The hypocrisy of theistic evolutionism
Together, "Saving Darwin" and "Only a Theory" provide an edifying summary of the tenets and the flaws of modern creationism, the former dealing mainly with its history and the latter with its specious claims. If these books stopped there, they would raise a valuable alarm about the dangers facing American science and culture. But in the end their sincere but tortuous efforts to find the hand of God in evolution lead them to solutions that are barely distinguishable from the creationism that they deplore . . .(page 1)
If rational scientific evolution theory is sufficient to explain the diversity of life, then why did Giberson and Miller find it necessary to add a supernatural explanation, "the hand of God"?
. . . . Miller opts for theology. Although his new book does not say how God ensured the arrival of Homo sapiens, Miller was more explicit in "Finding Darwin's God." There he suggested that the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics allows God to intervene at the level of atoms, influencing events on a larger scale:The indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay.
In other words, God is a Mover of Electrons, deliberately keeping his incursions into nature so subtle that they're invisible. It is baffling that Miller, who comes up with the most technically astute arguments against irreducible complexity, can in the end wind up touting God's micro-editing of DNA. This argument is in fact identical to that of Michael Behe, the ID advocate against whom Miller testified in the Harrisburg trial[Kitzmiller v. Dover].(emphasis added) It is another God-of-the-gaps argument, except that this time the gaps are tiny. . . . .(page 4)
The idea that "Goddidit" is synonymous with the idea of "God-of-the-gaps."
I have wondered why Michael Behe's Intelligent Design is often considered to be a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state while Kenneth Miller's theistic evolutionism is not, even though the two are often virtually indistinguishable.
Although Giberson and Miller see themselves as opponents of creationism, in devising a compatibility between science and religion they finally converge with their opponents. In fact, they exhibit at least three of the four distinguishing traits of creationists: belief in God, the intervention of God in nature, and a special role for God in the evolution of humans. They may even show the fourth trait, a belief in irreducible complexity, by proposing that a soul could not have evolved, but was inserted by God . . .
Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board. (page 6)
Maybe this "double standard" could be called "Cafeteria Christianity." Anyway, I don't agree with Coyne's notion that all criticisms of evolution are irrational.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1)