Tom Gilson

“Victor Stenger: Is Evolution Compatible With Religion?”

Once in a while a New Atheist gets it right:

In fact, this attempt by scientists to convince the American public that evolution poses no threat to faith has largely fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because it is simply untrue, and believers can see this clearly enough.

[From Victor Stenger: Is Evolution Compatible With Religion?]

Read the article and you’ll catch the other message. Stenger doesn’t want scientists to think that faith poses no threat to naturalistic evolution. He’s right there, too, except I’m sure he doesn’t understand how faith and knowledge can connect and intermingle in support of truth.

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

4 thoughts on ““Victor Stenger: Is Evolution Compatible With Religion?”

  1. What caught my eye was this:

    Humans evolved due to luck, not divine purpose. This fact is fundamentally destructive to what every religion teaches about humanity.

    It caught my eye because, if I am understanding Stenger correctly, science discovered an absence of purpose in the empirical data. Doesn’t that fly in the face of all the objections to ID theory, specifically that the design theory cannot be falsified by science? According to Stenger, ID theory has been falsified by science. I’m confused.

    On a related note, this article on the 6 definitions of evolution is interesting. It is interesting to me because definition #6 is the one that gets all the attention (as it does here with Stenger), yet it’s the definition that is least scientific.

    As Jay Richards says in Part 2 (here), “The word “random” in the blind watchmaker thesis carries a lot of metaphysical baggage.”..

    Did I mention that I’m confused?

  2. “…if I am understanding Stenger correctly, science discovered an absence of purpose in the empirical data. Doesn’t that fly in the face of all the objections to ID theory, specifically that the design theory cannot be falsified by science?”

    And not to come down too hard on the ID supporters here but this points out the very problem with ID that our friend Holopupenko (where has he gone!?) has argued. Science can’t disprove ID any more that science can prove it. Science doesn’t do purpose.

  3. BillT:

    I visit and read a bit, but am so busy it’s difficult to comment. Also, I have precious little patience left to address the errors, ineptitude (it’s gone beyond ignorance), and scientistic closed-mindedness of the atheists and PC minions commenting here. (Soul damage leads to brain–err… i mean, mind–damage.) Better to let deviancy and sin drown in its own shrillness. Harsh? Too bad. I call ’em as I see ’em.

  4. Holo,

    Thanks for the reply. I hope all is well with you and yours. And I hope I represented your position reasonably accurately.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

Clicky