Darwinism = Naturalism = Atheism?
I’ve come under fire here for a recent blog as well as in comments on other sites. It seems there is concern because I use the term Darwinism interchangeably with naturalism and atheism. Here is a response to one my comments on a blog at Thinking Christian:
It would be really helpful if people would stop using terms like Darwinism, Evolutionism etc. when they are really talking about Atheism. Darwinism and Evolutionism have concise dictionary definitions and they say nothing of religion, the belief in God or the meaning of life.
A response in comments to one of my own blogs similarly complains:
Well, I’m what you would polemically label a “Darwinist†and I’m a Christian, so please stop lying about what I feel, Barry.
The reason I use the term Darwinism and not evolution is that they are not synonymous. I do know Christians who believe evolution is the process God used to create life as we know it. Most of the people I know believe in micro-evolution, as opposed to macro-evolution. I am not against evolution, per se. I do believe people deceive themselves when they try to maintain they can be a Darwinist and a Christian. I respect people, like Daniel Dennett, who are willing to admit the ramifications of what Darwin stated. Here are some responses Dennnet gave in a recent interview:
SPIEGEL: Another idea of Nietzsche’s was that God is dead. Is that also a logical conclusion reached by Darwinism?
Dennett: It is a very clear consequence. The argument for design, I think, has always been the best argument for the existence of God and when Darwin comes along, he pulls the rug out from under that.
SPIEGEL: How is it, then, that many natural scientists are religious? How does that go together with their work?
Dennett: It goes together by not looking too closely at how it goes together. It’s a trick we can all do. We all have our ways of compartmentalizing our lives so that we confront contradictions as seldom as possible.
SPIEGEL: Your colleague Michael Ruse has accused you of stepping out of the field of science and into social science and religion with your theories. He’s even said you are inadvertently aiding the Intelligent Design movement as a result.
Dennett: Michael is just trying to put the implications of Darwin’s insights into soft focus and to reassure people that there is not as much conflict between the perspective of evolutionary biology and their traditional ways of thinking.
So, I certainly do not agree with Dennett that Darwinism is true, but we do agree regarding its implications.