Unbelievers at the Holidays: Two Different Takes on Why There Are Still Doubts About Darwin - Evolution News & Views

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Evolution News and Views
Faith and Science NEWS
 

Unbelievers at the Holidays: Two Different Takes on Why There Are Still Doubts About Darwin

It's the question that bothers many Darwinists: why doesn't everyone believe us? This is compounded of course by the fact that most of the people Darwinists interact with in the mainstream media believe everything anyone in the scientific establishment tells them (see: ClimateGate) as if it were gospel truth, causing them to wonder why a solid year of attention paid to Charles Darwin and his 150-year-old book isn't convincing anyone.

As John West explains at ID the Future podcast, people have good reasons for rejecting Darwinian evolution, based on both the scientific evidence and the way it purports to overthrow long-cherished ideas about human dignity, morality, and God.

play_button.gif Click here to listen.

This is a hard pill for many Darwinists to swallow, particularly those who themselves uphold traditional morality and belief in God, but since they have no problem seeing no problems with the mounting scientific evidence against Darwin's theory, it's not too difficult for them to turn a blind eye to the social implications of Darwinian evolution.

Witness this Reuters interview with Nick Spencer, Director of Studies at Theos (and formerly a researcher for The Henley Centre, interestingly enough). He immediately discounts the fact that dissent from Darwinism might have nothing to do with intelligent design (don't just take my word for it -- take the Altenberg 16's!) and instead blames Herbert Spencer's popular phrase, "survival of the fittest," for leading people to encounter Darwinism on a popular level as "doctrine."

Of course, as Nick Spencer readily admits, Darwin's most ardent defenders then and now advance these philosophical conclusions (e.g., there is no God, no moral absolutes, etc.), but he doesn't see any connection. Instead, Spencer argues that "it's quite possible to be an evolutionist and not to hold that philosophy about life, to be an evolutionist and still to believe in God, and morality, and purpose, and design, and that's what I think we should aim for."

I'm not sure he's read Origin, but he certainly hasn't read Darwin's Descent of Man. Or even a Ken Miller biology textbook. The whole point (even for a TE like Miller) is that Darwinian evolution is, by definition, a purposeless process.

Does Darwinism jive with traditional morality and faith in God? It's a question worth exploring... but don't look to places like Theos for any acknowledgment that the question even has merit.