Intelligent Design

Existential discomfort with evolution

Spread the love

We have been told for years that evolutionary biology is pure science and has no religious implications. Theistic evolutionists emphasise the concept of complementarity, pointing out that evolutionary theory seeks to explain how? questions whereas theism is concerned with why? questions. There appear to be many non-theists, including most organisations representing scientists, who say something very similar. These people have adopted the NOMA approach popularised by Stephen Jay Gould. For more on this, go here. However, you do not have to read far in the intelligent design literature (or in the creationist literature) to realise that this approach is controversial. These sources claim that all science has metaphysical presuppositions that are of a religious nature. There is a consistent message coming through – whereas science was first nurtured by scholars with Christian presuppositions, the situation has significantly changed. Since the Enlightenment, science has come to be dominated by the philosophy of naturalism. Happily, some opinion-formers also recognise the validity of this analysis: John Gray has some penetrating comments on this and an excerpt is below.

“As we know it, the secular world-view is simply the Christian take on the world with God left out. Liberal humanism is the contemporary version of an eccentric 19th-century cult – less colourful than its positivist precursor, no doubt, but just as clearly modelled on Christianity. Religious thinkers grasp this and look forward to a post-secular age. Befogged missionaries for a dull Victorian heresy, secular thinkers remain stuck in the past.”

For more, go here.

One Reply to “Existential discomfort with evolution

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    According to MathGrrl evolutionary biology isn’t science because it doesn’t have any math behind it. No math, no figures, no science.

Leave a Reply