It’s true what you’ve heard. The ‘Evolution theologians’ are invading Alton, IL. Well… perhaps you haven’t heard, but now you have!
It was to my surprise that I came upon the story on Google News, particularly because Alton is such a small river town and its paper, The Alton Telegraph, is right up there with the World Nut Daily for reliability. But, be that as it may, the 
town is being invaded by Rev. Michael Dowd and his atheist/scientist wife Connie Barlow, neither of which I have heard of, on a bus “emblazoned with an image of the Christian version of the ichthys and the Darwin version of the ichthys kissing.”
I just vomited a little in my mouth.
Their website, ThankGodForEvolution.com is named after the book authored by Dowd, which apparently, unkbeknownst to me, has been hailed (by 5 Nobel prize winners, according to the video on his site) as successfully tackling the conflict of religion and evolutionary biology. Sadly, according to the Telegraph report, his defense goes something like this:
“Facts are God,” Dowd said. “God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human well-being back when our ancestors recorded their revelations on parchment and preserved them in clay pots. God is still communicating truth today through both religious insights and scientific discoveries.”
I would really like to know what he considers a “religious insight.”
“Science is revelatory, revealing truth. God always speaks in fact.”
Ah… so religious insight is fact? That’s a whole new spin. It’s almost like calling “bullshit,” “truth.”
Isn’t linguistics fun!?
Seeing as I don’t entirely trust the reporting done by the Alton Telegraph, I went to Youtube (A much more reliable source, if that tells you anything) to hopefully find some video that confirms my suspicion that Dowd is nothing more than an IDiot in disguise. From what I’ve been able to dig up, he is doing nothing more than using a few choice phrases to separate himself from the formal ID/creationist crowd, namely “God glorifying evolution” and “Science deepens faith.” To me, this sounds a lot like ID.
Furthermore, in each of the videos I have watched he has praised the teaching of evolution in evangelical schools in a way that legitimizes the perverted manner in which it is taught at these institutions. Simply teaching evolution in a biology course at one of these schools does not a legitimate covering of the theory make.
As for the video: here is Dowd on Lou Dobbs. Go to 3:15 for his appearance.
Religion 2.0? I really hope that phrase doesn’t catch on…
Thanks for mentioning me! I assure you that Richard Dawkins would not have allowed me to reprint a letter to his daughter as Appendix A in my book, nor would five Nobel laureates and other leading scientists, including renowned skeptics like Michael Shermer, have publicly endorsed it, if it were anything like you characterize. There is nothing in my book, or in my programs, that is remotely-ID. But I DO recognize the legitimacy and metaphorical importance of religious language. If you care to, see here:
PRAISE FROM SCIENCE LEADERS
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1460
RESPONSE FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS (ACROSS THE SPECTRUM)
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1532
THE SILLY DEBATE OVER GOD’S EXISTENCE
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1745
Co-evolutionarily,
~ Michael
PS. Here are some past blog posts of mine, and interviews, that will give you a much more accurate understanding of “Religion 2.0″ or “Evolution Theology” than the Telegraph piece.
FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS
http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1531
Also, if you come to my program, here’s my promise: if on a scale of 1-10 (1 meaning it’s the worst crap you’ve ever heard and you disagree with everything; 10 meaning it’s the best program you’ve ever attended and you agree with everything), if it’s not at least and 8, I’ll buy you a drink afterwards.
Best,
~ Michael
Simply renaming the universe “God” doesn’t make fairytale reality. The Bible tells stories of homophobic, war-mongering intervening God whose commandments are to be, according to The Bible’s very words, taken literally. Taking The Bible to be a metaphor is to deny it contains any more objective truth than the Harry Potter series, in which case there really is no reason to rename the universe “God.” The word ‘universe’ does just fine.
I’ll have to agree with PZ on this one:
“The message is too often that we shouldn’t accept the conclusions drawn from evidence because they are verifiable, testable, objective pieces of reality, but because they will make you feel better, because they will justify your life, and because they glorify God. It’s all backwards; God and Christianity are assumed and unquestioned, and what the reader is asked to do is find the right rationalization to reconcile evolution with Jesus.”
In spite of all of this, I wouldn’t mind hearing your justification for considering yourself a Christian.
I’m not promoting any fairytales. And I’d be the first one to agree with you that the Bible full of horrific stuff. Indeed, I have been encouraging people to read or listen to Michael Earl’s “Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You” and “The Ultimate Terrorist” for years. I link to both from here: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1701
You and I and PZ share the same evidential scientific worldview, I assure you. I am an evolutionary humanist, a religious naturalist. I hold no supernatural or otherworldly beliefs whatsoever. I see science as “authoritative”, not ancient myth-filled scriptures. I don’t need to “justify” calling myself a Christian. I am a pentecostal, evangelical naturalist. If you care to know how I publicly define this, see here:
CHRISTIAN NATURALISM: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1716
HOW AND WHY I AM A PENTECOSTAL EVANGELICAL: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1634
Religions evolve, and so do religionists. Theologians have always reinterpreted religious language and concepts in light of the best understandings of the nature of reality available to them. What I and other Evolution Theology, or Religion 2.0, leaders are doing today is really no different than what Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin or Tillich did in their day.
I wrote Thank God for Evolution mostly to help religious believers from different traditions move toward an evidential worldview without having to abandon their tradition to do so. The book itself emerged out of field-testing the ideas contained within TGFE with religious and non-religious audiences across the theological and philosophical spectrum. Since April 2002, my wife, Connie Barlow, a science writer, and I have delivered Sunday sermons, evening programs, and multi-day workshops in more than 600 churches, convents, monasteries, and spiritual centers across the continent, including liberal and conservative Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Unitarian Universalist, Unity, Religious Science, Quaker, Mennonite, and Buddhist groups. We have also presented audience-appropriate versions of this message in nearly a hundred secular settings, including colleges, high schools, grade schools, nature centers, and public libraries.
Few things are more important, it seems to us, at least here in America, than for millions (and eventually hundreds of millions) of religious folk, over the next few decades, to come to embrace a science-based understanding of the world. Why? Because it matters what we think about evolution–and not just theologically. It matters politically; it matters personally. Indeed, I would argue that nothing matters more! Trying to understand reality without an evolutionary worldview is like trying to understand infection without microscopes or the structure of the universe without telescopes. It’s not merely difficult; it’s impossible. Without realistic answers to life’s biggest questions, religious and non-religious people alike will think poorly and vote short-sightedly and self-destructively on issues as diverse as the economy, health care, global warming, and terrorism. (TGFE, chapters 9-10, 14-17)
Here’s something that I think many humanists and atheists have yet to fully realize…
Until churches in America teach and preach the evolutionary history of the universe enthusiastically, in ways that expand and enrich faith (trust), the battle over teaching evolutionary science in public schools will never end. One of the goals of my book is to assist the devoutly religious in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. Surely, this turn needs to happen in order for radically diverse religious people to cooperate in service of a just and sustainable future, wouldn’t you agree?
Whoever believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its diverse species without billions of religious people being committed to it is seriously out of touch with reality.
Those who might initially be put off by the religious language in my book and presentations (including some radio and TV interviews) should know that my wife, Connie Barlow, also an evolutionary humanist and long-time atheist science writer, worked with me very closely throughout the writing and editing process. She ghost-wrote the science sections of chapters 2, 5, 9 and 10, as I mention in my Acknowledgments. I challenge those who claim that I am offering questionable science, or distorting science, to cite where exactly. Which page(s)? Which paragraph(s)? I can afford to sound so arrogant on this point because know from experience that they will not be able to do so.
As I mentioned in my first response, Richard Dawkins graciously allowed me to include a letter he wrote to his daughter Juliet as an appendix in my book. That letter was previously published as the last chapter in his A Devil’s Chaplain. There, Richard highlights the difference between believing something based on measurable evidence versus believing something based on private revelation, scripture, authority, or tradition. That religious people might, likewise, come to value this distinction is a central theme of my book.
Like I offered above, if you and actually experience my program, not only am I certain you’ll love virtually all of it, but I’m also fairly certain that you will wish me well in my evolutionary evangelistic ministry.
We’re on the same side. You and PZ just don’t realize it yet. See Shermer’s comment at the beginning of this post: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1460
I’ve tried twice to post a response but for some reason was unable to. I’ll hold off and assume that it is awaiting moderation. If some other reason (too long, perhaps?) please do let me know.
Best,
~ M
HERE IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK MANY HUMANISTS AND ATHEISTS HAVE YET TO FULLY REALIZE…
Until churches in America teach and preach the evolutionary history of the universe enthusiastically, in truly inspiring ways, the battle over teaching evolutionary science in public schools will never end. One of the goals of my book is to assist the devoutly religious in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. Surely, this turn needs to happen in order for radically diverse religious people to cooperate in service of a just and sustainable future, wouldn’t you agree?
Whoever believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its diverse species without billions of religious people being committed to it is seriously out of touch with reality.
Those who might initially be put off by the religious language in my book and presentations (including some radio and TV interviews) should know that my wife, Connie Barlow, also an evolutionary humanist and long-time atheist science writer, worked with me very closely throughout the writing and editing process. She ghost-wrote the science sections of chapters 2, 5, 9 and 10, as I mention in my Acknowledgments. I challenge those who claim that I am offering questionable science, or distorting science, to cite where exactly. Which page(s)? Which paragraph(s)? I can afford to sound so arrogant on this point because know from experience that they will not be able to do so.
As I mentioned in my first response, Richard Dawkins graciously allowed me to include a letter he wrote to his daughter Juliet as an appendix in my book. That letter was previously published as the last chapter in his A Devil’s Chaplain. There, Richard highlights the difference between believing something based on measurable evidence versus believing something based on private revelation, scripture, authority, or tradition. That religious people might, likewise, come to value this distinction is a central theme of my book.
Like I offered above, if you and actually experience my program, not only am I certain you’ll love virtually all of it, but I’m also fairly certain that you will wish me well in my evolutionary evangelistic ministry.
We’re on the same side. You just don’t realize it yet. See Shermer’s comment at the beginning of this post: http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1460
“As an evolutionary Pentecostal, an evolutionary evangelical—an evolutionary Christian—I cherish the very same doctrines and teachings that other Pentecostal and evangelical Christians cherish. But rather than interpreting the core elements of my faith as unnatural and otherworldly, as I used to, and as many Christians still do, I now interpret these concepts in natural, undeniably real ways.”
- You
So, please explain to me the ways in which you interpret the following verses in natural, undeniably real ways:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
- Genesis 19:4-8
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.”
- Matthew 10:34-35
It’s not enough to say that you agree that the Bible is horrific, at least for me. I need to hear how it is you give legitimacy to the Bible through “natural, undeniably real was,” which includes the horrific parts.
I can only assume that you A) merely skimmed but did not actually read what I wrote above, or B) you have already decided that I’m an ID flake (or some kind of religious nut), so you can only hear what I’m saying through your interpretive filters.
I am not interested in defending myself from your attacks, nor do I need to have you acknowledge the legitimacy of my approach.
Please do check out http://www.ReasonWorks.com I promise that you will LOVE Michael Earl’s “Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You” and “The Ultimate Terrorist”. (Earl is an atheist, of course.) The three passages you quote above are lame compared to the passages Earl cites.
Best,
~ Michael
Mike Earl’s server seems to be having trouble. You can also access him here: http://nonfictionaudiobooks.suite101.com/article.cfm/bible_stores_your_parents_never_taught_you
I argued above that few things are more important than assisting devoutly religious in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. I also argued that anyone who believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its diverse species without billions of religious people being committed to it is seriously out of touch with reality.
Do you agree with these two claims?
If so, and if you know of anyone WITHIN the religious traditions doing a better job along these lines than I am, please let me know.
Richard and PZ and Dan and Sam and Christopher (and you) are doing fabulous and important work. But you all are not even trying to do what I am doing. You will reach many I will never reach. And I will reach many that you all never will. Given how much our world is crying out for ecological and evolutionary integrity, and how little time we may have to make major changes, it seems to me that both approaches are necessary.
Best,
~ Michael
The best way to get a sense of what I offer, and why for 7 years my wife and I have traveled North America non-stop teaching and preaching a mainstream view of evolution, would be for you to bring a friend, family member, or co-worker of yours to my program – someone who has not yet fully embraced a science-based worldview. I’m completely confident that you will love my program; virtually all humanists and atheists do. But I’m also confident that whoever you bring, no matter how religious they are, will also find great value in the evening. Who knows, it may even be transformational for them.
If someone you care about does not yet have an evolutionary worldview, I invite you to bring them to my presentation on Thursday night at 7pm at Northminster Presbyterian Church. 1570 Chambers Rd, St Louis / http://NminsterStL.org
It’s free.
Best,
~ Michael
Dowd, why do you not answer the questions put to you? These are such simple questions- ‘what do you think of X in the bible?’, instead of standing up and actually having a real discussion you only get defensive and accuse the questioner of attacking you. Why not answer the question? Then you point everyone towards your web links over and over again like a traveling salesman. If you are right why can’t you answer the simple question?
I find it beyond absurd that you think there is any chance of ecological preservation and maintaining diversity of species with billions of people on the earth. Dear dear me, don’t you understand that the sheer volume of humans running around has created massive, now unstopable destruction of natural resources to the point where we now have reached a peak in arable land and are sliding backwards, we can’t even feed the billions we have at present, and we are bringing down hundreds of species a year just trying.
Christianity won’t stop human over-population because religious people seem to believe that we can multiply indefinitely for some reason.
Now instead of getting upset and throwing a wobbly, what do you think of this? And let’s see if you can answer this one cause this is what people care about – what evidence and/or what reason do you have for believing there is a god?
thanks for your discourse.
This seems to be an abandoned topic here but since it still lives on in search engines of the world I have found it and would like to comment. I can not speak for Michael Dowd but only what his book and talks have meant to me.
Does MD teach ID or Creationism? Certainly not as those terms are most commonly used. What he teaches is a way for people who have come from a faith based perspective to embrace evolution. I would hazard to guess that the version of evolution that he teaches encompasses a much broader range of topics than most would consider as evolution. From the beginning explosion that was the big bang, the evolution of stars and planets and galaxies, molecules and more complex molecules, early life, humankind. Then he goes on to teach about how societies have evolved and continue to evolve, from families, clans, nation states, democracies.
Rev Dowd speaks of the Bible as myth. Important myth though. He sees religious documents as written by those with a limited view of reality. A view that came before microscopes and telescopes and before computers. Many of the doctrines of these books were based on beliefs that are simply not compatible with our current knowledge.
From what I see of the replies to this post and what I know of Rev Dowd. You are all sending the same message. The words may be different so as to identify with differing audiences, but the message is the same.
Peace and Be Well,
Brian