Even Richard Dawkins can’t quite shake the idea that a sublime world like ours doesn’t come about by chance, but by “intelligent design.”
Would it, in fact, be enlightening if you were to sit a Darwinist and a Darwin skeptic together for an extended period of time to talk and see what really lies at the bottom of their disagreement?
I asked David Berlinski and Michael Denton what they thought was the nub of intellectual difference between a thoughtful Darwkin skeptic and a thoughtful Darwin loyalist.
David Berlinski notes, “Applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon.”
If you had an opportunity to confound your Darwinist friends, but a limited amount of time, what challenge would you put to them?