Oh yeah, that deity who does not transcend nature
A piece by Cornelia Dean in the New York Times contained this interesting assertion:
It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science.
Is it not obvious that believing in a deity that does not transcend nature and its laws is also a matter of faith? Does she really mean to suggest that such belief is a matter of science? How can they print this stuff?
Of course, her real error is to ignore the fact that for many Darwinists, Darwinism is not falsifiable in practice. And she seems to think that by asserting that there is no evidence that would tend to contradict evolution, she can make it so. I find it so remarkable that she and her cohorts can state so confidently that the Cambrian Explosion poses no problems for Darwinian theory. Hence, she has rightfully earned a place among the Darwinian fundamentalists.