I have argued that if “evolution” means “evolutionary development” or “Darwinian evolution,” then the religious believer has no reason to feel threatened. This is my main criticism with the Intelligent Design movement, and the reason that I ultimately do not identify with it. However, I do think that something that might be called “intelligent design” should have some place in our society.
The problem is that certain propogandists for evolution (I mean those who attempt to teach evolution to non-scientists, such as Richard Dawkins) insist on that “fact” that the doctrine of evolution is an essentially atheistic doctrine. For instance, the first lines of his Dawkins’ book Blind Watchmaker are as follows:
“This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it has been solved. Darwin…solved it…” (ix)
He later spells this sentiment out a bit more – he does indeed mean that religious belief is completely undermined by a scientific discovery. Well, the fact is that this is just wrong. Not just arguably wrong, but thoroughly stupid. The idea that atheism is “proven” just because Darwin identified some important principles that explain biological diversity and development is very silly. But as is often the case, the facts are less important than perceptions. And the perception among religious believers and non-believers alike is that evolution does indeed imply atheism.
I won’t be able to present any sort of arguments here, but to state my support for Intelligent Design under these limited circumstance. If evolution is taken to mean the doctrine that the universe evolved by sheer chance, then we mono-theists must be involved in this fight. And I will add that the way we should fight is not by supporting out position with reasons (a task I believe to be impossible) but to produce arguments which disprove the belief that science undermines religion.
