Barbara King’s advocacy of the old canard that rejection of neo-Darwinism is equivalent to belief in a literal six day creation is a very tired meme. Her ignorance and intransigence on the topic surely appears to be willful, too, as evidenced by a couple interesting push-back articles. An article at Evolution News and Views (ENV) gets to the crux of the issue when they call her out for not acknowledging the real and growing scientific controversy about the veracity of our current understanding of neo-Darwinism:

She does not bother to rebut intelligent design. After quoting responses that talk about the freedom to believe and about learning all of the evidence, she notes, “So in response to these remarks and others like them, let me say it loud and clear: Freedom to believe anything one wants in the religious sphere is incredibly important.” But she goes on to state: “Science isn’t about belief.” King buys into the simplistic equation of science, whatever it may say at the moment, with “truth.” She accordingly dismisses the scientific controversy over neo-Darwinism.

There is another article at pjmedia discussed and linked in the ENV article that is also worth a read. King whiffs badly when tries to address the pjmedia article by ignoring the meat of the objections and talking around the edges. Both the pjmedia and the ENV articles are worth a read. In the meantime, it was great to get a timely reminder of the fact that there are huge swaths of knowledge and truth for which science cannot account (h.t. Stand to Reason and William Lane Craig):

  1. Logical and mathematical truths – science presupposes logic and math.

  2. Metaphysical truths – e.g., the idea that the external world is real.

  3. Ethical truths – e.g., you can’t prove by science that the Nazis were wrong to experiment on Jews.

  4. Aesthetic truths – beauty can’t be scientifically proven.

  5. Science itself – science can’t be justified by the scientific method.