Here is another essay that I found most insightful. Roddy is a clear thinker and a superb writer.
Let’s be honest: One of the main reasons that passions tend to run high in the ID versus Darwinism/materialism debate is that the implications are profound concerning ultimate issues and questions, especially, Is there any ultimate plan, design, meaning, or purpose in the universe and, most importantly, our lives?
I’ve always been upfront about my personal background and experience. Until 1994, at age 43, I was a Dawkins-style, hardened and committed atheist, but I am now one of those dangerous and nefarious evangelical Christians. My conversion involved a variety of interacting factors, but one of them was that I finally recognized that the materialistic apologetics with which I’d been indoctrinated didn’t comport with the evidence of modern science, or even simple logic. And I found that the bad logic and evidence had hideous and inevitable implications — in a word: nihilism.
In his essay, Roddy discusses Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller. Dawkins defends a god delusion, while Miller defends a god dilution. Which is worse, or at least less logically consistent?
It’s not surprising that a fanatically fervent atheist like Richard Dawkins boldly proclaims God a delusion. He really believes it, and his frankness is refreshing, even if he is somewhat crass in his delivery. Referring to creationists as “redneck creationists” and scientists who deny the truth of evolution as scientific “backwoodsmen” who “pretend” to scientific credentials exhibits a certain pitiful flair that only the most secure in a minority position can pull off. But Dawkins’ ruthless consistency in taking his worldview beliefs to their logical conclusion is admirable. He deserves recognition for a lifetime of relentlessly pressing his science into the service of his theology, and for his effort Dawkins has forged a place for himself as a first-rate flaming atheist in this world, if not in the next.
But why would someone who identifies himself as a theist willingly pitch his tent with the likes of Dawkins? What is it about impersonal, purposeless Darwinism that compels self-proclaimed believers in a personal, purposeful God to dedicate their lives to its defense? And why would a theist choose to side with the “no-design” hypothesis of Darwinism in a world that by all accounts displays undeniable design? Nature’s material evidence makes intelligent agency the logical inference, so why does anyone, much less a theist, choose to believe unintelligent Darwinism over intelligent design? Are the two ideas, creation without intelligent agency and creation by intelligent agency, really compatible? No; it’s like saying you believe intelligent beings carved the statues on Easter Island, while simultaneously adamantly defending a theory that holds they were certainly formed by natural forces alone. Dawkins rightly rejects such thinking; who wouldn’t?