Darwinism and popular culture: The point of Darwn's theory is - surprise, surprise - a No God religion
At Access Research Network, British physicist David Tyler writes,
The take-home message from Pigliucci is clear: Darwin's major contribution was not in the originality of his thought or the details of his theory (which have evolved and developed with the passing of time) but in championing a science committed to naturalism: i.e. only natural causes are acceptable within science. Once people grasp this, many things become clear.I will have more to say about this later, but just for now: I run into people all the time who inform me that they are "Christian, but don't believe in intelligent design."
1. Scientists committed to naturalism find it really difficult to understand Intelligent Design primarily because they are operating within a different paradigm.
2. Those who regard ID as a threat to science and education are actually seeking to promote a version of science and education that is committed to philosophical naturalism.
3. The Bicentennial celebrations for Darwin are more inspired by a commitment to the Darwinian worldview rather than to Darwin's contribution to science.
4. Gould's NOMA thesis and the complementarity approach of theistic evolutionists are way off the mark because they fail to acknowledge the critical role played by naturalistic philosophy in contemporary science.
I ask them the obvious question: If you do not believe that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design, why, exactly, are you a Christian? What's the take-home point of being a Christian for you?
Usually, they are abashed and say that, well, ... they do believe that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design but they don't believe in some specific theory.
Okay. Which one? Why not?
It invariably turns out that they don't know which theory they don't believe, only that they have been commanded by some high panjandrum to Not Believe. And to not think about it either.
Honestly, ... watching people forge their chains, manacle by manacle, is embarrassing and unsightly.
I have bounced numerous trolls from my Inbox by just asking them to read at least ONE serious work on the subject, Edge of Evolution, for example.
But they don't, because it would be too scary for them to discover that there really are reasons for doubting Darwin.
It's safe, but it's not science.