In his decision in the controversial 2005 Dover Area School District case, a clueless district court judge concluded—among many other things well outside his purview—that there’s no contradiction between Neo-Darwinism and theistic belief. But in an article at AiG, Jerry Bergman amply demonstrates how wrong His Honor was:
Many, if not most, eminent biologists openly disagree with [the judge] and have expressed this disagreement in the strongest terms possible.
Just about every one of the scientists who would differ with the judge are evolutionists:
“Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own image, to have dominion over the entire earth and all other creatures.” — Stephen Jay Gould
“Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process [of evolution] that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism … this was Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious.” — Francisco Ayala
“[The] implications of modern science produce much squirming among scientists, who claim a high degree of rationality. Some, along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too amounts to deism. It is equivalent to the claim that science and religion are compatible if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists.” — William Provine
“Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature … the emotions that we most treasure, our love for our wives and husbands and children, are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years. And yet we must not sink into nihilism or stifle our emotions. At our best we live on a knife-edge, between wishful thinking on one hand and, on the other, despair. Living without God isn’t easy.” — Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
“[I]nstead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories [of the origins of life], I shall adapt a more armchair approach. My argument will be Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism, that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining [the origins of life] … even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory … we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” — Richard Dawkins (spoken like a True Believer, Richard!)
It goes without saying that a theory with “no actual evidence” to support it isn’t science but a degenerate species of religion.
Bergman’s article is here.
Another article on evolution is here.
Stephen C. Meyer had a recent bestseller — Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.