You could even say, in a way, that the Tree of Life created itself. Not in a miraculous, instantaneous whoosh, but slowly, slowly, over billions of years.[v].
Even the laws of physics, he suggests, "could themselves be the outcome of a blind, uncaring shuffle through Chaos."[vi] .
In reply to Dawkins and Dennett I would argue that materialism is not a scientific theory but a philosophical belief. Both science and religion are selective disciplines, and each has its limitations. Neither can show that its understanding of reality is complete. Materialism and theism are indeed conflicting belief systems, but evolution and theism do not necessarily conflict. I suggest that in their popular writing these authors are promoting a philosophical position rather than a scientific conclusion. .
2. Theistic Critics of Neo-Darwinism .
At the time of the Scopes trial in 1925, Christian fundamentalists rejected all evolutionary ideas and accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis. In the 1980s the "creation science" movement put pressure on state legislatures and local school boards to require biology teachers to give a "balanced treatment" of evolutionary theory and "abrupt appearance theory" as two alternative scientific hypotheses, claiming that the latter could be defended on scientific grounds alone. State and federal courts overruled legislation that required the inclusion of "creation science," arguing that it is not legitimate science and that teaching it violates the separation of church and state. But several authors have given more sophisticated arguments that the idea of "intelligent design" fits the data better than purposeless chance and natural selection . They claim that neo-Darwinism among biologists is more the product of their naturalistic assumptions than of clear scientific evidence.[vii].
Phillip Johnson, a law school professor, accepts microevolution (small modifications in existing species) but does not accept macroevolution (the formation of new species).
