Design theorist William Dembski and BioLogos President Darrel Falk participated in an online forum (see the four essays linked here) that addressed the question: "Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?" Dembski answers “no.” Falk agrees with Dembski on many points, but maintains that “the BioLogos position is not the same as Darwinism.” BioLogos is one of the leading organizations devoted to promoting a Christian version of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Dembski outlines the essentials of Christianity and Darwinism as follows:

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

• (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
• (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
• (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
• (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.

Dembski and Falk agree that D2 is incompatible with C1 and C2 because a random evolutionary process that is unguided does not reflect God’s glory and creative wisdom. But Falk, articulating what he calls the “BioLogos view,” says God guided evolution. Falk is vague on the sense in which God guides evolution in a non-miraculous way. Elsewhere on his organization’s website we read: “We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the … evolutionary development of all species.” The problem is that according to most biologists evolution is an unguided process. Falk and other BioLogos leaders have never resolved this issue.

Falk also does not respond adequately to the following paragraph of Dembski’s essay, which references Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God--a book featured on the BioLogos website.

Natural Selection, or (D2), is therefore in tension with both (C1) and (C2). (D2) implies that biological evolution does not give, and indeed cannot give, any scientific evidence of teleology in nature. We see this denial of teleology in Darwin’s own writings and we find it among his contemporary disciples, even among theistic evolutionists. For instance, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, who calls himself an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinian, writes in Finding Darwin’s God that design (or teleology) in biology is “scientifically undetectable.” Now to say that something is scientifically undetectable isn’t to say that it doesn’t exist. Hence there’s no strict contradiction between (D2) and (C1)-(C2). God might, as a master of stealth, wipe away all fingerprints of his activity. He might be guiding evolution in ways that to us look like chance (e.g., random variation) and necessity (e.g., natural selection).

Regarding the tension between the Judeo-Christian view of human exceptionalism (C3) and the Darwinian view of human continuity with animals (D3), Dembski quotes Darwin’s Descent of Man:

The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.

Falk responds:

Even if all that Darwin says here were more or less true, it would still say nothing about that which makes humans truly exceptional, because—our linguistic and cognitive abilities aside—what makes us truly exceptional has less to do with biology than with the fact that God chose to enter into a unique relationship with humankind.  Dembski paraphrases an ideologically strict Darwinian view of man as “not worthy of special divine attention, and with no prerogatives above the rest of the animal world.” But Christians recognize that our material ordinariness is radically transformed by the presence and promises of God. Exactly as with the people of Israel among the nations, so humans among the animals: our special identity rests in the free choice of the Creator to give us his [sic] himself and his name. If we recognize that human specialness rests on God’s fellowship with and call upon us, and that we—alone of all creatures—are enabled by God to bear his image in the world, then anything Darwin said about the physical continuity between humans and animals is irrelevant.  In the way that matters most, we are not continuous with animals. For philosophical and theological reasons, Darwin did not recognize this. Darwin, I believe, was wrong.  I, like Dembski and like Southern Baptists in general, am not a Darwinist.

Falk expresses a weak view of what it means to be made “in the image of God.” Let’s get an adequate view of human nature on the table, and then return to Falk.

C. John Collins concludes his exegetical analysis of image/likeness of God in Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (2006), p. 66-67, with this (read the pages before this to evalutate his evidence):

Thus we can paraphrase Genesis 1:26: “Let us make man to be our concrete resemblance, to be like us.” This supports a version of the resemblance view: man is a bodily creature who is like God in some way.

When it come to determining the way in which man is like God, we are left to infer that from the context…. In this pericope [Genesis 1:1-2:3] and the next [Genesis 2:5-2:25], God displays features of his character: he shows intelligence in designing the world as a place for man to live; he uses language when he says things; he appreciates what is “good” (morally and aesthetically); and he works and rests. He is also relational, in the way he establishes a connection with man that is governed by love and commitment (Gen. 2:15-17). In all of this God is a pattern for man.

As Kidner put it in his commentary, man is “an expression or transcription of the eternal, incorporeal creator in terms of temporal, bodily, creaturely existence.” These features of God which are present in man distinguish him from the other creatures; and in man newly made, they were fully in accord with God’s own purity…. We can also see that the resemblance view does not exclude the representational or relational views: rather, these features of human nature form the basis for man’s rule and relationships. By organizing things this way we recognize the valid points of all three positions and see how they relate to one another.

So what does it mean to be human if we follow Collin’s exegetical argument? We are different than animals in that God designed us with a sophisticated God-like form of intelligence that can be used for good (acting in harmony with God) or evil (acting in rebellion against God). We, unlike animals, are self-conscious creatures endowed with the ability to think about and choose that which is morally good and aesthetically good, or that which is morally evil and aesthetically ugly. Such choices are part of our human capacity to relate to God and other humans in good (loving) or bad (unloving) ways. Thus, the Bible teaches that humans are unlike animals in how we are stewards over God’s creation (representational aspect of “image of God”) and how we can be rightly or wrongly related to other persons (relational aspect of “image of God”), both of which are rooted in our basic ontology--what we are as God-like creatures made by God (the resemblance aspect of “image of God”).

Falk erodes this biblical teaching by virtually ignoring “ontology” (what we are), and replacing it with strictly “functional” description. God chooses to relate to us differently than other animals by means of special promises and special divine presence, Falk asserts. There is nothing intrinsically about humanness that separates us from animals, just as there is nothing intrinsically about Jewishness that makes Jews better than Gentiles. Although the Bible affirms the latter (Jews were judged for their sin as were Gentiles), it does not teach the former. Genesis and other biblical texts communicate the idea that humans actually resemble God in the sort of creatures they are (ontology). Much of this biblical teaching about who we are is conveyed through a description of the resulting functions that humans exhibit, which is what recent biblical scholars call the representational and relational aspects of “the image of God.” However, “it is a fallacy to suppose that ordinary [functional] language cannot address ontology either directly or by implication,” Collins warns. Falk and other BioLogos leaders better heed this warning from a leading Hebrew scholar (see Collins’ scholarship listed here).

David Klinghoffer wrote yesterday:

At last count we had 2,262 signature on our petition calling on Emory University to reaffirm the right of Commencement speaker Dr. Ben Carson to hold a  dissenting view on Darwinian evolution. In a published letter to the  student newspaper bearing just 500 signatures, professors, staff and  students have misrepresented Dr. Carson's position on the scientific and  moral issues raised in the evolution debate.

Whether from willfulness or just sloppy self-righteousness, they have ended up smearing their own Commencement speaker. This is yet another instance of academic bullying by Darwin advocates, and it has received national attention in the media. Yet Emory University still has not responded with a statement affirming academic freedom.

Dr. Carson will also receive on honorary degree. Some honor!

We're delighted to have those two-thousand plus signers on our side  and we'll be delivering the petition to Emory's president, James W.  Wagner, by Monday morning, which is Commencement day at Emory. This is  your chance to make a difference in the fight for academic freedom.

Although Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson doubts Darwinian evolution, he agrees with Darwin that if evolutionary theory were true, then Christian moral precepts such as the golden rule and love for all human races (ethnicities) are no more natural or normative than selfishness and racism.  Although Carson disagrees with Darwin and Darwinists today about the plausibility of the evolution of all life from a common ancestor, Carson agrees with Darwin and many leading Darwinists today about the moral implications of Darwinism. Apparently many students and faculty at Emory University are uninformed about how Darwin and leading Darwinists today have undermined belief in the objectivity of moral standards such as “infanticide is wrong.” For such sentiments to count as objective moral truths would mean that they could not be illusions thrust upon us by the accidents of our evolving genes.

But, note what leading Darwinists Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson wrote:

Morality… is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends… In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.” Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics” in James Huchingson, Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993), p. 210.

Or, go back to Darwin’s main book on the topic:

That animals sometimes are far from feeling any sympathy is too certain; for they will expel a wounded animal from the herd, or gore or worry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural history, unless indeed the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to follow the troop. In this case their conduct is not much worse than that of the North American Indians who leave their feeble comrades to perish on the plains, or the Feegeans, who, when their parents get old or fall ill, bury them alive. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), vol. I, p. 76-77. This is a reprint of the first edition that was published in 1871.

Darwin and many Darwinists today have argued that natural selection (coupled with other unguided natural events) is the chief explanation of all human behavior, including both loving maternal care for infants, and infanticide. Care toward elderly family members, and euthanasia, likewise, are (allegedly) both the natural results of human evolution.

John West explains some of the subtleties and contradictions within Darwin’s book The Descent of Man:

Throughout his discussion of morality, Darwin repeatedly referred to “higher” and “lower” moral impulses as if there were some transcendent [objective] standard of morality to which he compared human and animal behavior. Darwin wrote as if conventional virtues such as kindness and courage were objectively preferable to conventional vices such as cruelty and lust. But it is difficult to make sense of such comments in terms of Darwin’s own system, which clearly portrayed morality as ultimately reducible to that which promotes biological survival.

Read more of John West’s analysis of Darwinian views of ethics here.

Or, to further tie such discussion to the Carson-Emory controversy, read Richard Weikart's excellent essay posted today: At Emory University, Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality. It begins with this:

Almost 500 Emory faculty and students have expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker on May 14 does not toe the ideological line on evolutionary biology. Yes, gasp, the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory. Not only that, but biology professors at Emory and their supporters also accuse Carson of committing a thought crime because he allegedly "equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality."

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculty's consternation over Carson's belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality. Last summer I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on "The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution." So I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists -- from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference) -- have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson highlighted: they claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

Today David Klinghoffer told a shocking new story of Darwinian intolerance and intimidation:

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.  All that, but if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications -- everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is that man. He's scheduled to give the Commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Emory University but close to 500 faculty members, students and staff protested, drawing up a gravely serious letter to the student paper expressing their "concerns." Over what? Carson had no intention of speaking about evolution but someone dug up an impromptu interview he once gave to a publication associated with his Christian denomination (he's a Seventh Day Adventist).

Carson explained why he's not impressed by the evidence on offer for Darwinian theory and why a materialist philosophy is at odds with the idea of free will and therefore makes it tough to offer a coherent account of moral principles. 

Read more (the video posted there provides additional background on Carson), but first recall two prominent ways of framing the moral argument for God's existence, both of which (when fully developed) include the accurate observation made by Dr. Ben Carson about the lack of objective (meaningful) moral foundations within a Darwinian-materialist worldview.

Here below is William Lane Craig’s moral argument for God as he expressed it in the Craig-Silverman debate (see earlier blog). Compare it with the moral argument in Meyer's TrueU lectures # 9 and #10 on the DVD Does God Exist? 

William Lane Craig’s Moral Argument: 
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

                        [Materialist-Darwinists generally agree with premise #1]

Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Stephen Meyer’s Moral Argument:
The  existence of God provides the only coherent explanation for the conditions of an objective and meaningful system of morality.  Moreover, because the actions of all people reveal that they presuppose an objective and meaningful moral code, only a belief in God’s existence allows people to live consistently with their moral belief system.

Discovery Institute maintains an annotated list of peer-reviewed publications that support intelligent design. One of the essays listed there is explained briefly in a podcast at ID the Future: Pro-ID Paper Examines Irreducible Complexity of Birds in Flight. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin reports on a 2009 peer-reviewed paper arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. The author, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh, challenges his critics to consider the design hypothesis as a valid scientific assumption "borne out by the evidence itself."

Here is how Discovery Institute's annotated list of peer-reviewed publications summarizes the essay that Luskin discusses in the podcast above:

ENV's David Klinghoffer has supplied a helpful summary of how prominent evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro has been so friendly to intelligent design advocates by engaging in respectful dialogue. Klinghoffer writes:

Around here we have a lot of respect for microbiologist James Shapiro, who had the guts and integrity to come over to ENV recently and spar over evolution with William Dembski, Doug Axe and Ann Gauger. Besides having a new book out that details his own dissatisfactions with conventional Darwinian  evolutionary theory and that champions a provocative alternative view,  Shapiro also blogs at the Huffington Post.

He continues to win our admiration, while evoking some poignancy as well. In one post that got a fair amount of attention he had some sensible things to say to fellow evolutionists. Rather than hide behind "absolutist statements like 'all the facts are on my side,'"  as his University of Chicago colleague Jerry Coyne does, Shapiro  advocates "active engagement" with Darwin critics. Enter into the  controversy over evolution, he says, rather than pretend it doesn't  exist.

Klinghoffer also notes an indirect what in which Shapiro supports Meyer's book Signature in the Cell (which is background reading for TrueU: Does God Exist?).

But note the implicit agreement with Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design): materialist explanations for "the origins of the first living cells" have, to date, indeed all miserably failed.

Read more.

In an underground cave at the site of Khirbet Beth Loya, located in the Judean Hills east of Lachish, an ancient Greek inscription is carved into the rock wall. Although this inscription was rediscovered many years ago, very few know about it and no publication has yet analyzed it in detail. The site itself appears to have had a long history of Christianity. Besides some underground caves probably used by the early church, an elaborate Byzantine church dating to ca. 500 AD was uncovered in excavations, remained in use for over 200 years, and then may have been replaced by a small chapel until a Muslim cemetery overtook the entire area. In one cave whose entrance is hidden by foliage, an interesting Christian inscription can be seen on the opposite wall after descending into the cave by the remains of a crude ramp or staircase. The inscription begins with a crude cross symbol, then reads "Jesus is present," or as some more simply translate it, "Jesus is here." Below and above (partially worn away) are more elaborate crosses. According to epigraphic analysis, the various letter forms match Greek inscriptions spanning the late 1st century AD to the early 3rd century AD, with the span of the late 2nd century AD to the early 3rd century AD being the closest fit for the entire inscription. The simple cross, denoting that the Jesus mentioned in the inscription was the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, also suggests a time before the Byzantine period, as it matches simple forms found on the Roufina inscription, arguably the Alexamenos graffito, an ossuary from Jerusalem, and a wall cross from Herculaneum, all which date to no later than the early 3rd century AD. The more elaborate crosses around the inscription were clearly carved in a different hand and appear to date from a later period, coinciding with the evidence for a long tradition of Christianity at the site. Another interesting aspect of the inscription that suggests its early date is the lack of abbreviating the nomina sacra (sacred name) of Jesus. This was a practice that became common in the 3rd century AD, and the early 3rd century AD church or prayer hall found at Megiddo has the earliest discovered inscription which abbreviates the name of Jesus Christ, suggesting that the inscription at Beth Loya is earlier than the Megiddo prayer hall inscription and dates to the period before abbreviation of the nomina sacra became common. The one obvious oddity about the inscription in the cave at Beth Loya that students of Greek may notice is the variant spelling of the name of Jesus. Usually, Jesus is spelled in Greek with an "eta" (long e) rather than an "epsilon" (short e). The inscription in the cave, however, spells the name of Jesus with an "epsilon." The discovery of two inscriptions from the Late Roman period in the Galilee region, plus linguistic studies of transcribing Aramaic into Greek, demonstrate that this is a valid Greek spelling for the name of Jesus, and in particular for a Jesus from the Galilee region. This is logical in light of the fact that the inscriber would know Jesus of Nazareth was from the Galilee region and perhaps thought it best to render the name into Greek with an "epsilon." All of this data suggests that the inscription was created between the late 2nd century AD and the early 3rd century AD.

Why would this inscription and its location be significant? First, this inscription plus the other finds at the site demonstrate an early and a long Christian presence at the site, and therefore in areas of Roman period Judaea province (called Syria Palaestina in the Late Roman period) that were not even the major cities, such as Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem (which at this time would have been called Aelia Capitolina). The cave is also possibly one of the earliest discovered Christian gathering places, dating back to the late 2nd century AD or so. The content of the inscription itself is significant because it demonstrates that these early Christians regarded Jesus as having been crucified on a cross, then resurrected, and able to be present with Christians, just as the writers of the New Testament taught. For Jesus to be present at a gathering of Christians He must have been resurrected and alive, and for Jesus to be present with Christians long after the span of a human life, wherever they may gather, He must be God who can be present anywhere and promised to be present with Christians. Thus, these theological points which are central to the New Testament are reflected in this inscription, demonstrating a continuity of core theological beliefs between the writings of the New Testament and Christians of the early Church in Israel during the Late Roman period, rather than a late invented and constantly changing theology of Jesus and Christianity.

For a more detailed analysis and interpretation, see the upcoming article about the inscription in the next Chafer Theological Journal.