As a result, most non-scientists confuse the religion of "scientism, with science.
Science needs better PR people.
The religious fervor that is evident among evolution's most vocal proponents (admitted atheists like Dawkins, et.al.), is the big turn-off.
That "turn-off" is what prompted Lewis to write this:
"..What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
02/28/2006 Quote: "....[Lewis] also did not accept evolution in which God had no part. Whether he thought God's role in evolution should be discernable through science itself is less certain, but most of his commentators I've read say no. Had modern ID arguments been presented to him, I think he would have considered them carefully, but I doubt he would have embraced them or used them in his own public writing and speaking.
As for God's extraordinary supernatural work that affects the natural world, I like Richard L. Purtill's way of stating it in "C.S. Lewis's Case for the Christian Faith" (Harper and Row, 1981, paperback 1985) - on p. 61 of the paperback edition Purtill writes: "The scientist, of course, as scientist, must ignore the possibility of miracles, just as the lawyer, as a lawyer, must ignore the possibility of a presidential pardon for his client ..."
And on p. 62: "Scientists, as such, have no concern with miracles, for they cannot predict them, bring them about, or draw any conclusions about the future course of nature. A miracle is supernatural, and therefore of no scientific interest."
As for God's ordinary work "within" nature, I like the way Hewlett and Peters put it in Theology and Science, Vol . 4, No. 1, p. 1, 2006: "God has a purpose for nature, even if the methods of scientific research cannot discern purpose within nature."
"Who is the modern-day Lewis? Alistair McGrath? John Polkinghorne? My pro-ID friends point to Phillip Johnson, Alvin Platinga, or William Dembski, but I don't think Lewis would have disdained theistic evolution as have those ID proponents. Lewis would not have disdained pro-ID folks either, but I also don't think he would have joined them." ~ Charles F. Austerberry, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology - Creighton University, Omaha, NE
Exactly. I believe in miracles, but if I were a scientist I would have to assume no miracles, then proceed.
Of course, as a person (which is a bigger category than the category "scientist"), the assumption of no miracles is a philosophical position, not just a working principle.
It just seems to me that many of our creationists want scientists to somehow include God in their studies (as if.), and many scientists talk as if their scientific work is the sum of their personal interaction with the universe.
Impoverished on both sides.
I just can't help but wonder about the difference between the Exhibit A God who declares a piece of creation into being and it appears....bam...ex nihilo.
And the Exhibit B God who declares creation into being and....
.
.
.
wait (thousands of years later)
.
.
.
wait (millions of years later)
.
.
.
.
wait (billions of years later)
.
.
.
.
There it is. (I called this a fish in my timelessness only minutes ago, but in your time a long, long, time ago. And, by the way, ex nihilo is a lot different than you think. PS: Sovereign isn't what you think, either.)
Exhibit B God simply isn't as powerful.