods are feebs” thing against the Assyrians/Babylonians. – But despite their desire to distance themselves from their rivals they almost Plagiarized their rivals myths
Then other scholars said not to fear, the Jews didn’t make it up, God revealed it, but otherwise the first Scholars were right, it mostly to debunk Polytheism. Nevermind that at some unknown point the Jews made things even more confusing by adding real history to the fake one.
During this mess Darwin showed up and really made it clear The Bible is not history much, and not only that he gave an impressive explanation for the origin of everything without any need for God at all. His ideas were eagerly spread by open minded and polite men like Mencken and Clarance Darrow. By the late 20th Century his Godless creator was taught as fact to children without any indication where fact (fossil record) and theory (N Selection) were separated Why not. just show them the fossils, the various theories, and have a discussion what may have happened? Ya Right! that would involve thinking and maybe even be interesting. Thinking and interesting are 2 words the rather Hegelian architects of School were aiming for:
“Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.” -Willliam Torrey Harris, Philosophy of Education (1906)
but hey Hegel was not all bad:
. Among us, the so?called higher criticism, which reigns supreme in the domain of philology, has also taken possession of our historical literature. This higher criticism has been the pretext for introducing all the anti?historical monstrosities that a vain imagination could suggest. Here we have the other method of making the past a living reality; putting subjective fancies in the place of historical data; fancies whose merit is measured by their boldness, that is, the scantiness of the particulars on which they are based, and the peremptoriness with which they contravene the best established facts of history. -The Philosophy of History by Hegel
disclaimer: I don’t think the traditional view of Judea-Christian History was “established fact”, (it is for faith) but now we have people who claim innerancy, but buy into the German Higher Criticism as if it were established fact, or if not that they at least distance themselves from the traditional view as something fit only for backwoods crackpots.
sorry for the rant, Nice site, though the repeated links to L’Abri make me nervous
Richard Nelson
on February 8th, 2013
As a scientist studying biological evolution for more than a decade, it is amazing to see how many “Christians” are willing to leave a foundational tenet by accepting a yet unknown theory of evolution.
Discredited evolution theories over the past two-hundred years include Lamarckism, Darwinism, then neo-Darwinism,m then the Modern Synthesis. At the Altenberg Summit of 2008, the convening of the 16 greatist minds in evolution even failed to agree of a comprehensive theory of evolution.
Biological evolution exists only as a philosophy – not as a science. In the follow-up of publication released by MIT, Alan Love of the University of Minnesota in summarizing what was discovered at the meeting noted:
“The proliferation and heterogeneity of life science disciples and methodologies following the advent of molecular biology has led to a centrifugal force within evolutionary research, making it difficult to recover a single big-picture or ‘grand unified theory.” Therefore, a “unified view of evolutionary processes may be out of reach” Love concluded.
“Christians” advocating biological evolution is a scientific fact will be held accountable for teaching a lie.
rogermorris
on February 8th, 2013
It never takes long in these discussions for the threats of apostasy and eternal damnation to come out. Evolution completely discredited? Only in the minds, households and educational establishments of those fundamentalist Christians who don’t have a professional career in the sciences.
Richard Nelson
on February 9th, 2013
Thanks for commenting on my post. Just want you to know next time you should adopt a practice of actually reading what was written.