Here are my responses to a readers questions about religious bias.
You never tire of telling the world that science is driven by religion, and, in some cases there is some truth to that.
Yes, there are several arguments for the fact of evolution. They all entail theological claims (or philosophical claims which ultimately trace back to theological claims) about god.
But it is also true that your continuing rejection of common descent in the face of massive amounts of evidence reveals that you are driven by religion just as much as anyone else.
From a scientific perspective common descent is unlikely. It is true there is evidence for common descent, just as there is plenty of evidence for a flat earth, geocentrism, etc.
My question is, what is your religion?
I am a Christian, which unlike many religions, affords me a wide spectrum of explanations for origins, ranging from secondary (natural) to primary (miracle) causes.
Or, more to the point, exactly what doctrine of your religion is it that drives your deep visceral contempt for evolution …?
There is a long history of empiricism in Christian thought. Rather than imposing a framework or answer on science a priori regardless of which way the evidence points, as evolutionists do, I believe in allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
I’m not saying rationalism has no place or that blindly following the evidence solves all problems. I would agree there is, necessarily, a mix. Nor am I saying that rationalism, itself, is fallacious.
But extreme rationalism, and evolution is a good example of this, is susceptible to confirmation bias and misrepresentation of the empirical evidence. Never let an extreme rationalist represent empirical science. That would be like having a Republican speak for President Obama.
From an empirical science perspective, evolution’s failure is truly epic. There are 27 orders of magnitude between evolution’s expectations and reality. And that is going by the evolutionist’s own reckoning (in reality it is 100+ orders of magnitude). No theory in the history of science comes anywhere close to this epic failure. It is another creation myth that over and over is scientifically ridiculous.
I much prefer empiricism to mythology.
From a religious perspective I can take evolution or leave it. It doesn’t matter to me if the earth is old or young, if God used primary or secondary causes, and so forth. But by the same token, I am against superimposing a religious framework on the evidence as evolution does, and force fitting the evidence into that framework when otherwise it obviously doesn’t fit.