Religion v. Science

Evolutionists commonly suggest that Darwin’s theory of
evolution is neutral concerning God, but then contend that all objections to it
are by definition religious. I find this position fishy, and would suggest that
if one side of the argument must be religious, the other side by definition must
be, also. Evolutionists rarely acknowledge a difference between creationism
(belief in a creator and particular creation process to be accepted and defended
based upon religious texts) and intelligent design (the hypothesis of a designer
to be tested based on observable, and thus scientific evidence). May I suggest
that just as some people will not consider the possibility of Darwinian
evolution for religious reasons, so there are evolutionists who hold fast to
Darwinian evolution for religious reasons?

Recently I referred to a site that used the phrase "universal acid" to refer to Darwinian evolution’s power to erode away any need for
God. I would like to revisit that site to make clear the motives of those who
placed the information on the web. If you click on the website’s core name, http://www.mukto-mona.com/,
you will quickly be redirected to another page, http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/index.htm.
The words that you cannot read, because they appear and disappear to quickly,
are “Humanism & Secularism,” and “Secular site for freethinking, rational, humanists of
Bangladesh and other South Asian countries.” The purpose of the site is to
promote humanism (belief that humans are the ultimate beings) and secularism
(belief that there is no god), which the site posits are inseparable. That part, I agree with. The "universal acid" page is part of a series of pages ending with
Darwinism makes God unnecessary. This is indeed their purpose.

I will revisit this site again soon to walk through their
"logic" for the irrelevance of God, but for now let it suffice that defense of
evolution is not always with purely non-religious motive. Sometimes, the person
arguing for evolution may not even realize that they have bought into a
religious view that "science" must not only be objective about God, but also
devoid of conclusions about God. The truth is that any approach that begins with
qualifications on the conclusions about God and His roll in the process is not scientific. It’s religious.

This entry was posted on May 26, 2008 at 12:43 am and is filed under Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.