A friend sends me some comments from British philosophy of science prof John Dupré'sDarwin's Legacy: What Evolution Means Today
(Oxford University Press, 2003), on Darwinism and traditional religion:
While seen by some as providing a novel account of God’s ways of world-making, others have seen the theory as the last essential element in a naturalistic and materialistic view of the universe, and as thereby removing the last hiding place for God or gods. (p. 2)
Darwinism undermines the only remotely plausible reason for believing in the existence of God. And, some extreme liberal versions of Christianity apart, belief in the existence of God does seem to be a minimal condition for Christianity. Consequently, and contrary to the orthodox philosophical view of the matter, I believe that Christians—not merely fundamentalist Christians—are quite right to try to undermine Darwinism, and Richard Dawkins is quite right that, since their attempts to do this are wholly unsuccessful, there is nothing worthwhile left of the argument from design. More contentiously, I want to insist that without the argument from design there is nothing very credible left of theism generally, and Christianity in particular. Hence Ruse’s argument for compatibility, while generally successful, seems to me largely beside the point. (pg. 46)
And to think - people wonder why
there is an intelligent design controversy! The main reason there is an intelligent design controversy, of course, is that materialism (and Darwinism happens to be materialism's creation story), is failing for lack of evidence, as Mario Beauregard and I show in The Spiritual Brain
. However, a secondary reason is that, no matter how many "Clergy Projects"
are fronted - to convince people otherwise - most committed Darwinists think as Dupré does. Indeed, believing as they do, they must
think as he does, by a rather obvious chain of logic.
My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well. Are you looking for one of the following stories?
My recent series
on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.
of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God
, my backgrounder
about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.
Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt
Darwin and of academic
My U of Toronto talk
on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage
of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.
A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for
ID and against Darwinism
A critical look at why March of the Penguins
was thought to be an ID film.
A summary of recent opinion columns
on the ID controversy
A summary of recent polls
of US public opinion on the ID controversy
A summary of the Catholic Church's entry
into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.
O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique
An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win
when they lose.Why
origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.
Labels: Darwinism, Darwinism and religion, religion