Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Very long article on evolution/ID at Tech Central Station

Spread the love

Why ‘Theology Is a Simple Muddle’
By Lee Harris Published 08/19/2005

As one of my colleagues put it: “Twenty thousand words! And so far as I can tell, he has never read *anything* by comtemporary design theorists. Yet he proposes a way to reconcile ID to Neo-Darwinism. Maybe he should find out what he’s trying to reconcile first. ”

One Reply to “Very long article on evolution/ID at Tech Central Station

  1. 1
    neurode says:

    Lee Harris (summing it up): “This is a dangerous world in which to propagate a doctrine of cosmic nihilism, which, unfortunately, is what the modern interpretation of Darwin comes down to, especially in the hands of evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. Indeed, it is almost beginning to appear as if Darwin’s great work is no longer being treated by some of its more enthusiastic defenders as a scientific theory, but simply as a weapon in the culture war between those who wish to eradicate Christianity and all religion, like Dawkins, and those who want to resist the imposition on their children of the doctrine of cosmic nihilism under the guise of a biology lesson. How much better off both sides would be if they had the intellectual honesty to declare, as Darwin did, “my theology is a muddle,” and that our science will always remain hopelessly hypothetical.”

    Harris is 100% correct about the danger of proagating nihilism in a world whose phase space is increasingly mined with destructive attractors. But rather than promoting a “resolution” in which each side gives up and pronounces its “theology in a muddle” – a rather unlikely prospect – wouldn’t it be better to hope for a joint refinement of theology and naturalism in which both the scientific and theistic perspectives “can find a home”, interpretationally speaking?

    Excessive haste to throw in the towel is every bit as problematic as the controversy it is intended to resolve. Throwing in the towel would merely reiterate the uncertainty of humankind regarding both its source and the ultimate nature of its reality, precipitating an endless, or more likely self-terminative, renewal of the conflict.

    One is forced to conclude that the only way to lay this conflict to rest, and guide mankind safely through its increasingly dangerous space of possible futures, is universal acceptance of a real solution…that is, a logical solution reconciling nature and theology.

    This is what Harris should be hoping for.

Leave a Reply