Kenneth Miller article!
This is only an excerpt. Read the whole thing here:
The creationist opponents of evolution make similar arguments. They
claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and,
most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained
by evolution or any other natural process.
By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at
least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that
science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling
As a matter of strategy, creationists would be well-advised to avoid
telling scientists what they will never be able to figure out. History
is against them. In a general way, we really do understand how nature
And evolution forms a critical part of that understanding. Evolution
really does explain the very things that its critics say it does not.
Claims disputing the antiquity of the earth, the validity of the fossil
record, and the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms vanish upon close
inspection. Even to the most fervent anti-evolutionists, the pattern
should be clear - their favorite "gaps" are filling up: the molecular
mechanisms of evolution are now well-understood, and the historical
record of evolution becomes more compelling with each passing season.
This means that science can answer their challenges to evolution in an
obvious way. Show the historical record, provide the data, reveal the
mechanism, and highlight the convergence of theory and fact.
There is, however, a deeper problem caused by the opponents of
evolution, a problem for religion. Like our priest, they have based
their search for God on the premise that nature is not self-sufficient.
By such logic, only God can make a species, just as Father Murphy
believed only God could make a flower. Both assertions support the
existence of God only so long as these assertions are true, but serious
problems for religion emerge when they are shown to be false.
If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God's
existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a
successful scientific explanation as an argument against God.
That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to
religion than to science.
Elliot Meyerowitz's fine work on floral induction suddenly becomes a
threat to the divine, even though common sense tells us it should be
nothing of the sort.
By arguing, as creationists do, that nature cannot be self-sufficient in
the formation of new species, the creationists forge a logical link
between the limits of natural processes to accomplish biological change
and the existence of a designer (God).
In other words, they show the proponents of atheism exactly how to
disprove the existence of God - show that evolution works, and it's time
to tear down the temple. This is an offer that the enemies of religion
are all too happy to accept.
Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness.
What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best -
indeed their only - evidence for the divine.
As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing.
Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which
might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only
in the shadows of our understanding.
I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere
else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.