[Ronald] Numbers seems to be suggesting that many non-religious Darwinists promote the view that evolution and religion do not conflict because of pragmatic concerns, as they desire to create an environment which is friendlier towards the non-religious. If Numbers is correct, then this would explain why non-religious Darwinists so commonly tell the religious that they should accept evolution.
Some thoughts and reactions:
- Where are these Darwinists Luskin speaks of? Or, why is he arguing with a superceded theory, and ignoring modern biology? Does he call physicists Newtonists?
- It’s nice to see that Luskin no longer pretends that Intelligent Design is non-religious. Clearly, it is intended as a Wedge for religion.
- Personally, I agree that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible, on philosophical grounds. But, I’ve argued this before.
- The primary thing in this article that I strongly disagree with, however, is the side that Luskin has chosen. I’m just not a fan of superstition and dogma.
Now, I wasn’t so concerned with Ronald Numbers’ original article – he’s on-target on the science enough to avoid raising my ire, even if I disagree with him on matters of religion and superstition. But he treads a fine line, and PZ has already taken him to task.