Image by Smithsonian Institution via Flickr“A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas….the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.” -- Charles Darwin.
Darwinism -- theology, philosophy, science, or, combo plate?
* * *
Implicit in Darwin's view of nature is the notion that variation and natural selection are unplanned, purposeless processes. Darwin's nature requires at most a deist God -- uninvolved in the outworking of life. This underlying philosophical assumption sits on the border between science and theology.
Darwinists continue to make theological arguments in science articles and textbooks similar to this one made by Darwin. Which brings into question the alleged neutrality of science and scientists in matters of theology and philosophy.
Unlike the low-rent-God of the deist, or the no-rent god of the atheistic scientist, the theist looks beyond the merely empirical to empiricism's sufficient cause -- why there should be a universe at all, why there should be this particular universe -- orderly, structured, empirical and fine-tuned for life, one that submits itself to orderly, structured empirical inspection, and why there should be purposeful, rational, morally oriented creatures uniquely capable of performing such inspection, i.e., "us". The only sufficient answer for the Christian is "because God, and man created in God's image".