Replies

For those who do not see any conflict with a belief in God and Darwinism I offer the following written by those who support the theory:

William Provine, one of the leading biologists.
“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.

“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”
Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 50-52. Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University. pp 51-2

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” p 69

“The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.” p 70

“A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.”Provine, William B., “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.p 65

“The implications of modern science, however, are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche.” p 10

“No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.”
Provine, William B., “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist (September 5, 1988), p. 10.

----- And from Michael Ruse

Ruse, Michael, “From Belief to Unbelief—and Halfway Back,” Zygon, vol. 29 (March 1994), pp. 25-35. p 31

“The problem of evil is the most troubling of all. Frankly the free-will defense seems to me just not to wash, logically. If God be all-powerful, why did He not simply make us to do good freely? Far worse than the logic, however, is the dreadful implication of the free-will defense. God, this all-loving father, is prepared to let small children suffer in agony to satisfy the freedom of monsters like Hitler. As one of the Brothers Karamazov says, I simply do not want salvation at that price. How can one enjoy eternity, if it be bought by the blood of innocents?

“Some of the problems of Christianity strike me as being so blatantly rational-belief-destroying that there is almost a sense of farce in seeing its devotees trying to wriggle from under them. Chief among these is the problem of explaining how somebody’s death two thousand years ago can wash away my sins. When you combine this with the doctrine of the Trinity and the implication that the sacrificial lamb is God Himself (or Itself) and that this therefore makes things all right with this self-same God, the rational mind boggles.” p 33

“And if this were not enough, I have a loathing of attempts to meld science and religion which entail the trimming of religion in such a way that it fits with science, but at the cost of gelding it of real content and mystery—attempts which include the traditional varieties of evolutionary humanism, based all too often on so-called ‘noble lies’ or just plain bad arguments.”

------- And everyone knows Richard Dawkins

Dawkins, Richard, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, vol. 94 (April 15, 1982), pp. 130-132. p 130
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” p 130

“I know of only two alternatives to Darwinism that have been offered as explanations of the organized and apparently purposeful complexity of life. These are God and Lamarckism. I am afraid I shall give God rather short shrift. He may have many virtues: no doubt he is invaluable as a pricker of the conscience and a comfort to the dying and bereaved, but as an explanation of organized complexity he simply will not do. It is organized complexity we are trying to explain, so it is footling to invoke in explanation a being sufficiently organized and complex to create it.” -----