'Darwin Would Put God Out of Business'

Continued from page 1

Some atheists recognize this. I’ve been reading a forthcoming article, “Intelligent Design and Biological Complexity,” scheduled to appear in the distinguished, peer-reviewed academic journal Gene. The author is Emile Zuckerkandl of Stanford University. Prof. Zuckerkandl ferociously attacks ID and any belief in a designer, God, or other “superghost.” Clear enough?

Less clear-minded are those who labor to reconcile God with Darwinian belief.

Slifkin thinks maybe God “set up the natural world and program[ed] its laws such that seemingly blind processes would produce life as we see it.” However, such a “programmed” world has no scientific support. On the contrary, Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould showed that the evidence actually supports a view that, given the natural laws alone, it was highly, highly unlikely that intelligent life would ever emerge.

For his part, Collins thinks because God is outside of time, He may have initiated an unguided process which He could know would produce life. But an unguided process is still unguided. In this scenario, God is not the creator.

Other religious Darwinists have their own various pet theories of reconciliation. For such thinkers, there seems to be no way, even in principle, that evidence could overturn their religious beliefs. Faced with a challenge, they’ll just come up with a clever way of twisting out of the contradiction.

I admire Collins and Slifkin with their determined commitment to God. I also understand why their stance appeals to many laymen, who may be overly impressed by the prestige of secularism in academia with its attachment to Darwin.