When I, as an objective observer, look at the evidence, it seems to me that we haven’t been shown any good reason to think that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the evolution of the extraordinary diversity of life that we see on this planet during the time available.
So I’m not convinced that evolutionary creationism is true. It seems to me that so-called progressive creationism fits the evidence quite nicely. Progressive creationism suggests that God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms. But as for grand evolutionary change, this would not take place by the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation undirected by God. Rather we would need miraculous interventions of God in the process of biological evolution to bring about broad evolutionary change. So instead of evolutionary creationism, we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time.
35 comments
I was wondering why this post had an air of pseudo-intellectual smugness to it. William Lane Craig, of course. The master of trying to appear 'objective' whilst muttering nonsense. I've seen him debate, and he's just as irritating.
When I, as an objective observer,(antonyms of objective include subjective, biased and William Lane Craig spent five whole minutes searching on Conservapedia weasely qualifier which shows that... ...William Lane Craig still refuses to acknowledge any pesky evidence that gets in the way of his bloviating William Lane Craig thinks that 3.5 Billion years is exactly long enough for nothing to happen!
Shorter William Lane Craig: I don't actually understand how it works because I haven't researched it due to the fact that it threatens my faith. However, that won't stop me from vomiting forth bullshit about it while trying to sound pseudo-intellectual. For other examples of how this works, see PG2013.
we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time.
But it's not evolution!
I think the cracks are starting to show in their unwavering defense of creationism. They're at least beginning to admit that life didn't always exist as it exists now.
This is like some wierd reverse "god of the gaps" thinking where becuase an "objective" review of the evidence leads to a shrinking view of the actions of god so instead William Lane Craig has decided to find a gap and widen it till it fits a god he likes.
Really we are on to a new phase in this arugment.
The "time available" is a billion years , give or take. If that isn't long enough for you, how long do you think it would take?
Also, just because you call yourself an objective observer does not, in fact, make you objective. I can call myself an objective observer. I can call myself the President, but it doesn't make it true. And if some other self-proclaimed "objective observer" disagrees with you, what then? (Slandering them, of course. That was a rhetorical question.)
1. What evidence do you have of any miraculous intervention?
2. If your god can create the universe, why is he such a lousy biological engineer? The best refutation of what you're claiming is the Dodo. A creature that flourished in its non-competitive environment but quickly became extinct when invasive species were introduced.
How qualified do you think an 'objective observer' would consider you are to formulate a new theory of the origins of life in opposition to virtually all of science? Maybe fuck-all qualified perhaps?
Being objective counts for shit if you really can't understand what you're hearing.
So you'll believe in parts of evolutionary theory when it is convenient for you but when it is not and you feel threatened then you try (and fail) to jam your imaginary friend into the process. Yes, very logical. William Lane Craig is one of the dumbest Christian apologists. That's really saying something considering Christian apologetics is illogical idiocy trying to pass itself off as philosophy.
When I, as an objective observer
Why do I get the feeling William Lane Craig means "When I, as an objecting
Secondly, remove God from your equation and your Humpty Dumpty takes a great fall.
Objective observer?
You literally make a living trying to prove the Christian God exists!!!!
Also, why would God tinker with creatures over millions of years. Why doesn't he poof the creature he wants into existence?
Anyway, such tinkering should leave its mark in the record. Where's the evidence?
Craig doesn't seem to rule out all vertebrates having a common ancestor - he seems to have come to a little stronger version of the Catholic Church's position - God creates the human soul and how He got the flesh to put it in, whether by evolution or otherwise, is a matter for scientists.
Oh wow, I thought this was a quote from Phillip-George(c) ...which is another way of saying William Lane Craig is a buffoon. Does he have a real Philosophy PhD or is it from a diploma mill? I've never read the man say anything that wasn't stupid. Not wrong, or crazy, just plain dumb. I don't know how he got through university.
"Does he have a real Philosophy PhD"
He does indeed, as do thousands of others, most of whom wouldn't use it to suggest they can trump scientific consensus. WLC insists that science hasn't answered enough to be considered more relevant than religion or philophosy. He's wrong but he's of the huge creationist camp that have a big ego problem, that THEY are the ones that determine level of proof and relative complexity.
All he does is add a lot of double talk to creationist assertions that demand religious doctrine and philisophical premises are just as valid and equal to scientific consensus BECAUSE HE SAYS SO.
This is the clown who threw "supernatural reality" into one of his monolouges like that was a logical or provable claim. Like all creationists he insists his side need no proofs while sciences can never have enough. He's also used the "perfectly balanced universe" bullshit in his speechs.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
