“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
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!