This is one of the best essays I’ve read in a while regarding theology and science/ creation and evolution. The essay is also critical of the Intelligent Design approach to origins and for reasons I’ve slowly become aware of myself.
Here are some interesting quotes from the essay:
This is why much of the so-called dialogue between theology and science is useless and why Darwinians cannot refrain from doing theology.
…the sciences remain constitutively and inexorably related to metaphysics and theology.
You might say that Darwinism is premised upon the denial of the obvious. And yet, insofar as the obvious precisely as obvious is undeniable, this means that Darwinism is strangely irrational, whatever the truth of this or that thesis.
It turns out, though, that the appearance of a fundamental disagreement between Darwin and Paley is an illusion, that what unites them is far more profound than what divides them, and what unites them are certain metaphysical and theological assumptions that ground the science.
…Does this rhetorical card trick [natural selection] not confuse effects with causes and merely re-describe a fact instead of stating a cause as Darwin himself alleges against Paley? And why, in this case, does the fact described by “natural selection” not really just mean “whatever happens”? This may be a great way to win every argument in advance since no evidence in principle could ever falsify the theory, and this is one reason why we need not simply reject Darwinism. Yet it is hardly an explanation to say some things live and some things die.
The essay also touches on the very important point of the self-defeating nature of Darwinism. Daniel Dennett made his now infamous statement that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that dissolves everything in which it comes in contact. To which, the writer asks:
Why is natural selection, like the very conception of species itself, not simply a term of convenience? Why, in other words, does the universal acid of Darwinism stop short of dissolving itself?…Yet Darwinism itself is not immune to its own universal acid. As Stephen R.I. Clark says, if Darwinism is the only truth, then even it cannot be true.
As a side note, this obvious point also applies to the area of objective ethics and morals, which is clearly lost on many.
Anyway, a very good essay.