Near the end of the film, it is stated that in Darwin’s time, science was only beginning to emerge from philosophy, and that Darwin’s project was philosophical and anti-religious as much as it was scientific.
Lynch and Lippard then suggest that this position was probably inspired by me. I was of course surprised to read such a blatant misrepresentation of my view. After all, I have written several books, websites, and blogs on the fact that evolution entails religious and metaphysical premises.
In fact, in the film I made this quite clear. Near the end of the film, I stated that:
150 years later, it is clear that Darwin’s theory of evolution is really not about science, it’s about god.
How could the historian of science Lynch possibly foul this up. Not only did I not say Darwin’s project was anti-religious, I clearly and unambiguously stated the exact opposite. Darwin’s writings are chocked full of religious and metaphysical concerns and arguments. And they build on religious sentiment that had been influencing studies of the nature for two centuries leading up to Darwin. But Lynch is an evolutionist, and for evolutionists the warfare thesis is standard fare. Religion drives science, and it matters.