Happy Evolution Sunday. In case you missed it, yesterday was the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin. A number of churches had sermons promoting evolution.
At the Evanston Mennonite Church, Susan Fisher Miller, 48, an editor and English professor, said, "I completely accept and affirm the view of God as creator, but I accommodate evolution within that."
To Ms. Fisher Miller, alternatives to evolutionary theory proposed by its critics, such as intelligent design, seem an artificial way to use science to explain the holy. (NY Times)
Someone here has a misconception. I don't know if it's Ms. Miller or the reporter, but her description of accommodating evolution within the view of God as creator sounds exactly like "intelligent design". Or maybe I'm the one with the misconception?
What many religious people have a problem with is many evolutionists' declaration that God had nothing to do with the way the world turned out. This is something the latter can't prove, something that cannot be scientifically verified, something scientists have no business saying. Feel free to offer your opinion, but isn't that all the ID'rs are doing? There's no need to get huffy about it.
But if one is going to be dogmatic about God not being involved, well now, that strikes me as religious and fundamentalist as can be. You don't know it for a fact and you shouldn't care, if you're really a scientist. Go back to work and leave the fundamentalism to the professionals.