More Religion and More Denials
First, an evolution professor told me I was all wrong about this. This professor had made the non scientific statement that “the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed.” You can read about this here.
But when I pointed out that this was another example of religion driving science the professor pushed back. That was before he made his religious pronouncement for evolution. Here is what he wrote:
“Religion drives science and it matters,” Is completely false, and opposite to the truth. Throwing up our hands and saying “God did it” gets us no farther, gains us nothing. … “Godddidit” gets us nowhere. With that attitude, we’d all still be hunter-gatherers allowing our fates to be determined by superstitions.
That, in case you didn’t notice, is a religious argument. And it’s not just any religious argument. It is one of the dozen or so metaphysical pillars that motivated evolutionary thought and justify it to this day.
Evolution’s metaphysical arguments and mandates fall into two broad categories, one about God and one about man. I use the labels “Greater God” and “Intellectual Necessity” for these two categories and you can see my phylogeny here.
The professor’s argument, that appealing to special divine action is not allowed, is a classic religious claim squarely within the various Intellectual Necessity traditions such as the seventeenth century Protestant doctrine of cessationism, religious rationalism and deism, all of which eschewed miracles.
In the eighteenth century various versions of the argument were heavily promoted by Lutherans on the continent and Anglicans in England. By Darwin’s day any such “Godddidit” explanations were increasingly out of vogue and at Oxford Baden Powell gravely warned that they would “endanger all science.”
And so not surprisingly this Intellectual Necessity of evolutionary thinking was a recurring theme for Darwin in his formulation and justification of his new theory. Later in the nineteenth century Joseph Le Conte at Berkeley continued the theme:
the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason
The very validity of reason was at stake and in the twentieth century evolutionists continued to issue their metaphysical warnings for the Intellectual Necessity of their theory.
And so when the professor insists that “Godddidit” gets us nowhere and would lead to primitive superstitions, he is simply regurgitating the same old metaphysics that evolutionists have been proclaiming for centuries.
That, after assuring us that religion certainly does not drive science, and that any such thinking is “completely false, and opposite to the truth.”
Right. Completely false.
Of course the professor is an evolutionist. Of course he believes that the eye, and everything else for that matter, arose spontaneously. His religion requires it. Only religion could produce such absurdity.
That evolution is a scientific theory is the biggest myth in today’s origins debate.