Comments on: Albert Mohler Steps in It on Evolution

By: Lifewish

Lifewish — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:03:02 +0000

Very nice summary of the difficulties of injecting God into biology.

Please insert the usual question here about why precisely it is that “supernatural” effects wouldn’t be subject to science. Are we using a definition of “natural” that makes this tautological?

My understanding is that science’s scope isn’t limited to natural effects, but to useful effects. As is often pointed out, there are no Flood creationists in oil-discovery companies. But there’s no a priori reason why “supernatural” phenomena such as deities wouldn’t have useful effects.

By: Randy Cathcart

Randy Cathcart — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:11:05 +0000

A few months back I was in a church service and heard the pastor remark that evolutionary theory and Christian faith are entirely incompatible. At another church, there was a science and faith discussion group. I asked about it and was told, “several people get together to discuss the intersection of faith and science. But don’t worry–they don’t teach evolution.” Sad enough to say, it seems Mohler’s view is a pretty common one in my part of the country.

I suppose that the main threat people feel when thinking of evolution stems from the tendency to apply the scientific explanation of what has/is/will happen to questions about the reasons why it has/is/will happen.

Perhaps conversations between various camps will be more fruitful if we address the issue of where our identity is based. Do we look to the process of evolution to define our identity/purpose (as Mohler suggests all theistic evolutionists do)? Or do we look to God in faith and allow that to shed light on the process and his purposes for it and us?

I propose the latter.

By: The “n” word « Blog of the Airtightnoodle

The “n” word « Blog of the Airtightnoodle — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:38:50 +0000

[...] is naturalistic, and necessarily so.� The goal of science is to explain the natural world.� As Henry Neufeld states on his blog, “[Science] is ill-equipped to explain the supernatural, because the [...]

By: Airtightnoodle

Airtightnoodle — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:09:07 +0000

Well said, sir! Christians being bothered by “naturalism” and treating “naturalism” as if it is a dirty word when related to science has always bothered me. I hope you won’t mind me quoting you on my own blog.

By: Chris Poirier

Chris Poirier — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:19:12 +0000

A friend of my recently gave me a copy of “Why God Won’t Go Away”, by Andrew Newberg, et al. It’s a book about “Brain Science and the Biology of Belief”. Goes into how things like spiritual experience, myth, and ritual interact with the natural structure and functions of the brain. Whether you read the evidence and theories as the mechanism by which God touches us, or as the source of the “illusion” of God will depend entirely on your world view, but I’m finding it rather interesting to see just how much of this stuff can be explained in terms of the natural world, and (to some extent) evolutionary processes. It may also shed some light on why ID types so vehemently cling to their views.