Wallace’s formulation of evolution was quite incompatible with Darwin’s. His theory might be called intelligent evolution.
As I asked in a previous post: Why is Alfred Russel Wallace today a comparatively little known figure next to Darwin?
Dawes and Smith say they’re simply describing (as a “matter of fact”) the history of science.
Kevin MacDonald is trying to resurrect this troubling legacy of Darwinian theory.
Newton was arguing from science, not religion. But that doesn’t fit the Epicurean mythos that religion opposes naturalism while science confirms it.