A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

 

Previous Page

Robert Jastrow  (b. 1925)  PhD Theoretical Physics   recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement  Amazon  LoC  GP

At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.    Until the Sun Dies  (1977)  pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.    God and the Astronomers  (1992)  pp.106-107 

 

Phillip Johnson  (b. 1940)  Professor of Law at Berkeley  Web  Amazon  LoC  GP  AV

Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

If some powerful conscious being exists outside the natural order, it might use its power to intervene in nature to accomplish some purpose, such as the production of beings having consciousness and free will. If the possibility of an "outside" intervention is allowed in nature at any point, however, the whole naturalistic worldview quickly unravels.

Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing?    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature.      Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom -- before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence."    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

The problem with scientific naturalism as a worldview is that it takes a sound methodological premise of natural science and transforms it into a dogmatic statement about the nature of the universe. Science is committed by definition to empiricism, by which I mean that scientists seek to find truth by observation, experiment, and calculation rather than by studying sacred books or achieving mystical states of mind. It may well be, however, that there are certain questions -- important questions, ones to which we desperately want to know the answers -- that cannot be answered by the methods available to our science. These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as how life first began or how complex biological systems were put together.    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory.    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

The assumption of naturalism is in the realm of speculative philosophy, and the rule against negative argument is arbitrary. It is as if a judge were to tell a defendant that he may not establish his innocence unless he can produce a suitable substitute to be charged with the crime.    Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism  First Things  October 1990 

They believe that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved gradually from simple to complex forms. But they also believe that evolution was a means by which God carried out a plan to create humans. For tactical reasons, Darwinists don’t rush to tell all these people that they are missing the point, but all in good time. Let people first learn that evolution is a fact. They can be told later what evolution means.    Unbelievers Unwelcome in the Science Lab  Los Angeles Times  November 3 1990

Readers of my article and the responses may have noticed that where I attacked Darwinism and the establishment of naturalism, Thomas Jukes and William Provine responded with a spirited defense of evolution. The choice of words is important, because "evolution" is a vague term with immense power to confuse...The important claim of "evolution" is that life developed gradually from nonliving matter to its present state of diverse complexity through purposeless natural mechanisms that are known to science. Evolution in this sense is a grand metaphysical system..."Evolution" also designates some relatively modest modifications in biological populations that result from environmental pressures. Bacterial populations evolve resistance to antibiotics: evolution causes dark moths to preponderate over light moths when the background trees are darkened by smoke. These examples have nothing to do with whatever creative process formed bacteria and insects in the first place, but since the same word is used to designate both limited adaptive modification with fixed boundaries and the whole naturalistic metaphysical system, it is easy to give the impression that naturalistic evolution (all the way from microorganism to man) is a "fact."...To borrow Irving Kristol's prescription, "Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don't know as well as what we do." I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word "evolution" precisely and use it consistently.    A Reply to My Critics  First Things  November 1990

Methodological naturalism -- the principle that science can study only the things that are accessible to its instruments and techniques -- is not in question. Of course science can study only what science can study. Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism only when the limitations of science are taken to be limitations upon reality. If the history of life can involve only those natural and material processes that our science can observe, then either Darwinism or something very much like it simply must be true as a matter of philosophical deduction, regardless of how scanty the evidence may be.     Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning  March 1992     see also: Lewontin  see also: Plantinga

Simpson tells us that the world is purposeless because Darwinian evolution did all the creating. Gould and Hull tell us that Darwinian evolution must have done the creating because the characteristics of organisms imply a world devoid of purpose. A wise and benevolent creator would not employ homologous parts; would not waste millions of sperm and ova when one pair would suffice; would not countenance the deplorable ethics of the cuckoo; and would not even allow the variations in finches and turtles that Darwin observed in the Galapagos. These particular examples don't seem persuasive to me, but lurking behind them is the well-known argument from evil and undeserved suffering that forms the background to some of the world's greatest literature, from the book of Job to Paradise Lost to The Brothers Karamazov. Yes, the world is full of waste and suffering, and also nobility and beauty. If that is all that is necessary to establish Darwinian evolution, then Darwinian evolution is established. But do we call this kind of reasoning science?     Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning  March 1992 

Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God -- because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it.    Darwinism and Theism  March 1992 

To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create.     Darwinism and Theism  March 1992 

The all-purpose defense that Darwinists invoke when their theory is under attack is to invoke what I called in my earlier address "Dobzhansky's rules," the rules of positivistic science. That is, they say that "science" is defined as the search for naturalistic explanations for all phenomena and that any other activity is "not science." This position is sustainable only on the assumption that "science" is just one knowledge game among many, and theists suffer no great loss if they have to go and play in another game called "religion." The problem is that the games do not have equivalent status. The science game has government support and control of the public educational establishment. Everybody's children, theists and non-theists alike, are to be taught that "evolution is a fact." This implies that everything contrary to "evolution,'' specifically the existence of a God who takes a role in creation, is false. If "evolution" has strong anti-theistic implications, the theists in the political community are entitled to ask whether what Darwinists promulgate as "evolution', is really true. The answer, "That's the way we think in Science," is not an adequate response.     Darwinism and Theism  March 1992 

That passage does not speak of a nature that merely raises questions that a naturalistic science cannot answer, but of a nature that points directly and unmistakably toward the necessity of a creator. And if nature does no more than raise questions, how can men be blamed for coming to the wrong conclusions about what to worship?    Creator or Blind Watchmaker  January 1993

Is the blind watchmaker hypothesis true? From the naturalistic standpoint of Darwinists like Dawkins, the question really doesn't arise. Instead of truth, the important concept is science, which is understood to be our only (or at least by far our most reliable) means of attaining knowledge. Science is then defined as an activity in which only naturalistic explanations are considered and in which the goal is always to improve the best existing naturalistic explanation. Supernatural creation-or God-guided evolution-is not a naturalistic explanation. The blind watchmaker hypothesis is therefore merely a way of stating the commitment of "science" to naturalism, and as such the existence of a blind watchmaker is a logical necessity. If a critic doesn't like Darwinism, his only permissible move is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker doesn't exist at all is not a logical possibility.    Creator or Blind Watchmaker  January 1993

When people ask whether Darwinism and theism are compatible, they normally take the Darwinism for granted and ask whether the theism has to be discarded. It is far more illuminating, however, to approach the question from the other side. Is there any reason that a person who believes in a real, personal God should believe that biological creation occurred by Darwinian evolution? The answer is clearly no.    Creator or Blind Watchmaker  January 1993

From a legal standpoint the was inconclusive, but as presented to the world by the sarcastic journalist H. L. Mencken, and later by Broadway and Hollywood, the "monkey trial" was a public relations triumph for Darwinism.

The scientific establishment was not exactly covering itself with glory at the time, however. Although he did not appear at the trial, the principal spokesman for evolution during the 1920s was Henry Fairfield Osborn, Director of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn relied heavily upon the notorious Piltdown Man fossil, now known to be a fraud, and he was delighted to confirm the discovery of  a supposedly pre-human fossil tooth by the paleontologist Harold Cooke in Bryan's home state of Nebraska. Thereafter Osborn prominently featured "Nebraska Man" (scientific designation: Hesperopithecus harloldcookii) in his antifundamentalist newspaper articles and radio broadcasts, until the tooth was discovered to be from a peccary, a kind of pig. If Osborn had been cross-examined by a lawyer as clever as Clarence Darrow, and satirized by a columnist as ruthless as H. L. Mencken, he would have looked as silly as Bryan.    Darwin on Trial  (1993)  p.5-6

What first drew my attention to the question was the way the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether what we are being told about evolution is really true. For example, the Academy's rule against negative argument automatically eliminates the possibility that science has not discovered how complex organisms could have developed. However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime.    Darwin on Trial  (1993)  p.8

Their most important device is the deceptive use of the vague term "evolution."

"Evolution" in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic metaphysical system, in which matter evolved to its present state of organized complexity without any participation by a Creator. But "evolution" also refers to much more modest concepts, such as microevolution and biological  relationship. The tendency of dark moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are dark therefore demonstrates evolution -- and also demonstrates, by semantic transformation, the naturalistic descent of human being from bacteria.

If critics are sophisticated enough to see that population variations have nothing to do with major transformations, Darwinists can disavow the argument form microevolution and point to relationship as the "fact of evolution." Or they can turn to biogeography, and point out that species on offshore islands closely resemble those on the nearby mainland. Because "evolution" means so many different things almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as proof of the complete metaphysical system.    Darwin on Trial  (1993)  p.153

These questions cannot be left to the sole determination of a class of experts, because important questions of religion, philosophy, and cultural power are at stake. Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gain immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have  a vested interest in protecting the story, and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When critics ask, "Is your theory really true?" we should not be satisfied to be answered that "it is good science, as we define science."     Darwin on Trial  (1993)  p.159    

In attempting to refute my point, Gould resoundingly confirmed it. Science and religion are separate but equal in importance, he wrote, "because science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality." That is naturalistic metaphysics in a nutshell, and its version of "separate but equal" means about what the same phrase did in the days of Jim Crow. The power to define "factual reality" is the power to govern the mind, and thus to confine "religion" within a naturalistic box. For example, a supposed command of God can hardly provide a basis for morality unless God really exists. The commands of an imaginary deity are merely human commands dressed of as divine law. Morality in naturalistic metaphysics is purely a human invention, as Gould conceded in the same review by remarking offhandedly that on questions of morality, "there is no 'natural law' waiting to be discovered 'out there'." Why not? The answer, of course, is that naturalistic metaphysics relegates both morality and God to the realm outside of scientific knowledge, where only subjective belief is to be found.    Darwin on Trial  (1993)  p.161-2

The present discussion is over whether belief in Darwinism is compatible with a meaningful theism. When most people ask that question, they take the Darwinism for granted and ask whether the theism has to be discarded. I think it is more illuminating to approach the question from the other side. Is there any reason that a person who believes in a real, personal God should believe Darwinist claims that biological creation occurred through a fully naturalistic evolutionary process? The answer is clearly No.... If chemical and biological evolution is the only possible source of living organisms, then the shortage of evidence is of little importance; the only question is how naturalistic evolution occurred, not whether it did. If God exists, then naturalistic evolution is not the only alternative, and there is no reason for a theist to believe that God employed it beyond the relatively trivial level where variation has been demonstrated.    Darwinism: Science or Philosophy  (1994)  p.44-5

To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. To infer that Darwinism is true because there is not creator God, and then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creating, is to engage in self-contradiction.    Darwinism: Science or Philosophy  (1994)  p.46-7

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible -- or least implausible -- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error.    Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin  Christianity Today  October 24, 1994  p.26  

The worldview of scientific naturalism preserves a place for religious beliefs: a place, that is, among the things to be explained by science. The Christian religion thus enters the university with a status precisely equal to that of other comparable religious systems -- say, the Aztec system of human sacrifice. Any individual, even a person of eminence in science, can make a personal choice to "be religious." Such choices are made on the basis of "faith," meaning subjective preference. A problem arises only if the Aztecs or the Christians claim access to knowledge. If they do that, they are claiming that their own beliefs are normative for unbelievers. Only scientists can claim that kind of authority, because what is endorsed by the scientific community constitutes knowledge, not belief. That is why Darwinian evolution can be taught in the schools as fact, however strongly parents or students object, whereas a simple prayer acknowledging God as our Creator is deemed unacceptable -- because somebody might object.    How the Universities Were Lost  First Things  March 1995 

My purpose was to show that what is presented to the public as scientific knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms is mostly philosophical speculation and is not even consistent with the evidence once the naturalistic spectacles are removed. If that leaves us without a known mechanism of biological creation, so be it: it is better to admit ignorance than to have confidence in an explanation that is not true.    Reason in the Balance  (1995)  p.12 

If nature is all there is, then nature had to have the ability to do its own creating. Darwinian evolution is a theory about how nature might have done this, without assistance from a supernatural Creator. That is why `evolution' in the Darwinian sense is by definition mindless and godless. Pretending otherwise is an evasion of the conflict, not a resolution of it. Yet many Christian theologians and educators take this evasive approach because they are hoping to find an easy way to avoid coming to grips with a very difficult problem.    Defeating Darwinism   (1997)  p.16

When Darwinists say that their theory does not deny "the existence of God" and claim that they are saying nothing about "religion," they usually mean that they are willing to allow deism as a possibility for people who are unwilling to give up God altogether. Many evolutionary naturalists see no harm in making this concession, because a God who confines his activity to the ultimate beginning of time is unimportant to human lives.     Defeating Darwinism  (1997)  pp. 16-7

For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.    The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism  First Things  November 1997 

If you are going to define science as applied materialist philosophy, then of course you are going to end up with a materialist creation story, one that excludes the possibility of a personal God who created us and answers prayer. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this new story has been validated by scientific testing. The important questions are all decided in the assumptions and definitions.    Commonweal  June 5, 1998  p.14

The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence?    "The Church of Darwin"  Wall Street Journal  August 16 1999

The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word "science." Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but be does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure.    The Robot Rebellion of Richard Dawkins  Christian Research Journal  June 14 2000

The Two-Platoon Strategy for Marginalizing Religion ... The National Academy's way of dealing with the religious implications of evolution is akin to the two-platoon system in American football. When the leading figures of evolutionary science feel free to say what they really believe, writers such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and others state the `God is dead' thesis aggressively, invoking the authority of science to silence any theistic protest. That is the offensive platoons and the National Academy never raises any objection to its promoting this worldview. At other times, however, the scientific elite has to protect the teaching of the `fact of evolution' from objections by religious conservatives who know what the offensive platoon is saying and who argue that the science educators are insinuating a worldview that goes far beyond the data. When the objectors are too numerous or influential to be ignored, the defensive platoon takes the field. That is when we read those spin-doctored reassurances saying that many scientists are religious (in some sense), that science does not claim to have proved that God does not exist (but merely that he does not affect the natural world), and that science and religion are separate realms which should never be mixed (unless it is the materialists who are doing the mixing). Once the defensive platoon has done its job it leaves the field, and the offensive platoon goes right back to telling the public that science has shown that `God' is permanently out of business.    The Wedge of Truth  2000 p.87-89

Memes propagate not because they are true but because brains have some tendency to copy them, in the way they copy commercial jingles or jokes. Quality has no necessary connection with copying power. “Mary has a little lamb” is a more potent meme than Keats’s “Ode on a Grecian Urn.”    The Wedge of Truth  2000  p.110

The logic of materialist reductionism implies that science itself is the product of unreasoning material causes. No wonder the Age of Reason ends with the age of postmodernist relativism! And yet we still see the reductionists complacently describing religious belief either as a meme or as the product of a "God module" in the brain without realizing that they are sawing off the limb on which they themselves are sitting. If unthinking matter causes the thoughts the materialists don't like, then what causes the thoughts they do like?    The Wedge of Truth  2000  p.149

One of the ironies of the whole controversy is that it's a stock in trade for the Darwinists to say, 'The critics are religiously motivated and they believe in God and they're throwing their religion at us and they shouldn't be doing that, and they should keep that out of science,' But being religious or antireligious is the same thing: It's a position about religion and God, and it goes beyond the evidence and into very confident assertions that are based more on personal convictions than they are scientific testing.    Phillip Johnson's Assault Upon Faith-Based Darwinism  East Bay Express  July 27 2005 

When you ask a Darwinist, 'What evidence do you have for your mechanism that random variation and natural selection can actually do any creating?' the Darwinist will say, 'Well, tell me what God looks like, Why did he do this or that? I want you to show me God doing the creating because if you can't show me that, we can get rid of God or the creator and what's left is Darwinism, so it's got to be true.' It's the variation of, 'This is the only thing that could have happened, so it doesn't have to be demonstrated, it can just be assumed to be true.' And anyone who doubts that it could be true has to provide ironclad proof and justification for an alternative.    Phillip Johnson's Assault Upon Faith-Based Darwinism  East Bay Express  July 27 2005 

It amazes me that scientific luminaries think that the way to deal with an explosion of dissent is to refuse to discuss the subject in science classes, and instead to exile the dispute to religious education classes (common in British schools), where teachers who know little science will have to answer the questions. It seems as if they have despaired of ever persuading the doubters, and so now can do no better than to tell them to go away from science.     Touchstone  December 2008

On the frivolous side, Hitchens likes to deflate supposedly great men by calling them “mammals,” but this derisory term brings in the problem of self-reference. While Hitchens never refers to the authorities on his side as “mammals,” reserving that category for those whom he wishes to belittle, it will not escape the reader that if “great men” are only mammals, then so are scientists, including the esteemed Charles Darwin​ and the not-quite-so-esteemed Richard Dawkins, and so, of course, is Hitchens himself. Which raises the question: Why should we take seriously any speculation by a mere mammal, or even the consensus of mammal opinion, about the origin of its species, no matter how much evidence the mammals imagine themselves to have gathered?     Touchstone  March 2010

I believe that Americans overwhelmingly reject the Darwinism that is taught as unchallengeable truth in today’s textbooks, not because they are ignorant, but because they sense that the Darwinian claims go far beyond the evidence and, despite the pro forma expressions of religious neutrality, are aimed at replacing the God who creates everything with an inconsequential God who creates nothing. If this much-weaker God exists, he might just as well not exist, because the job of creating and sustaining the world gets done perfectly well without him. If mindless natural forces can do the whole job without assistance, God becomes superfluous, and hence is easily dismissed from consideration.     Touchstone  November 2011

 Next Page

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

 

Home  Evolution  Stephen Jones