Opposite the Title Page of Origin of the Species Mr. Darwin included the following quote from Francis Bacon:

Let no man . . . think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works . . . but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both.

Lest we enlist Darwin in an argument outside of his context it might be helpful to remember that he began his study of nature and died a man of faith. He sought that we not look at nature or God too simplistically.

To put it another way, any scientist worth his or her salt accepts evolution as a scientific fact.

Even though I agree basically with your above statement, Brynn, that is not to conclude that the theory of evolution is now complete. It is true that there are parts of evolution theory that are still being worked out, the most controversial of which is that some living mechanisms are so complex, and are so far removed from anything similar design-wise, that the complexity and uniqueness are difficult to explain plausibly by any mutation-and-natural-selection process.

This is exactly the point at which anti-evolution activists suggest Intelligent Design, a theory which itself has many flavors, some more "intelligent" than others. While the notion that God created the Universe during a six-day period 6000 years ago is bunk (unless, of course, he was so crafty as to create the Universe as if it had evolved! ... a suggestion that might give any evolution activist a moment of pause ...), it is still possible that some type of Divine Intervention is going on as this or that DNA codon mutates in this or that direction ... and how in the world will science ever test for such intervention? If divine miracles happen at quantum levels that are impossible for us to observe (and the existence of such levels is exactly what quantum theory states) then how will science ever rule out (or rule in) the question of Divine Intervention?

I present this argument for a number of reasons: (1) Although most Intelligent Design activists are religious idiots, not all of them need to be, and (2) the Intelligent Design question is deeper than most evolution proponents admit, and (3) the different camps on this debate are not all mutually exclusive: it is possible to be a theist who believes in evolution (such as Francis Collins); and even at that, it is possible to be an evolution theist who either does or does not also believe in various versions of Intelligent Design. One can believe that a Creator Intelligence initiated a Universe that was designed and destined to produce life entirely on its own without further dynamic guidance, or one can believe in a Creative Intelligence that guides the process at a quantum level on a day-to-day basis.

Finally, among the atheistic possibilities, one can suggest the "Many Worlds" hypothesis, that countless Universes exist naturally with many different combinations of physical relationships, but only a few (or maybe even only one) of those Universes are capable of producing life. The notion that we can be present to be observers only in one of these life-producing Universes is an obvious tautology.

gregC pointed out above that Darwin was himself a theist, and in fact he was distraught as it became apparent that so much of humanity would view his evolution theory as evidence favoring atheism. February 12, 1809 was not only the birthdate of Charles Darwin, but also of a famous American by the name of Abraham Lincoln. What a coincidence it is that two of the most important and controversial figures of the 19th Century would have been born on exactly the same day.

Charles Darwin died an affirmed agnostic, not as you say, "a man of faith."

I'll concede that point, what old men do and believe in their dotage is usually understandable only to them.

In fact, people who believe in God are quite proud that they believe in the face of no proof, or even proof to the contrary. (In the latter, God is seen as "testing their faith.")

Fact? Really now? Categorical statements like that have a tendency to reach up and bight you in the butt. I can refute your statement by simply saying, "not me". Now I have no reliable yardstick to measure what in your estimation constitutes fact or science.

Yes, collectively we are woefully illiterate when it comes to scientific understanding. ID or creationism have no place in a modern science curriculum.

That's not what has my boxers in a bunch. It is the generalizations and the name calling that otherwise well meaning, enlightened people of faith find themselves subjected to. As an ordained minister I believe in the existence of God without reliance on proof, on tuesdays, thursdays, and every third saturdays if it isn't raining I believe in Angels and for me Charles Darwin is a personal hero. It isn't just this post, and it isn't just you. So can we dial back the generalizations and the name calling. I don't make snide comments about the parts of your life and existence that I don't understand, please extend me the same courtesy.

Clearly, Brynn, you have amply answered the question at the end of my second comment above. Now we are clear on what your agenda is --- an agenda you have a perfect right to state. While I disagree with your disdain, I do have a certain understanding and empathy about it.

I disagree, specifically, that theism does not command the civil respect of atheists --- but OTOH, the atheistic sentiments of fine individuals and careful thinkers such as yourself (and Freud, and Sagan, and Richard Dawkins) deserve a level of respect that you are rarely extended in the dominant societies of both America and the British Isles. (Luckily, I gather that mainland Europe is somewhat better.) That is where I think the current problem lies: theists have not learned that demonizing intellectual atheism is a remnant of medieval tribalism, an extreme of dogmatism, and has no place in modern civil society. Quite the opposite, theists need to acknowledge that atheists have a civil right to their viewpoints, even if in our hearts we might (or might not) believe that such unbelief is "the work of the Devil" --- but that is only the mental framing that theists impose upon a mere intellectual difference of opinion. (And as has been said so often by so many educated people, generally the atheists I know treat their fellow humans more morally than most of the Christians I know, especially the ones that think the motto "In God We Trust" is required in order to make currency valid.)

I may still be a theist, but I am more of an agnostic now than the dogmatic simpletons that gave me my childhood religious teachings, and I am less agnostic than I was in my 30's and 40's. Like Darwin, who died a self-labeled agnostic but was clearly a theist at the time that he wrote Origins, my views regarding religion and nonreligion have evolved through stages as the decades roll by. An individual's intellectual journey, too, is an evolution that is worthy of respect.

I think your feelings about religion not deserving "special respect" would be different if theists learned to be kind enough to extend to your views the same respect. As things stand now, this usually happens only in the best of academic circles. And I hope that, despite whatever counterarguments I may have presented, that it has happened here.