Painting with an undirected brush?

Over at Access Research Network's ID Report, Roddy Bullock skewers Scientific American's recent "The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist." Referring to Francisco J. Ayala, he writes,

Not surprisingly, Ayala's "reconciliation" of faith and science is no more than an arbitrary requirement that both be strictly naturalistic, that is, letting neither be informed by the strong inference in nature of true, intelligent design. With that kind of reconciliation it's also not surprising that Ayala is "unwilling to affirm or deny a personal belief in God" and refers instead "to science-savvy Christian theologians who present a God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection." ...

And Christian or not, anyone who swallows Ayala's "science-savvy" line of reasoning lacks rational thinking ability. Like referring to an artist "continually engaged in the creative process through an undirected paintbrush," such a thought is pure sophistry, disconnected from any rational reality. The foisting of such silliness upon us all is exactly why, as the Scientific American article states, "convincing most of the American public [of the ability for Darwinism and faith to coexist] remains the challenge." Despite the best of Darwinists' exoteric ramblings, most Americans still think right. You might say we are designed that way.

It is curious indeed that people who think that the entire universe is undirected never think of permitting anyone with an undirected paintbrush to work on their rec room.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: