John West, one of the leading IDiots at the Discovery Institute, continues his defense of religion (his version) with A Further Response to Larry Arnhart, pt. 4: Darwinism, Religion, and Intelligent Design. He says,
In the section of my book on religion, I make clear that “evolution” can be compatible with theism in general and Biblical theism in particular—depending on how one defines the term “evolution.” If all one means by “evolution” is “change over time,” or “microevolution” through natural selection, or even biological “common descent,” then evolution would seem perfectly compatible with most forms of theism. Only if one insists that evolution is an undirected Darwinian process of chance and necessity, with no particular end in view, does there seem to be a serious problem with traditional theism.Personally, I wouldn't use the term "Darwinism." I would say. "According to science, evolution is an undirected process with no particular end in view." In a rare example of intelligent insight, West has recognized a truth that many evolutionists and appeasers overlook. The scientific version of evolution is not compatible with theism.
Well, I don't think it's fair to say that it's not compatible with theism. No observation in in principle incompatible with theism. You can always reconcile the two with some ad hoc auxiliary rationalization.
ReplyDeleteI would say, however, that if one expects a parsimonious interpretation of the data at hand, one has to reject any sort of theistic involvement. As I've said before, it's hypocritical of scientists to say they expect parsimony but make special exemptions for religious notions.