Time Magazine Gets It #2

Perhaps the best feature of the Time magazine article discussed in my last post is the section "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?" (Also available here.) They allow four people to articulate in their own words a brief answer to that question. One statement is by Michael Behe and one is by Albert Mohler. This gives the reader a very clear distinction between the "old" challengers of evolution, who base their objections mainly on their reading of Genesis (Mohler), and the "new" challengers, who are quite comfortable with the possibility that God used evolution to create the world. Behe gives a good profile of the new challengers:

Sure, it's possible to believe in both God and evolution. . . . Catholics have always understood that God could make life any way he wanted to. If he wanted to make it by the playing out of natural law, then who were we to object? We were taught in parochial school that Darwin's theory was the best guess at how God could have made life.

I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds. I think God could have made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection. But my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a more active guiding. . . .

Here is a biochemistry professor at a major university who was taught Darwinian theory in Catholic parochial school, and then concluded as an adult scientist that the science behind macroevolutionary theory "is not nearly as strong as they think," and that purely materialistic theories cannot adequately explain every aspect of the diversity of life on earth.

Perhaps the mainstream media will stop with the tiring refrain that the only reason people could doubt macroevolutionary theory is their religious convictions, or that there is no credible scientific challenge to macroevolutionary theory.