Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists?
I am seeing a new strategy emerging from the atheistic Darwinists. Maybe you can call it the new guard against the old guards. In Atheism’s Trojan Horse, Darwinists like Dawkins, Provine, Forrest, and Kurtz are unabashedly atheistic. Their mission is to attack and ridicule religion for atheism. Now, a new branch is emerging. People like Michael Ruse who criticizes Dawkins for his over the top attack on religion as evil, has a different tactic. He wants to suggest that Darwinism is compatible with religious beliefs. In the past Darwinism is used to support secular humanism, now it is suppose to be compatible with religious beliefs? Make no mistake this is still Atheism’s Trojan Horse.
Ruse knows that the majority of Americans is skeptical of Darwinism, and hold to some sort of religious beliefs. His tactic is to avoid the frontal assault, which he believes gave rise to Intelligent Design. He wants to convince the American public that atheistic Darwinism is a friend with religious beliefs. This is of course ludicrous. The problem is not atheists like Dawkins, Provine, Forrest, or Kurtz. The problem is the theory itself.
Darwinism is nihilistic at its core. People like Dawkins, Provine, Forrest and Kurtz merely use Darwinism disguised as science to rub the religious noses in it. Even without adding this insult to injury Darwinism is incompatible with an intelligence belief system. If you believe there is innate intelligence in life then this is incompatible with Darwinism. This is a PR campaign, because Darwinists believe ID is not science and it is just a PR campaign. Ruse’s answer is to mount a PR campaign from the Darwinists side. Unfortunately for Ruse, the theory of Darwinian evolution tells us that it is strictly a naturalistic process. Consider these words from Kenneth Miller.
ActionBioscience.org: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being?
Miller: No, it can’t. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.
Right here Miller draws a Kantian dichotomy between science (Darwinian evolution) with personal belief(supreme being). With this kind of dichotomy one can believe anything outside of science. You can believe the tooth fairy created everything, little green men from Mars or an invisible being working magic from an alternate universe that controls everything in this universe. We could be molecular puppets without free thoughts, controlled by aliens from an alternate universe. It could all be real, but science just doesn’t know. All things are possible under the umbrella of science.
There are two problems one should recognize about this Atheist’s Creation Trojan Horse. First there are no Darwinists zero, zippo that would allow the teaching of any of these alternative beliefs as a realistic causal agent for the existence of our universe and biodiversity on earth. According to the atheistic Darwinists, Darwinian evolution is the only objective reality that we can experience and detect with our senses. In essence what Darwinists are saying is that only Darwinism is real. Your personal beliefs may or may not be real because it is outside of reality/science (meaning the atheistic Darwinian framework). Eugenie Scott said
The second position is rational, but not scientific. It points to the rational conclusion that there is only matter out there, even though we cannot prove it beyond any doubt.
Interpretation: Atheistic Darwinism does not directly contradict your irrational beliefs, therefore atheistic Darwinism is compatible with your irrational believe in a supreme being. Thank you Michael, Kenneth and Eugenie, this makes us irrational believers feel so much better about atheistic Darwinism.
Second, Darwinists wants you to believe that if a supreme being exists. He/She can use any method he/she wants to form this universe and all the life on earth. Let’s assume that Darwinists really believe this. How would they posit such a possibility? Under the Darwinian framework everything that is science must exists within nature and the naturalistic process. Within this naturalistic process of sensory perception how do you posit a supreme being that exists outside of nature and is not detectable according to the naturalistic process? So when a Darwinist makes the statement that the belief of a supreme being is compatible with Darwinism they are speaking outside of their materialistic framework, which means that they are no longer speaking as a Darwinists but as a theist. If atheistic Darwinism want to assert that it is not anti-personal beliefs, it must show evidence of how personal beliefs can exists within the framework of Darwinism. IOW, it must show evidence of how personal beliefs (supreme being) can be detected within the naturalistic process of Darwinism. Just giving lip service is a coy tactic but is unscientific. Again this shows that the two systems are not compatible.
So while people like Ruse and Miller can tell people that Darwinism is compatible with religion. They need to demonstrate their sincerity by deeds that they actually believe this, by allowing the teaching of personal beliefs in science classes. They also need to demonstrate their sincerity by evidence that Darwinism can detect a supreme being within the naturalistic Darwinian process. People like Ruse is riding a different horse but with the same goal, and that is to instill atheism as the default of the land. Darwinists are saying that it is fine for you to believe in your gods as long as you acknowledge that Darwinism is the supreme true god of the land.