On the heels of yesterday's post I recommend this article What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution? – Kevin DeYoung.
Here DeYoung interviews Dr. Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute about the book he recently edited, God and Evolution. The book discusses the inherent problems with theistic evolution, not the least of which is this major flaw:
DeYoung: You also talk about philosophical and theological problems. Do you think theistic evolution presents dangers to orthodox Christianity?
Richards: THE central theological problem for theistic evolutionists is reconciling Darwinian Theory—which defines “random” to mean “purposeless”—with theism. The theist claims that God created the world for a purpose and providentially guides it. But it simply makes no sense to say that God directs an undirected process. This basic contradiction at the heart of the project leads many theistic evolutionists either to trade in equivocations, or to jettison major parts of traditional theism.
Though I've opposed theistic evolution on many different grounds I must admit that this is the first time I'd come across this objection.
In the interview DeYoung also explores the topic of ID (Intelligent Design) with Richards. Some creationists have a knee-jerk reaction to ID as if it originated with the devil himself. Richards makes this salient point:
DeYoung: What is the relationship between ID and young earth creationism? Are there cautions you would have for Christians in either camp?
Richards: ID differs from young earth creationism because it is based on the evidence from nature alone, and is not an attempt to reconcile the biblical text (or an interpretation of the biblical text) with the evidence of nature. ID, strictly speaking, simply claims that there are patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of an intelligent agent. That’s consistent with a variety of different creationist views, but is identical with none of them. Of course, many ID proponents have specific views about the doctrine of creation, the age of the universe, and so forth. But ID per se is distinct from these ideas.
I live in a community filled with scientists so this book looks like one that would benefit me. Read the article, click on the links, and see what you might learn.