The Religion of Evolution

Source

I was asked recently during an interview if I thought that the Theory of Evolution was a religion. I said that I think it is.

If evolution is responsible for everything that has evolved--everything, then it is worthy of praise. What it did was miraculous, and time is the miracle-method it used.

Its prophet was Charles Darwin (the faithful can pay homage to his facial hair in the Natural History Museum, in London), and Richard Dawkins is the sitting pope.

According to his decree, if you disagree with the canon of evolution you are "wicked." So those who don't believe, should therefore be excommunicated from the realm of science.

The "Bible" of the Darwinian believer is On the Origin of Species. If you write a mere Introduction that disagrees with its sacred contents, it is tantamount to blasphemy. Be prepared for an inquisition from believers and threats of book burnings.

So, if you believe in evolution, don’t question dating methods, or the credibility of revered paleontologists, or the learned priestly professors.

Just believe.

Read More

Zakir Naik - 25 mistakes in 5 min

Read More

Darwin Dethroned by Geologist

Link

Gradual evolution seems synonymous with Charles Darwin, but a geologist at New York University disagrees. According to an article on PhysOrg, Michael Rampino thinks Patrick Matthew deserves the credit for a different, more realistic view of evolution – a catastrophist view:

“Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations,” says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. “In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view.”

By emphasizing catastrophic events, Rampino is also discrediting one of Darwin’s best friends – Charles Lyell, the uniformitarian geologist. Rampino thinks Patrick Matthew was far ahead of its time but escaped the notice of the scientific community of the day. This is a startling announcement that could put Rampino in grave danger. It’s not that he or Patrick Matthew have anything worthwhile to contribute to the understanding of how we got here. Good grief, catastrophes do not manufacture wings and eyes and brains, or else they would spontaneously emerge on Mars and Titan. What is startling is that Rampino would put his reputation and livelihood at stake. Doesn’t he know the penalty for failing to pay homage to Charles Darwin? PaV on Uncommon Descent fears, since not even Stephen Jay Gould could survive scorn with his catastrophist theory of punctuated equilibria, even though being an ardent evolutionist, that Rampino will be “gobbled up by the Darwinian thought police” in short order for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Read More

Americans Agree With Darwin: Evaluate Both Sides

From "Evolution News"

Americans Agree With Darwin That the Only Fair Way to Evaluate His Theory Is by “Fully Stating and Balancing the Facts and Arguments on Both Sides of Each Question.”

Anika Smith

From the new Zogby poll this week:

QUESTION: Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

Strongly agree 45%
Somewhat agree 31%
Total Agree 76%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 12%
Total Disagree 19%
Not sure 5%

Three-quarters (76%) say they agree with Darwin’s statement, while about a fifth (19%) say they disagree.

At a time when Darwin’s words and ideas are being showcased, it is interesting that his own support for academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry is largely being ignored by the media and downplayed by the scientific community. Darwin famously wrote in On the Origins of Species that when considering the evidence for evolution, “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” More than three-fourths of respondents said they agreed with Charles Darwin’s statement. This is in line with the results for each of the other questions supporting teaching both the evidence for and against evolution.

Read More