Article Dawkins' neo-Darwinism is itself a religious theory?

[C C]

https://iai.tv/articles/dawkins-neo-darw..._auid=2020

INTRO: We often see evolutionary theory as the enemy of religion. But in Darwin’s day, many scientists thought otherwise. Neo-Darwinism, today championed by atheists like Richard Dawkins, was founded by a devout Christian, who explicitly tied its mechanistic vision of life to a world ordered by God’s laws. In contrast, argues Stanford historian of science Jessica Riskin, the anti-mechanistic theory of Lamarck—which grants living beings genuine creativity—was attacked as dangerously atheistic. Riskin argues that today’s supporters of neo-Darwinism have forgotten its theological roots, and that Lamarck’s theory, with its radical, anti-theological motivations, should be taken more seriously... (MORE - details)

[Magical Realist]

Ironically evolution seems to me to be a profoundly more spiritual idea than the mechanistic worldview presupposed by intelligent design. Every creature a kindred spirit and indeed an ancestor of humanity instead of as a machine that was designed---all of the nature of life and culture and consciousness itself nestled cozily within the infinite creativity of an organic and endlessly diversifying and poetically romanticizing naturalism. Form and structure NOT imposed upon matter but naturally growing out of it."Man is a hybrid of plant and ghost."--Nietzsche

That a single-celled zygote can become, simply thru the molecular self-assembly template of non-living DNA, an entire conscious human being thousands of times larger and more complex than a cell, is a vivid testament to the astonishing power of the self-ordering potential of matter itself. If there is magic afoot, it lies entirely inside of matter and energy itself, not outside of it in some intangible spiritual realm.

[Image: CPnXKxI.jpg?fbclid=IwY2xjawTpdx9wZG9mAWV...kfOT5znkhw]

[Syne]

The only way Lamarck can be taken seriously is in the study of epigenetics, which does not cover genetics and natural selection of Darwinian evolution.

[confused2]

The only way Lamarck can be taken seriously is in the study of epigenetics, which does not cover genetics and natural selection of Darwinian evolution.

The evolution of the flexibility epigenetics confers is just evolution . you disagree? God-given perhaps?

[Syne]

IMO, it's all planned to work on its own. So I don't begrudge anyone who things evolution is all there is to human development. Appearances can be deceiving.