\u201cShould it be of concern to Christians that Darwin was never more than a nominal believer? Only if, rejecting universalism, you are concerned about the destiny of his immortal soul. Otherwise \u2013 well, are you concerned whether your surgeon, mechanic, or hair stylist goes to church? Of course not. Your only concern is that she wields a scalpel, wrench, or scissors with know-how and dexterity. So too with a scientist: one\u2019s only concern should be that he is an honest and skilled practitioner of his craft. And Darwin wasn\u2019t just an able and meticulous biologist, he was a bloody genius. If his theory of evolution by natural selection is the best theory in town that explains the evidence (palaeontological, morphological\/taxonomical, molecular\/genetic) \u2013 and it is \u2013 deal with it. Of course refute it on empirical grounds if you can, but don\u2019t rubbish it because you don\u2019t like its theological or moral implications, or because you have a political agenda. Fight science with science \u2013 not with the pseudo-science of creationism or the bad science of ID (not to mention the bad theology of both). \u201c<\/span><\/div>\n\u2014 Kim Fabricius, \u201cTen propositions on Darwin and the deity<\/a>\u201c<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-2435011358048265888?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"