I wrote this in response to Tyler Frank in his piece on the runup to the Bill Nye v Ken Ham debate. I agree with Tyler on much of this, but it irritates me that he does not scrutinise his own beliefs to the same standard as Ken Ham’s.
“I dislike these spectacles because they inherently pit faith against science”
Unfortunately, until you take up deism, your faith will be pitted against science. It makes claims which science says are impossible. I met Sanal Edamaruku just over a year ago – he is in exile from India because he embarrassed the Roman Catholic Church by debunking one such miracle. Not only does religion cause belief in the unbelievable, it punishes those with the gall to question it.
BioLogos is hardly credible, peddling teleology like this in the guise of being somehow compatible with science and thus the scientific method: http://biologos.org/about
Creationism is a sliding scale – at one end, you have Ken Ham, making laughable claims in the face of evidence. As you move along the scale, you get Old Earth creationists, Biologos, and the main churches, and yes, you Tyler. All of them do the same thing – insert god at a certain point. They differ over what point that is. As an atheist , I sit back and watch the arguments over exactly how to employ the God of the gaps fallacy. To me it’s like watching Trekkers arguing over the finer points of Klingon culture.
Then we have the vast majority of empiricists, most of the scientists and nearly all the elite scientists, who as Laplace put it, have found no need of that hypothesis. If you can’t show it, you don’t know it.