Evolution or God!

That used to be the "choice" demanded by fundamentalists unable to grasp the idea that if there is a deity, that deity could operate (or "create") things in any way he might desire.

A classic example of this thinking is the Jack T. Chick pamphlet, "Creator or Liar" which maintains it is impossible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. Adherents to this view maintain that because evolution contradicts the biblical stories of Adam and Eve, and the Flood, that to believe in evolution is the same as saying "God lied."

This extreme position not only requires believing without any evidence that God wrote every word in the Bible, but that every word is literally true and not subject to any interpretation. Thus, the "seven days" of creation cannot be seen in terms of huge chunks of geologic time, but as ordinary days in the human calendar. This makes the world only thousands of years old, and all thoughts of natural or geological evolution heretical -- even if believed by people who believe that an infinite God might be able to create anything in any number of infinite ways.

Fundamentalists who think this way are fond of portraying their opponents as inflexible, anti-religious bigots. Like this Jack T. Chick stereotype (taken from "Big Daddy"):

Fortunately or unfortunately, I was taught Darwinian evolution in a religious school which saw no contradiction between evolution and a belief in God. Putting aside the extreme fundamentalist view (or the extreme atheist view), I've never been able to see the logic behind such a contradiction, because God is neither provable nor disprovable. Thus, God can no more be disproved by evolution than evolution can be disproved by God.

What worries me now is to see clear evidence that anti-religious activists may be upping the ante in this debate:

...how exactly do scientists come to the conclusion that “God had no part in this process”? What’s their proof? That’s the sort of thing that can’t really be proved, it seems to me -- which makes it sound as if scientists, despite their protestations of requiring proof rather than faith, make assertions about God that they can’t prove.

And on top of that, if the standard scientific theory is that “God had no part in this process,” then the opponents of evolution are right -- the standard theory of evolution may not be taught in the schools. The Court has repeatedly said that the Establishment Clause bars both government endorsement and disapproval of religion. Teaching that God exists and teaching that God doesn’t exist are both unconstitutional in government-run schools. Likewise, if teaching that God created humans is unconstitutional, so is teaching that God had no part in creating humans.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Is it possible that some atheist scientists have found common cause with the extreme fundamentalists in the hope of creating another "showdown"? More and more, the word "Christian" is used as a synonym for "fundamentalist," and I suspect that many atheists would love to equate the slightest belief in God with fundamentalism, for the simple reason that it makes their case easier to prove.

It also creates a new division based on another artificially constructed "choice."

Collusion makes strange bedfellows.

MORE: This "debate" gets more complicated in the face of claims of another asserted "contradiction" -- and that is the introduction of the concept of "intelligence" into the debate:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

The bare assertion that evolutionary theory is an anti-religious value judgment against divine "intelligence" does not make it so -- any more than the failure of geology to teach that God made rocks is an assertion that he didn't. Intelligent design thus strikes me as a gratuitous -- and circular -- assertion that evolution denies intelligent design or is at war with it. (One might as well assert that teaching human reproduction negates "gay theory" or that teaching English negates Swahili.) To not assert something is not to deny something not denied, nor does it mean being at war with it.

It is as unscientific as it is unnecessary, but I suspect the idea is to bootstrap into being the unstated assertion that "God" is "intelligent." The latter idea -- that God has human features such as intelligence -- is another unprovable theological assertion, and for it to be taught as fact would be another form of unconstitutional religious indoctrination (favoring one view of the divine over another).

Calling a natural phenomenon intelligent is about as helpful as calling it stupid. (Might as well assert that evolution damages self esteem.)