Only if you are in a
big hurry, I would say, to advance a religious agenda.
Even if one grants that natural selection and random chance are becoming inadequate theoretic drivers of evolution, to say that that proves that science has reached a brick wall and Intelligent Design is proven is to go beyond what science
or religion (or Michael Behe) can legitimately say, IMO.
However, it cuts both ways: Richard Dawkins' case for atheism is just as wrongheaded as Michael Behe's case for Creationism (more like theistic evolution, actually), I think.
Let science catch up with itself, I would say. It's a big shift to readjust from Biological Determinism to the idea that the programme of life might reside at another level. To make this a religious issue is to set the whole dialogue back by years, it seems to me, and to justly earn the ire of scientists.
A number of scientists are working to reframe the issue.
Meanwhile, render unto science that which pertains to science and unto faith that which belongs to faith. At present, they are 'Nonoverlapping Magisteria,' I think, with Stephen Jay Gould (R.I.P.).
Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," 1997
Edit: Actually, I think religion and science are evolutionary drivers of each other!
Quote:
Albert Einstein:
Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.
|
Or, as someone else (?) said:
God is pressure.