To Bruce Chapman I would make a few points. First, not all the people on his list are scientists. Fr. Spitzer, whom I know personally and greatly respect, is a philosopher and theologian, not a research scientist, even though he knows a great deal of science. Moreover, I doubt very much that he rejects the theory of evolution and the main outlines of Darwinism. Second, I don’t deny that one can find here and there Catholic scientists who reject Darwinian evolution. My experience suggests to me, however, that they are a small minority. Third, Mr. Chapman says he does not see the point of “pretending” that the implications of Darwinism aren’t obvious. That comment is not just to the people he disagrees with. Those of us who do not see atheist implications in modern biology are not “pretending” anything. Incidently, no less a figure than John Henry Newman said that Darwin’s theory did not necessarily have atheist implications. But I suppose Newman was just pretending.

A similar equivocation on the term “Darwinism” muddies the issue here. There is the scientific theory; and there is the philosophical stance. And the latter use the former without scruple, or indeed, it sometimes seems, without much thought.

As a Catholic myself, though not a scientist, I don’t quite see the point of pretending that the implications of Darwinism have been anything but obvious from the beginning.

I hope one of you might take the time to comment on Plantinga’s emerging argument over the untenability of being committed to both naturalism and evolution. This would seem to bear importantly on the conversation.