“You’re going to keep repeating that despite how Darwinists define and explain Darwinism?”
—Sure there are atheists that describe Darwinism in atheistic terms - but you can find atheists that do the same with all scientific theories; heliocentricity, atomic theory, gravity, germ theory, etc. There’s no reason to single out Darwinism; if you’re going to use that argument you may as well say that all of science is incompatible with God.
“But I can understand that an intelligently designed universe might not conflict with Darwinism understood as an allegorical myth devised to explain what cannot explained except as a historical narrative, “an imaginary scenario”.”
—Which part of Darwinism would need to be allegory to not conflict with intelligent design? The chemistry involved in mutations? Does chemistry need to be allegory? Or does the commonly seen differential survival rates of members of a population need to be allegory, something that even most Creationists don’t dispute is factual? You mention historical narrative; perhaps Gnathostomata evolving from Agnatha during the Silurian somehow disproves an intelligently created universe with purpose?
If there no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design (lower case) why don't Darwinists accept it as a reasonable and logical explanation?
The men who formulated and explained Darwinian theory, Darwinism, namely Darwin, Huxley, Mayr, and Gould (neo-Darwinism), others I haven't bothered to note, all rejected any kind of intelligent designer in evolution, Huxley saying,
“evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention.”
Darwinism and intelligent design are not compatible as Darwinism excludes an intelligent designer in its workings.
Wallace had suggested man's intellect and moral
“could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and… , therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them” and for this kind of thinking, Darwin chided him.
So you see its Darwinists describing Darwinism as incompatible with divine design, intelligent design, supernatural intervention, whatever.
From one of the Christianpost links you gave:
“This really doesn’t have to be a debate. We don’t pitch science against religion,” said Leshner. “Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.”
As long as the religious folks are willing to agree that anything in the Bible that seems to disagree with Darwinism is allegorical fine, they understand science unlike those pesky people that find something literal in the Bible.
Of course Darwinism is sacrosanct and fact so its not going to bend a single degree to fit the Bible.
“Which part of Darwinism would need to be allegory to not conflict with intelligent design?”
Hmmmm.....that all of life as we know came about without the need of an intelligent designer? That chance is the designer?
“You mention historical narrative; perhaps Gnathostomata evolving from Agnatha during the Silurian somehow disproves an intelligently created universe with purpose?”
Sounds like a good example of the “imaginary scenario”. I guess the latest narrative is they're sisters not grandma and grand daughter.