What You Don't Hear from the Media about Evolution

Steve: I don't know what you mean by "neo-Darwinism."

Neo-Darwinism is more or less synonymous with the modern evolutionary sythesis. That is, it is the synthesis of the original Darwinian concepts of evolution by natural selection with Mendelian heredity, modern genetics, and the findings of molecular biology.

I haven't experienced anything remotely similar to a deity or extraterrestrial poofing an organism or part of an organism into existence.

This is a misunderstanding of what Christian evolutionists believe. St. Augustine, over a millennium and a half ago, said that God did not create the universe as is, but complete in its causes. In other words, He made the universe at some point in the remote past, structuring the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc., then allowed it to develop over time. Organisms didn't need to be "poofed" into existence--they evolved naturally over time according to seemingly random processes until arriving at the desired state.

Of course since evolutionary processes seem random to limited human understanding, people may look at it and assert, as you do, that it is random and unguided. That's your prerogative, and that is why I wouldn't base an argument for God's existence on any specific processes such as this, anyway. As Mortimer Adler points out in his book How to Think About God, the true argument from design considers why the universe should even exist at all, rather than why aspects of it may or may not seem to be designed. It's an excellent book which I would recommend to anyone, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.

Steve: I put links to the Wikipedia articles that gave a longer discussion of the terms.

My point was this: both hardcore materialists such as Dawkins and anti-evolutionists believe that acceptance of evolution necessarily implies disbelief in God and acceptance of a metaphysically materialist viewpoint. The materialists think this is a good thing, since they don't believe in God; anti-evolutionists think it's a bad thing, since they do believe in God. In my opinion, belief in evolution does not entail disbelief in God or metaphysical materialism.

All science is methodologically materialist--that is, it looks for material causes of phenomena. In other words, I don't assume that angels move the planets or that animals are "poofed" into being as is. I look for the causes in terms of gravity (in the first case) and evolution (in the second). None of this commits me to a metaphysically materialist view--that is, I do not need to say that only matter actually exists, and that since God is immaterial, He does not. The fact that I do not look for God poking His finger into the cosmos to move the planets or make animals appear doesn't mean He couldn't have set up the cosmos in such a way that it runs as it does according to natural laws (including the development of life by evolution).

As to whether evolution is "guided"--I believe that God gets the results He wants through the process of evolution. How He does that, I don't know. Even if the process is totally random, God may still be able to get the desired results. A weak analogy--professional gamblers are able to make a living from an intrinsically random process through developing an understanding of "when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em" and such. I can't "make" the dealer give me a good hand, but if I'm skilled I can play it and win enough to make a living. It may suit God's purposes to bring about His will through His understanding of how to "play" the hand that random forces deal Him.

'New Earth' and 'Old Earth' bring to my mind 'Flat Earth'.