Replies

“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.” William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

And what happens, professionally, to those scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution?

"Nancy Bryson, a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, said having life appear from chemical molecules is "utterly impossible." Bryson came under fire for giving a public lecture in 2003 criticizing evolution and eventually lost her position as division science director at Mississippi University for Women."

And we wonder why more scientists don't speak up. There obviously is a lot of bias in the scientific profession in this country. Can anyone explain that, other than to say any scientist who DOESN'T believe in evolution isn't a "real" scientist?

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.

He, he, he. I realize it's not his intent, but Provine could be describing the "Intelligent Designer" in that passage. After all one of the effective rules of the Intelligent Design strategy is that we must never make any specific proposals about what the ID did, or when it did whatever (we won't say) it did, or how it did what (we won't say) it did. We're only allowed to "infer" the existence of an "Intelligent Designer," but must carefully avoid any "detection" of his action on or in the world.

This characteristic vacuity of the "Intelligent Design Proposal" has, of course, not a thing to do with science. Indeed this central aspect of ID is exactly opposite to the tendencies of authentic science, which advances theories be actively focusing attention on aspects of reality or "problem situations" that even an otherwise successful theory addresses or clarifies inadequately.

The real reason for this suppression of substance is the function of ID as a lowest common denominator of antievolutionary creationism. Creationists disagree wildly among themselves about just what the Creator created, when He created it (and whether once or progressively), and so on. Old earth creationists, young earthers, progressive creationists, special creationists, flood geologists, canopy theorists, and on and on, even the odd geocentrist, used to devote much of their energy to battling each other and trying to control the antievolution movement. ID, precisely because it is almost entirely lacking in substance, is an umbrella thay can all stand under.