My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Evolution Weblogs Of Note

Daubert Expert Resources

Evolution Web Resources

  • Afarensis
    reality based humanoid's blog
  • Origin of Species Online
    For God's sake, read the dang thing before you proclaim any thoughts on evolution!! Now it's online at your fingertips. Go. Read. Then, pontificate if you must.
  • Talk Origins
    The master site containing the most comprehensive of evolution and anti-evolution sites and information on the web. A model example of how to really teach the controversy.

Junk Science Sites

Religous Critiques of Intelligent Design

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Selman Amicus Brief Online | Main | Confucius was right, after all »



Nice article.

I've mentioned a couple times in my blog that ID is a disaster for religion.

Matters of faith are just that, and are not meant to be scientifically scrutinized.

Regardless of how the universe may have been created or not, we are stuck with the empirical evidence we have. As _CSI_'s Grissom would say the evidence is just the evidence.

Clearly the way we 'do' science works. The advances of the last century in particular are evidence enough of that.

Mark V.


I wonder if Jim Wallis, a so-called "leftist evangelical" has written anything significant on this issue. It definitely is not a focus of his, although he is very much concerned about the warping of Christianity by conservative evangelicals (i.e., turning it from a religion focused on the sick and poor into a pro-business pro-war pro-america political recruiting tool).

Joe McFaul

For many Christian evangelicals, there is a differnce between being potically conservative and being Christian and they objec to the blurring of this distinction.

I've just begun collecting the thoughts of Christian theologians on intellgigent design and was very pelasantly surpirsed at the amont of thoughtful rejection from a theological point of view.

The point is not to resolve differences in Christian thought but to issustrate that teh Johnson-Dembski branch of Chrstianity is just as far out of the mainstream Chrstian and evangelical thought as their Intelligent Design proposal is remioved from manstream sciencce thought.

Thanks, for the sugggestion, I'll follwow up with Jim Wallis.

Cary had this to say on his blog:

" Second, by promoting the ID agenda, these people are in essence admitting that they need scientific proof – i.e. denying the role of faith. Now, obviously this isn’t the case for all religions, but most (all?) Judeo-Christian sects(and lets face it, that’s who makes up the religious right in this country) state that belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof. Can’t they see they’re taking a huge risk here?"

Wise words. ID is a tacit admission of weak faith.

No they cant see the risk they are taking.

Don T. Know

>> Matters of faith are just that, and are not meant to be scientifically scrutinized.

As a former fundamentalist, let me say it's not that easy.

While it is true that mainstream religionists have little problem "accommodating" ideas that challenge their faith. The same cannot be said for fundamentalists.

Unlike mainstream believers, faith is an assertion of fact for fundamentalists. And, the most basic fact to the fundamentalist is the implication of the creation stories in Genesis ... specifically the introduction of "sin" that makes the rest of the Christian story (salvation) necessary. There is no room for metaphors, symbolism or allegories. It either happened or all is for naught.

Of course, this is a problem of the fundamentalist's own making since Christians who are not biblical literalists have no problem reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, as long as fundamentalists insist on believing the Bible to be 100% without error, it will not be possible to avoid conflicts whenever an object of its faith makes a claim of fact that can be verified (and falsified) by science.

Jeremy Mohn

Joe McFaul said:

"ID is a tacit admission of weak faith."

I agree. Those who use ID to shore up their belief in God are setting themselves up for disappointment.

They are like the fool who built his house on sand. Science will continue to advance. The rains will come, the floodwaters will rise, the winds will blow and beat upon their house. And eventually, it will fall with a great crash.

Joe mcFaul

Don, Great observations. I've spent a lot of time thinkig of ways to find some common ground. Jeremy Mohn's site is worth checking into for an approach to that common ground.
Overall, though I have to agree with you. A fundamentalist belief in "the fall" is essential to an understanding of the later Redemption. To the extent that your religious beliefs require you to believe in a literal reading of Genesis, you will find science incompatible.

I'd make two obervations for persons that find themselves in that category:
1. recognize that scietnits will disagree with your interpretation of religion.
2. Recognize that many very reliogus fellow Christians or fellow Jews, if you are a Jewish fundamentalist, disagree with you--not on scientific grounds but on religous grounds.

Finally I think you do an injustice by arguing that science in any way is compatible with a YEC view. Arguments that radiocarbon dating is wrogn or that eh speed of light has changed dramtically are intellectually dishonest--you scadalize fellow believers with that kind of lack of integrity.

All a YEC can do is argue that science has been fooled by the appearance of age, the so called omphalos hypothesis.

That one is logically irrefutable and in my opinion, the only intellctually honest approach for a YEC creationist.


Wow, someone quoted my blog... I'm famous! ;-)

Joe McFaul

Yeah, I quoted the "Clint Eastwood" of blogs! ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.