Looks like William Lane Craig has changed his position on evolution. Compare his old position to his current position:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/17/17-3/17-3-pp131-148_JETS.pdf
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
Of course, it's not necessarily surprising that he'd have a different position in 2011 than he had in 1974, back when he was a fledging Christian apologist, learning the ropes.
Still, it's worth noting the shift.
That said, I also find it a bit odd that he's more accepting of evolution now, at a time when there are far more sophisticated objections to evolution than existed back in 1974.
I don't think this take is correct.
ReplyDeleteIf you listen to some of his podcasts from a little while ago when he went through the interpretation of Genesis 1 (if I remember correctly) he was quite clearly on the side of Behe, Denton, Dembski etc.
I've also seen him quite giddy about Stephen Meyer's tremendous book 'Signature in the Cell' (can't remember where on his website, think it was in writing). He just doesn't like to be too public about it. I've heard him say on his website somewhere that the reason that he does not criticise evolution as part of his debate strategy is that it is such an emotionally charged issue that it would be counterproductive.
But you do hear him offer mild comments about it from time to time, such as in his UK tour in 2007 when he debated Lewis Wolpert he said he was very skeptical that sponges and this other animal had common ancestry.
I think what you are seeing in the article you link to is probably more a public front because he knows he would be lambasted by the secular academy if he was known for a strident denial of evolution, and this would close some doors.
HALO SAID:
ReplyDelete"If you listen to some of his podcasts from a little while ago when he went through the interpretation of Genesis 1 (if I remember correctly) he was quite clearly on the side of Behe, Denton, Dembski etc."
And what side are they on? To my knowledge, while Dembski subscribes to old-earth creationism, Behe and Denton subscribe to theistic evolution.
"I've also seen him quite giddy about Stephen Meyer's tremendous book 'Signature in the Cell.'"
The fact that he supports ID theory is consistent with his espousing theistic evolution inasmuch as ID theory is consistent with just about anything from young-earth creationism thru old-earth creationism and theistic evolution to deistic evolution.
As I've understood it, Theistic Evolutionists are theist that subscribe to Darwinism (Darwinism being defined as Behe does in The Edge of Evolution). Since ID theorists don't subscribe to Darwinism (so defined), they don't qualify as Theistic Evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteBut now that I think about it, I don't recall any ID theorists spelling out exactly what "Theistic Evolution" is. So maybe my understanding is wrong.
While ID theory could fit with deistic evolution if you believe everything was front-loaded into the initial creation event, I don't think Behe's defense of ID could easily fit into deism since he suggests that God needed to intervene in the evolutionary process at many points to bring about the desired effect.
ReplyDeleteHey Guys. Even though the thread is old, thought I'd quickly chime in here. He is clearly in support of a God controlled evolution (theistic evolution). See this link from January 20th 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQhPvtvc1w.
ReplyDeleteHe uses some pretty strong language, essentially calling young-earth creationism an embarrassment, and he clearly believes that Adam and Eve were not created "from dust", but that they evolved from previously homosapiens and once they had reached a certain level of "consciousness", he declared those 2 people "Human"... really just makes a literal reading of Genesis just look like a big pack of lies... pretty hard to digest unless you start playing gymnastics with the scriptures and treating Genesis as an Allegory (but with much evidence as to why we shouldn't!).