My 2015 Discovery Institute Press book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, 2nd edition included a section entitled “A Theological Supplement,” where I wrote:
It is widely believed that Darwinism is based on good science, and that those who oppose it simply do not like its philosophical and religious implications. The truth is exactly the opposite. In a June 15, 2012 post at Evolution News and Views, Max Planck Institute biologist W.E. Loennig said “Normally the better your arguments are, the more people open their minds to your theory, but with ID, the better your arguments are, the more they close their minds, and the angrier they become. This is science upside down.” The case for Darwinism is weaker every day, and yet Darwinist rhetoric only becomes stronger and angrier; clearly this theory draws its power not so much from scientific evidence as from philosophical and religious convictions. If you really examine the reasons scientists support Darwinism, I believe you will find in most cases that they are philosophical and theological. For example, Darwin wrote, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.” Darwin is apparently referring to passages like John 3:18, “He who does not believe is condemned,” which are sometimes interpreted to mean that all non-Christians are “condemned.” If I thought the Christian God were that unfair, I would share Darwin’s view of Christianity, and I might also prefer to believe we were accidents of Nature. But that John did not mean this as a condemnation of all non-Christians is clear from the following verse: “… and this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men preferred the darkness, because their deeds were evil.”
Because it has become obvious to me through the years that support for Darwinism in the scientific world is primarily based not on good science but on the philosophical and theological problems scientists have with what they see as the alternative, I have attempted to deal with some of these difficult problems in a “Theological Supplement” to this book, which can be found here.
Including these theological chapters in a book on intelligent design would not be appropriate, as it would only encourage those who claim that ID proponents do not understand the difference between science and religion. Most of us do understand the difference, we are just interested in both, and so are our critics.
The promised “Theological Supplement” is now a Wipf and Stock book, Christianity for Doubters. My former Methodist pastor wrote an endorsement for the book which said “If non-believers could learn about Christianity from this book, there would be a lot more believers in the world.” Do I seriously believe that some of these angry ID opponents will open their minds to ID after reading this book? Well, that is my hope; maybe that is naïve, but one thing my experience has taught me is that logic and evidence alone will never open these minds.
The book was of course also written for educated Christians, who have some of the same problems with Christianity. It includes two chapters on intelligent design as well.