I did not realize the function of science was to claim a representation of truth. I always felt that was the realm of philosophers and moralists. A claim of truth by a scientist would imply perfect understanding.
To follow Roger Penrose, evolution is a useful theory without which "nothing in biology makes sense." Science is generally accepted as a study to explain observed phenomenon, or predict some phenomena. Those phenomena may be a result of intelligent design, and explained through stochastic processes. For all the scientist knows, that was the intent of the designer.
But there is a lesson in the dispute on this thread. Science does not exist in a vacuum.
If one accepts that the "sexist" Francis Bacon killed "Mother Nature", then is it reasonalbe to expect Darwin and biological evolution will deliver the divine fatal blow?
Ridiculous. That's like saying that an artist's claim that a portrait represents its subject implies that the portrait is its subject. You understand the artist's claim; why are you confused by the scientist's equivalent claim?
To follow Roger Penrose, evolution is a useful theory without which "nothing in biology makes sense."
Dobzhansky, I believe.
Those phenomena may be a result of intelligent design, and explained through stochastic processes. For all the scientist knows, that was the intent of the designer.
And no scientist I know would disagree with that. This is strictly a debate about process, not about theology. The problem is that some people have made their theology contingent upon the specific process described in Genesis, and they take it personally when that process is shown to be false.