Sunday's Quote: God & Darwin

A couple of friendly acquaintances I know through the blogosphere have been questioning God lately.  One, a non-Believer from the UK named Steven (aka, Vilges), respectfully asked about my position regarding the existence of God, which I have lazily put off until I become organized enough to write a worthy follow-up.  The other, a good-natured agnostic named Holly, recently wrote a piece regarding, among other things, the balance between Faith and proof.  I was tempted to respond, but I was afraid she would misinterpret my rebuttal(s).  So I deferred.

Because separating the Truth from extremism, or any variant thereof, is the ultimate challenge in dealing with a God who plays by His own rules instead of ours, I thought a quote from an unabashed Conservative regarding an issue the non-Believers think they own would be in order:

"My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation.  It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose.  Here is where the biological expertise of [Richard] Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating.  Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past."

-- from "God knows why faith is thriving" by Dinesh D'Souza, San Francisco Chronicle; October 22, 2006

Note: The author of over 10 books, including Life After Death: The Evidence, Mr. D'Souza is a graduate of both Dartmouth College and Stanford University.  He is also married to a woman named Dixie.  How could I not love this guy?

Sunday's Quote(s): Darwin and the Deity

A recent post on the Center for Science & Culture's blog took considerable issue with the "consensus" notion that runs throughout the international scientific community.  Says Discovery Institute president David Chapman:

"Resorts to claim that 'the science is settled' and there is (as The New York Times considers conclusive) a 'scientific consensus' are shown repeatedly to fail the tests of time, close scrutiny and experience.  ...these movements lack is humility and a willingness to test their hypothesis in an atmosphere where the other sides are allowed to provide countervailing evidence, interpretations and theories.  Real science, I say, has to provide for debate."

Chapman's piece also maneuvered into the ever-prickly arena of Darwinism, by which he criticized "the willingness of the media and cultural organs to defend hard-core Darwinian explanations for everything from bad backs to altruism" because "The evidence doesn't seem to matter once the 'consensus' is adduced."

Perhaps believers of the Most High would be more willing to accept elements of Darwin's hypotheses if his present-day protagonists did not stand on evolutionary theories to contradict the evidence of God, especially the Christian interpretation thereof.  Adherents to Christendom further scoff at their calls for tolerance when considering both the militant intolerance they commonly exhibit and the resulting (and often overlooked) consequences that would occur if they offered the same reasonings in numerous cultures outside of America and Europe.

Secularists of any sort really don't know how good they have it with simpletons like us.  And with that, I offer a quote from someone who Darwin as well as anyone:

"I am quite persuaded that if on any morning [Darwin] met with a fact which would clearly contradict one of his cherished theories he would not let the sun set before he made it known.  I never saw a word in his writings which was an attack on Religion.  He follows his own course as a Naturalist and leaves Moses to take care of himself."

-- Rev. John Brodie-Innes (1817-1894), from a December 1878 letter to Darwin himself regarding how the reverend described his Naturalist friend to bishops in Dundee, Scotland

Note: For a bit more, take a look at this from the Darwinian Conservatism blog by Larry Arnhart.