some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists
rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and
"biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind,
random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be
random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as
"astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by
breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume
that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for
"academic freedo...

some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists
rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and
"biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind,
random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be
random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as
"astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by
breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume
that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for
"academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of
creationism".

Authors with religious motives make shameless appeals to common sense,

If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place.

---

Similarly, when Le Fanu writes that Darwin's On the Origin of Species
"articulated the desire of many scientists for an exclusively
materialist explanation of natural history that would liberate it from
the sticky fingers of the theological inference that the beauty and
wonder of the natural world was direct evidence for 'A Designer'", his
statement has no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution.