Both of them said the significance was that "there was no Designer."
I didn't see the program, but would not be surprised that Watson and Wilson would say that.
I think we should distinguish between what Watson and Wilson say on the one hand, and what the theory of evolution says on the other. The theory itself makes no statement at all about God. However, the existence of natural processes that can create the diversity life does greatly weaken the appeal of the Paley style of argument for a creator. It perhaps doesn't fully destroy that argument, since there is still the unsolved problem of abiogenesis.
Certain flavors of Christianity do run into clear problems with science. The YEC principles are clearly refuted by physics and geology. We don't even need to look to ToE to see problems for YECs. Old earth creationism is not ruled out, but might be on shaky ground. A theistic evolutionist can always credit God with directing the random mutations, and doing so in such a manner as to guide the evolution of the creatures He wanted will still allowing mutation to appear undirected.
The problem for old earth creationists is that if God created the birds and tbe bees, he also created malaria, pneumonia and other diseases. We see a unity of life, which make it pretty hard to find a basis for crediting God with the good creations, and blaming satan for the pathogenic creatures. Apparently
biologists are more likely to be atheists than other scientists, but it is not obvious to me that ToE is the whole story. I think it has partly to do with the fact that biologists are particularly likely to see the cruelty and suffering in the natural world, from disease, predation, etc., and I suspect many find that incompatible with traditional Christian views about God.
A deist's God, one that created the universe to set thing in motion, but then abstained from further interference, would seem to be completely untouched by anything in the sciences. But this is not the type of God that most Christians believe in.
Secondly, using the theory of evolution to assert atheism, that there is no Designer or Creator as these 2 leading evolutionists insist, really giants in the field, is a fundamental misuse of science, and imo, shows a total ignorance of what science is.
I don't see the problem here. These are two men expressing their opinions. Scientists should have as much right to hold personal opionions as does anybody else. If they were putting these statements into biology textbooks, you might have reason to complain. But they were just presenting their opinions during an interview.
™ Version 4.2
