Darwinism Intelligent Design theism theistic evolution

Douglas Murray: Is Darwinism toxic to Christianity?

Spread the love

Embattled intellectual Douglas Murray says lots of stuff in his The Strange Death of Europe but here’s one for us to ponder:

“Where once divine design had explained all that was awe-inspiring, Darwin [figure 1] put forward an entirely new proposal: that, as Richard Dawkins has summed up, ‘Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design.’ Darwin’s discovery was fiercely debated at the time, as it is now. But the backlash was doomed to failure. The condition of the argument for the divine scheme after Darwin was not good. This was not about a single discovery—it wasn’t even about the filling in of one particularly large gap in man’s knowledge. It was simply the first wholesale explanation for the world we inhabit that had no need for God. And though the origin of life remained a mystery, the idea that the entire mystery was solved by the claims of religion seemed less and less plausible” (p. 211).

quoted in John Woodmorappe, “Bestselling British journalist, a gay atheist, confirms the toxicity of Darwinism to the Christian faith” at Creation.com

Woodmorappe comments:

It is counter-intuitive that a homosexual and atheist would agree with conservative Christians on issues related to origins. Yet bestselling author Douglas Murray, to a surprising extent, does. Of course, other atheists have been candid about the fact that God and evolution are incompatible, but they have usually done so from a condescending, triumphalist mindset. Murray does not. In fact, if anything, he seems to have an element of sympathetic regret about the death of Christianity owing to the axe of higher criticism and then Darwinism.

John Woodmorappe, “Bestselling British journalist, a gay atheist, confirms the toxicity of Darwinism to the Christian faith” at Creation.com

Whether Darwinism is or isn’t toxic, note how this non-Christian states the matter plainly when, for decades, we have been plagued by “theistic evolutionists” trying to helpfully fudge.

And if Darwinism isn’t a correct statement of origins anyway, where does that leave all these theistic evolution fudgers in the cold light of the morning? They won’t come off looking any better than the creationists or the Darwinists, however they tried to position themselves.

Too bad a Christian isn’t supposed to believe in karma because this is one situation where it’s hard not to say, “karma’s a bitch.”

See also: We’re always hearing about crises, in science and other areas. Can the Intellectual Dark Web help? Douglas Murray, for example, challenges sessile campus organisms.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Douglas Murray: Is Darwinism toxic to Christianity?

  1. 1
    Ed George says:

    It amuses me when one form of ID (God did it) constantly snipes at another form of ID (Theistic evolution), even though both sides have a prominent role for God. What makes it amusing is that when some anti IDist makes the statement “ID is just Creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo”, the response is always that ID does not require a deity.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    It amuses me when Ed George comments on things he knows little or nothing about. Unfortunately for Ed that encompasses almost everything discussed on UD.

    Theistic evolution isn’t a form of ID as theistic evolutionists say that we cannot possibly test it- the claim that God or any Intelligent Designer, did it. And it is a fact that ID does not require a deity. It is also a fact that ID is OK with God being the Intelligent Designer.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Dick Dawkins:

    ‘Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design.’

    That is what you and yet have been unable to demonstrate. It’s as if you are oblivious to how science operates, Dick.

    Also only God and blind watchmaker evolution are incompatible. It figures the standard equivocation would creep in

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    Ed George
    ID doesn’t require God, Yes for many that is the choice prospect of the creator. But other intelligent life and intelligent universe (panpsychism) can do the same as well. ID is the recognition that there is an intelligent purposeful pattern with how things came to be.

    ID often views theistic evolution as caving into the pressure of Darwinism. Pretty much giving up
    That’s why there’s so much pushback.

    It’s not that I don’t agree with you though, for those that both see God as the creator, I think it is bad for us to be fighting and attacking one another when there is a larger enemy and that of atheistic Darwinism

  5. 5
    ET says:

    AaronS- Theistic evolutionists are a tool for atheistic Darwinists. That makes them part and parcel of that larger enemy of science and reason.

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    AronS1978@4, I understand the motivation for the pushback against theistic evolution but surely they are theological, not scientific.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    I understand the motivation for the pushback against theistic evolution but surely they are theological, not scientific.

    Obviously you do not understand the motivation because it is purely scientific.

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    ET

    Hence they are caving in versus questioning it, This is actually why I stopped visiting biologos. There were some things that I knew were very much false or had been retracted but Biologos immediately exceptRd it as fact versus questioning it. It’s not that they don’t contribute valuable information to the overall argument of things. But often their surface value review on certain scientific claims is immediately that it’s right and how do we integrated into our belief
    It’s almost like they concede to anything scientific Even when it’s not scientific. It just has to have the label

    Ed
    And I wouldn’t say it’s entirely theological.
    It’s more of a mixed bag there is scientific and theological reasons behind it

    But theologically there should be a unifying principle behind two, the fact that they both often believe in God

  9. 9
    BobRyan says:

    Without intelligence to create the very fabric of the universe, there would be no order in the universe. There are absolutes that do exist, which is counter to Darwinists desires. Without intelligence, there can be no mathematical formulas, since math requires order and absolutes to exist. As someone once said, the name escapes me at the moment, along the lines of, “All the mathematical formulas are already there. They are waiting for the right mind to discover them.” Where did the formulas originate?

  10. 10
    Yarrgonaut says:

    ID doesn’t require God. If there are other possible designers than God, then ID doesn’t require the designer to be God. It’s not really complicated. Neither is it necessarily theological, or scientific, it just logically follows.

  11. 11
    Yarrgonaut says:

    I personally don’t think ID in biology specifically is the best place to argue for the existence of God. The scope of the fine-tuning arguments are much more broad, such that appealing to evolution doesn’t work. Of course an atheist can cite the multiverse, but at that point, even if a multiverse isn’t finely tuned itself, and they can convince themselves to ignore the Boltzmann Brains objection, they still have to deal with Bostrom’s Simulation Argument which the multiverse makes all the more likely.

    There are plenty of Christians who maintain their faith in spite of Darwinism. My thought in this regard is that not some instant death sentence, but it is deeply unhealthy for the soul. Think of eating McDonald’s. All that saturated fat, trans fat, and cholesterol, can kill you. One burger won’t, but if it becomes your diet, you’re not looking so good. Similarly, if a Christian, once full of hope and optimism starts to be seduced by the flavor of the “cold hard brutal truth” pessimism of nihilism, their soul can suffer potentially a mortal wound.

Leave a Reply