Francis Collins, for example, has explicitly rejected the theory of intelligent design. Yet, the theory of intelligent design does not necessarily reject evolution in either of the first two senses above, but instead argues that key appearances of design in living organisms are real, not illusory.
In rejecting the theory of intelligent design, Collins would, therefore, seem to be affirming the contrary, namely, that the appearance of design is not real but just an appearance. He thus seems to commit himself to the position that the process that produced the appearance of design in living organisms is undirected.
That would follow because, again, if it were otherwise — if the process were directed or guided — then the appearance of design in living organisms would be real and not just apparent. That God could have acted in such a concealed way is, of course, a logical possibility, but positing such a view, nevertheless, entails difficulties that proponents of theistic evolution rarely address.
First, this version of theistic evolution suggests a logically convoluted explanation for the appearance of design in living systems. Like classical Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, this version of theistic evolution denies that anything about living systems indicates that an actual designing intelligence played a role in their origin.
Theistic evolutionists, like mainstream neo-Darwinists, affirm the third meaning of evolution — i. Since natural selection and random mutations can account for the origin of biological systems and their appearances of design , theistic evolutionists steadfastly deny the need to propose an actual designing intelligence.
Yet, having affirmed what classical Darwinists and neo-Darwinists affirm — namely, the sufficiency of standard evolutionary mechanisms — they then suggest that such mechanisms may only appear undirected and unguided.
This tangled — indeed, convoluted — view of the origin of living systems adds nothing to our scientific understanding of what caused living organisms to arise. As such, it also represents an entirely vacuous explanation. Indeed, it has no empirical or scientific content beyond that offered by strictly materialistic evolutionary theories.
It does not represent an alternative theory of biological origins, but a reaffirmation of some materialistic version of evolutionary theory restated using theological terminology. Of course, theistic evolutionists who hold this view do not typically spell out its implications so as to reveal the convoluted nature of the explanation for the appearance of design that their view entails.
Instead, they typically avoid discussing, or offering explanations for, the appearance of design in living systems altogether — though this appearance is so striking that even secular evolutionary biologists have long and consistently acknowledged it. Yet, denying the detectability of design in nature generates another theological difficulty.
As John West has explained,. In the chapters of Theistic Evolution , we will provide a much more extensive critique of theistic evolution in three distinct sections of this book.
Our three sections will not correspond to the three different meanings of the term evolution, but rather to three distinct disciplinary sets of concerns: scientific, philosophical, and theological.
In each section of the book, however, our authors will carefully define the specific formulation of theistic evolution they are critiquing. In the first section we provide a scientific critique of theistic evolution. We start our scientific critique of theistic evolution discussing the alleged creative power of the main mechanisms of evolutionary change because theistic evolutionists want to argue that God has worked undetectably through these various evolutionary mechanisms and processes to produce all the forms of life on our planet today.
They equate and identify evolutionary processes such as natural selection and random mutation with the creative work of God.
Yet, we will argue in the opening section of this book, chapters 1—9, that the main mechanisms postulated in both biological and chemical evolutionary theory lack the creative power necessary to produce genuine biological innovation and morphological novelty. In chapter 1, Douglas Axe argues that people do not need specialized scientific training to recognize the implausibility of Darwinian or other materialistic explanations for the origin of living forms — though he also argues that rigorous scientific analysis reinforces our intuitive conviction that the integrated complexity of living systems could not have arisen by accidental or undirected processes.
Consequently, he suggests that people of faith who yield core convictions about the intelligent design of life — out of deference to the supposed scientific authority of spokesmen for Darwinism — do so unnecessarily and with a substantial apologetic cost to their faith. Matti Leisola extends our critique of the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism in chapter 3. He shows, citing some of his own experimental work on DNA and proteins, that random mutational processes produce only extremely limited changes, even with the help of natural selection.
In chapter 4, we briefly shift our focus from biological evolution to chemical evolution, the branch of evolutionary theory that attempts to explain the origin of the first life from simpler nonliving chemicals. In this chapter, organic chemist James Tour shows that undirected chemical evolutionary processes and mechanisms have not demonstrated the creative power to generate the first living cell from simpler molecules.
Basing his argument on his extensive knowledge of what it takes to synthesize organic compounds, Tour shows why known chemical processes do not provide plausible mechanisms for the synthesis of the complex bio-macromolecules and molecular machines necessary for life. We should make clear, in introducing his chapter, that Tour does not regard himself as a partisan to the debate over theistic evolution, one way or another.
He has, nevertheless, kindly given us permission to publish an abridged version of a previously published essay in order to make more widely known the scientific problems associated with chemical evolutionary theory — in particular, its lack of any demonstrated mechanism for generating the molecular machinery necessary to the first life. In chapter 5, Winston Ewert shows that attempts to solve the problem of the origin of biological information by simulating the evolutionary process in a computer environment have also failed.
Instead, he shows that, to the extent that well-known evolutionary algorithms computer programs simulate the production of new genetic information, they do so as a consequence of information already provided to the program by the intelligent programmer who wrote the code — thus simulating, if anything, the need for intelligent design, not the sufficiency of an undirected evolutionary processes.
In chapter 6, I critique the idea that God carefully arranged matter at the beginning of the universe so as to ensure that life would inevitably evolve without any additional intelligent input or activity. In this chapter, I show why this version of theistic evolution, though attractive as a potential synthesis of the ideas of creation and evolution, fails for demonstrable scientific reasons to account for the origin of the information in the DNA molecule — and, thus, the information needed to build new forms of life.
He argues that this fact alone demonstrates the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Whereas neo-Darwinism asserts that all the new information necessary to build new forms of life arises as the result of random mutational changes in DNA, developmental biology has shown instead that building new forms of life also depends on information not stored in the DNA molecule.
In support of this claim, we describe some of the new theories of evolution and evolutionary mechanisms that mainstream evolutionary biologists are now proposing as alternatives to textbook neo-Darwinism. Yet we also show that none of these new evolutionary theories have mechanisms with the power to produce either the genetic or the epigenetic information necessary to generate novel forms of life.
In chapter 9, Sheena Tyler describes the exquisite orchestration necessary for the development of animals from embryo to adult form. She argues that nothing about these carefully choreographed processes suggests that they might have originated as the result of random mutational tinkering or other undirected processes.
I strongly recommend this volume! It provides a very substantial contribution to the ever-ongoing dispute between naturalism and Christian faith in the areas of philosophy, theology, and the sciences. Putting this view into the crosshairs, this book argues convincingly that the science of evolution is in fact wrong, and that any theistic gloss one puts on it is thus doubly wrong. Previous contributions to this debate have generally focused on the data from either science or Scripture.
Theistic Evolution benefits from its comprehensive analysis from theologians, philosophers, and scientists in the same book. Whatever are your current views, Theistic Evolution will provide analysis from some of the most prominent critics in this conversation that should be helpful to people on both sides of this debate. This remarkable book exposes how scientifically and philosophically preposterous the notion of theistic evolution really is.
An authoritative and vital contribution to the topic! Reformed Theological Seminary is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
Skip to content Search RTS. Apply Now Donate Today. Lillback President, Westminster Theological Seminary. Gray Sutanto. Although most U. Catholics accept the idea of evolution in some form, a substantial percentage of American adults reject the scientific explanation for the origins of human life, and a number of religious groups in the U.
Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings. About a quarter of U. The rejection of evolution by most evangelicals is largely mirrored by their churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod , which explicitly reject evolutionary theory as being in conflict with what they see as biblical truth. The share of Hispanic Catholics in the U. In spite of efforts in many American states and localities to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or to teach alternatives to evolution, courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory.
Did God intentionally make us in his image? And if we think that Adam and Eve are mythical, who else is? Such skepticism towards the historical accounts in early Genesis and elsewhere by extension of the same methods is typical of liberal theology, which historically evangelicals opposed.
This is not the time to be deciding what beliefs we should give up in order to help prop up a failing vision in science. In fact, I find it striking that just when the biochemical evidence for Creation is becoming dramatically clearer, some Christians who accept Darwinism as true feel that they must attack Creationists and mythologize important Scriptures. A sober look at what Darwin cannot explain should give them pause and perhaps more respect for their brothers and sisters who have solid scientific and biblical reasons for questioning this prevailing naturalistic paradigm.
Looking for more resources on intelligent design and theistic evolution? John Bloom recommends the following books and DVDs for further study and reading, several of which contain detailed information on the studies referenced in this column. Signature in the Cell , Stephen C.
0コメント