The anti-evolution propaganda machines I don’t like are: AiG, DI, RTB, and Biologos.
The only ones I know are Bio Logos and DI. If science or the propaganda machines that support them would wash itself of their ideological claims these guys go away.
Evolutionary theory is not even close to a replacement for the hypothesis of a creator. The secular groups are only digging a bigger hole by trying to make it one.
Sure I will let the secular world know that.
How is Biologos anti-evolution? There may or may not be reasons to like/dislike Biologos. Opposition to evolution would not be one of them, IMHO.
By claiming that TE somehow is supported by evolutionary science, Biologos breaks the neutrality of MN. They unnecessarily insert themselves into science when they shouldn’t. For example Deb Haarsma’s multiverse. To his credit you never see Francis Collins the founder of Biologos making the same mistake.
I read Haarsma’s position as “evolution is cosistent with TE,” not as “you cannot believe evolution without also believing TE.” There is a difference between the two positions, and my reading is that she is basically advocating the former, not the latter. Fwiw.
Here is the latest Deb Haarsma Sunday School Jibberjabber:
I think, if they ever say this, they are saying that science supports TE over YEC, but they aren’t really making claims about science saying TE is supported over evolutionary science.
Well what are they saying? Haarsma inserts God into science and is paid by JTF to do it. Collins does not.
Here is an example of Haarsma inserting her own personal beliefs, morals, values and ethics under the guise of the Evagelical Christian Right in this country to conflate genetic testing with abortion.
Prenatal testing of the developing fetus is becoming easier and more common, including a new non-invasive blood test for Down syndrome. In the U.K., when parents learn their fetus has Down syndrome, 90% choose abortion This is an appalling statistic in light of the Christian commitment to care for the disabled and powerless.
I find her to be unethical, immoral, and intolerant to insert herself into one of the most difficult times in a family’s lives - finding out that your fetus that you are carrying has a genetic abnormality. Frankly, it is NONE of her business. She should stay out of people’s lives at these difficult times. She is grandstanding for her anti-abortion base. Early term genetic testing gives families vital information about the health of the mother and fetus. This information can be heartbreaking. Deb Haarsma inserting her self-righteous Christian beliefs into people’s lives is just plain wrong and evil. She is trying to label early genetic testing with being for abortion. It just isn’t true. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion after they get the results of their genetic tests. It remains a personal decision. A decision that Deb Haarsma has no basis weighing in on. It is none of her business.
Whether or not she should say this, this is a nonsequitor. What does it have to do with Biologod being anti evolution?
Because as paid President of Biologos, she is using her soapbox to further the division in this country on ABORTION. It has nothing to do with evolution or origin, it has to do with the cultural war in this country where issues like Abortion, SSM, gender, equality are waged.
It is still a nonsequitor. Criticize her for that, not for being anti evolution.
AiG does it all the time. Biologos may do it less and less overtly, but it is still on their agenda. It isn’t about Noah’s Ark, it is about abortion, SSM, gender, human sexuality, and any other Evangelistic Christian hotbed issues.
I think they are mainly playing the “me too!” game there, trying to immunize themselves from an AIG attack. If you won’t let them fight fire with fire, they are going to have a hard time with AIG.
Maybe that is your goal? Are you one of those closet atheist AIG supporters we keep hearing about?
AiG is the big elephant in the room for US Christians. I am looking forward to the day when Biologos, RTB, DI, and PS team up to go right at AiG. With Secular science supporting.
@Patrick you are really stretching on this one
It is a realistic attainable goal.
Aside from the pejorative, which I disagree with, you are basically correct. Haarsma is writing for a devout evangelical audience, so it reads like a Sunday school lesson. In fact, Haarsma often speaks in churches, seminaries, and religious higher ed institutions.
Since she is speaking to those audiences, she appeals to them the way they are used to being addressed. She gives a personal testimony or two, she exalts God, she says she sees evidence of the divine in the mundane.
So when you read her post, it’s like you’re sitting in the pews. You probably feel like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs, given your feelings about religious conversation. But this does not mean she is anti-evolution. Her agenda in that setting is to win over her evangelical audience to an acceptance of science.
If she were in front of a different audience, there’s a pretty fair chance she would adapt her approach, in my opinion.
I agree with you on this @Chris_Falter. I suppose I’m concerned that she has not been effective in building trust.
I am applauded at her conflating early genetic testing with abortion. Early genetic testing is vital to a woman’s and her babies health. Early genetic testing has nothing to do with abortion. Linking the two is inserting Deb Haarsma’s religion into woman’s healthcare. Dr. Collins would never do this.
Genetic testing saves lives. Deb Haarsma has nothing to offer in this area.