“Dialogue,” in practice, can quickly devolve into a monologue where religion is supposed to sit down and shut up the moment there is a point of difference.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen inaccurate descriptions of intelligent design from Professor McGrath.
Ideas do indeed have consequences, but not all ideas play out the same way or weave their way in the history of ideas toward the same destination.
O’Connell and Ruse’s failure to engage deeply and fully with the historiography of this question makes it hard to take their effort seriously.
The authors imply that social Darwinism was a position taken by non-scientists who just didn’t understand the science.