Interesting Spectator (UK) article on Evolution. The author notes that the taboo against questioning evolution is beginning to break down and then outlines the arguments on the side of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinism. I was struck by her assertion that: “Perhaps the answer is that the whole battle could have been avoided if Darwinism had not been put forward as proof of the non-existence of God.” She backs this up with a quote from Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, who she refers to as “a Darwinian scientist and a Christian.” Miller has this to say:
Evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them…. Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed. As a scientist I claim no new proofs, no revolutionary data, no stunning insight into nature that can tip the balance in one direction or another. But I do claim that to a believer, even in the most traditional sense, evolutionary biology is not at all the obstacle we often believe it to be. In many respects evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.
That last statement might be a stretch but in the whole I agree with him. While I think the cultural and theological impacts of Darwinism has been negative (materialism, racism, agnosticism, etc.) I don’t feel like the science of evolution threatens my faith in God. To be honest I don’t have the skill nor the time and energy to dig deep enough in the science to come to a definitive view either way. I think both side probably go to far in letting their world view affect their macro-scientific opinions (If I may sue such an awkward phrase). But in the end I think it is good that Darwinian evolution is being challenged. It has forced people to think about their beliefs and assumptions and made it less likely that students will get taught bad science in the name of consensus. Might they get taught bad science in the name of religion? Perhaps, but it is worth the risk to shake up the scientistic establishment. I don’t think kids will be damaged to much either way by their junior high science class. Of course, it would be best if their parents would see that they are given the skills and knowledge to see past a purely materialistic world view but it wouldn’t hurt to have the materialists on the defensive in the schools too . . .
at 11:23 pm
When has Darwinism not been questioned? I don’t think this is a new trend at all–it is just the author realizing not everyone thinks as she does.
at 8:07 pm
The whole idea behind sceince is that you go with the evidence. If there’s a theory that has zero evidence, and a conflicting theory has plenty, then you have to modify or even reject the ideas that don’t fit with the data.
This method works and the evidence that it works is all around us. Start by flipping on a light switch and go from there.
The problem with those who support any theory other than evolution is that they’ve bypassed this very essential process. The evidence that evolution works is staggering and undeniable. (Heck, I used to raise dogs for sale so I know that selection works.) Unfortunately they have provided zero evidence of their own views. Instead they seem to think that they can point out any gaps in evolutionary knowledge and that proves that there has to be something else, something that their own bias can provide.
Take the gaps in the fossil record as one obvious failing in the ID arguement. They claim that we don’t have a fossil in our collections that document every single evolutionary step in every species.
I mean, c’mon! Even if we’re talking about humans alone, they’re made out of meat and bone like every other animal. What in the world would possess anyone to actually think that we could find preserved remains of every evolutionary step? Last time I checked the remains rot.
But the ID people say that there HAS to be intelligent design because we don’t have a fossil of every species that ever existed. That’s like saying that ID must be true because my potato salad goes bad if I leave it on the counter overnight.
If these guys can come up with some sort of evidence then more power to ‘em. Until then they’re nothing more than flim-flam artists who’re using pseudo science to push their own agenda.
James