06.12.09
Contradictions in theistic darwinism
Both sides in the accomodationist debate are misguided. But the Darwin fanatics, who expect to use Darwinian selection theory and reductionism scientism to posit ‘atheism’ are surely discrediting themselves. That is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one. Even an old atheist might acknowledge this point.
And to expect the whole of culture to adjust, therefore, to this kind of position is totally unrealistic. A lot of religionists wish simply to combing religion and science. The Coyne faction apparently wishes to smack them in the nose for this. The ID gang won’t make that mistake: they are done with scientists all around.
The theistic Darwinists are also in a hopeless position: do they accept Darwin’s theory, EXCEPT in the group selection/kin selection versions of ethical evolution? If they do, what is the point of religion? If they don’t then the contradictions in their position are hard to deal with.
The only solution is to see that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is confusing the meaning of the term ‘evolution’. And then to see that theistic metaphysics cannot easily be resolved to a doctrine that is consistent (not the same as saying it is false), and further consistent with some putative postdarwinian evolutionism.