ID Redux

There are some excerpts from a nice interview with Dr Santiago Collado (original interview by Mercator.Net) over at Insight Scoop the Ignatius Press blog. It’s worth a read.

It’s citation of an earlier interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker, co-author of Architects of the Culture of Death, bears repeating:

I think there are two very serious misconceptions about Darwinism today. First, that Darwinism is a well-established theory, with no considerable intellectual difficulties. The second, one more directly related to Architects, concerns the essential moral implications of Darwinism. Generally, historians and scientists alike have tried to distance Darwin’s biology from the eugenics movement—an understandable move, given the ugliness of the eugenic programs of Nazi Germany. If we read Darwin, however, we find that he himself understood eugenics to be the obvious inference from his biological theory of evolution through natural selection. Natural weeds out the unfit; so should we, or at least keep the unfit from breeding. Further, he also understood quite clearly that his evolutionary account of morality, which destroyed the permanency of human nature, provided the most radical moral relativism possible. As for the scientific community, it generally accepts Darwinism without question, which means that it generally hasn’t studied the theoretical and evidential problems facing Darwinism. Happily, more and more scientists have found the courage to look at Darwinism with a clearer, more critical eye.

So my reservations about Darwinism (sometimes described currently as Neo-Darwinism and/or Syntheticism) are not completely off the wall, ok? All of which hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Intelligent Design, so-called.

I still believe that the role of Natural Theology is being ignored or misunderstood by some of the ID advocates.