This was Michael Ruse last week, explaining why, as a nonbeliever, he was still trying to reconcile evolution’s randomness with the determinism—i.e., the inevitability that a humanlike creature would appear in evolution—demanded by science-friendly Christians. (My emphasis in second sentence below):
This is not because I am a believer, because I am not. It is not really because it is a politically good thing to do, although I think that is so. It is rather because, well, it is a problem that is interesting and challenging!
This is Michael Ruse two days ago, revising the reasons for his own accommodationism:
But my critics are right in thinking that my writing does have a political component. It is not, contrary to widespread belief, in the hope that I might win the Templeton Prize. They are never going to give it to a non-believer like me. Nor is it…
View original post 560 more words