Have Religion Scholars Been Deceived by Darwin?

In a post yesterday I described developing a science and religion course at Luther College, where I teach. One thing that initially surprised me was the degree to which well-known religion scholars were willing to fully capitulate to Darwinian evolution and attempt to find ways to fit their religious reflections around it. Now that I understand the ideological nature of this grand narrative of Darwinian triumph and the force of its perpetuation in academic culture, I am no longer so surprised. These scholars must capitulate to Darwinism in order to be taken seriously within the academy where dissent from Darwinism brands one as an anti-scientific religious zealot not to be taken seriously. Yet in their rush to capitulate, these scholars end up subverting religion, the very topic of their academic work. Have these scholars been deceived by Darwin?