Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 24, 2009, 23:17 (5537 days ago) @ David Turell

David: A simple statement 'evolution is the only explanation' begs the real question, and as dhw points out, it sounds like faith in Darwin's religion.-This is what I meant when I referred to 'Sprite's' piece on sex as a cop-out: everything 'evolved' ... end of story. However, I would say it's faith in Dawkins' religion, not Darwin's! Darwin went out of his way to emphasize that he saw "no good reason why the views given in this book [The Origin of Species] should shock the religious feelings of any one". -David: How did these things evolve? That they evolved I don't doubt. I just raise the challenge to find the true process: either natural evolution or designed evolution.-I think you have pinpointed a constant source of misunderstanding, which is often exploited and even deliberately created in order to discredit the design argument. Matt has also hit on it with his useful distinction between ID and design. Darwin himself made it clear that evolution and theism are compatible, and the design theory in itself does not entail rejection of Darwinian evolution and is no more contrary to science than the claim that evolution is the result of a large slice of luck. We've said it before, and we'll say it again: Science is neutral, even if some scientists are not, and whether you plump for design or you plump for luck comes down to faith. -(My thanks to George for two very helpful posts, which I will respond to in due course, and to BBella ... still thinking about yours!)