Regarding Rowan Hooper’s June 13 article, “Religion’s cute, but creation chemistry is complex“: Until I read this article, it had never occurred to me that religion might be described as “cute.” Rather, it is Hooper’s description that strikes me as cute.

What he says about “creation chemistry,” as characterized by complexity, may be all right so far as it goes, but the wording of his article suggests that at some point he is going to damn “intelligent design,” and sure enough, he does. Nowadays, such is the simple mind-set of scientism — in contrast with true science.

Experimental science, which Hooper proposes to champion, has from the outset, in the work of such men of genius as Galileo and Newton, assumed the presence of an “intelligent design” in the universe. This assumption was their guiding spirit. Their work may well be seen as culminating in the hypothesis of “natural selection” as proposed by Darwin and his disciples.

This is, however, where science ends — even in Hooper’s concluding hope that “we may one day be able to explain how life began” — and where philosophy takes over. The scientist merely looks at what he sees and verifies it in the material universe. The philosopher looks beyond “what” (intelligent design) to “why” (designer of the universe). This is no conjectural myth. It is the conclusion of right reason, except where that reason is abdicated by atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers.

peter milward

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.