Evolution Is Often The "Religion" of the Unbeliever

A member at my message board provided a link (note: automatic download takes a few moments to load) to an article entitled, Defending Science Education against intelligent design: a call to action. I find it fascinating that they have sat up and finally taken notice! Seems to me that they must be secretly worried about ID's current huge amount of publicity and want to counter it's impact (especially upon students who seek out information on the internet because it's "not allowed" in schools). Years ago, Darwinists didn't think that ID was much of a threat nor would it ever find much of an audience. Approximately seven years later, ID certainly has built up quite an audience and it is growing by leaps and bounds.

I believe in Creation. I also believe that Intelligent Design is a way for students to discuss an alternative to Evolution (*see note below) without getting into the creation account in Genesis. In fact, if people want to believe that the intelligent designer is an alien (probably was Carl Sagan's view based on his movie Contact) they can do so.

But I want to focus on the real reason (and, hypocritical reason as you may already know or will discover here) why Darwinists don't want even the possibility of that "Divine foot in the door" where discussions of origins are concerned.

Here's a quote from a book I am reading about why believe in Creation:

The greatest evil Darwin has brought upon the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.

This is exactly what we are seeing in that article as well as in the current origins battles going on today.

The article link above, brings up philosophy. Here's what Michael Denton, author of a fascinating book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis wrote:

The voyage on The Beagle was a journey of awesome significance. Its object was to survey Patagonia; its result was to shake the foundations of western thought. The Origin of the Species [which followed] has been referred to as "one of the most important books ever written" [it is because it seeks to shake the foundation of the most important book ever written].

As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was catastrophic. As many readers here already know, to think teleologically is to believe life has purpose and an end. The evolutionist believes nothing has purpose or an end. Consequently, life has no significance or meaning or importance.

The whole scientific enterprise, however, has been hijacked into a naturalistic or materialistic view of the world. Naturalism believes that there is nothing in the universe but nature, nothing supernatural; materialism believes that there is nothing in the world but matter.

If you examine what is truly going on closely, you will see that what is actually happening is the clash of two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man. One of those religions is Christianity; the other religion is evolution. Evolution is a religion that is passionately held by its devotees.

How do I know this?

Here is what some well-known evolutionists, all highly placed scientists in the world, have to say.

Professor Louis T. More, one of the most vocal evolutionists:

The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.

Source: Louis T. More, The Dogma of Evolution (Princeton: University Press, 1925), 160.

Professor D. M. S. Watson, a famous evolutionist, made the remarkable observation that evolution itself is a theory universally accepted, "not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative - special creation- is clearly incredible."

Quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), 8.

To the reprobate mind, the unregenerate mind, creation is incredible because it requires belief in a creator, and that is totally unacceptable to such men as these.

A famous British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, is just as frank in his admission.

He says, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

Quoted in Meldan, Why We Believe in Creation , 8.

Many people accept evolution on blind faith . Scientists, high school science teachers and college professors may teach their students that all scientists believe in evolution as proven fact, but remember what Sir Arthur Keith said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." That's an admission of the most blatant prejudice I have ever read! He is saying that scientists are willing to accept a theory that is unproved and unprovable because they are so biased they can't even think about the fact there may be a God who created the world!

Just because a great many people have been led to believe evolution is fact, it doesn't make it a fact.

I think that Professor David Allbrook says it well:

"Evolution is a time-honored scientific tenet of faith."

I love this. Dr. Duane Gish, noted biologist, says,

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

Yeah...like in Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years it becomes a prince.

As Arthur Field has pointed out, evolution is based :

"upon belief in the reality of the unseen; belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off."

It is faith - faith in the substance of things unseen. It is a religion. Evolution is often the "religion" of the unbeliever.

*******

Note: The portion of the theory of Evolution (a.k.a. Darwinism) that I refer to here is macro-evolution.

An excerpt from article link (below):

Macroevolution, the second type, had to occur if evolution were to get to the first cell, or to leap across genotypes, say, from a reptile to a bird. While microevolution is evident in the geographical distribution of many living species[2] and in selective breeding, it sustains only Darwin's "special" theory of evolution--variation within genotypes. The "general" theory, change across types on the other hand (macroevolution), requires upward rather than lateral movement.

For macroevolution the problem is how fully developed viable life-forms might arise completely by accident. Denton cites Monod who said, "Chance `alone' is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind."[3] Chance supposedly gave rise to the first organism--perhaps a bacterium, alga, or protozoan. Later, the theory says, chance resulted in complex invertebrates and plants, followed by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, birds, and, finally, mammals.

According to Denton, proof of such a sequence requires at least one of two kinds of evidence: either an unbroken chain of transitional fossils or surviving intermediates; or, plausible reconstructions of such series together with their respective ecological niches. The trick is to show how each link could be viable long enough for the next to get going. Only by establishing complete transitional series can the hypothesized connectedness in the hierarchy of genotypes be made plausible--empirical proof, of course, is a much taller order. Here the issue is mere plausibility. If such transitions ever happened, intermediate forms should be found in the fossils and in living organisms. Existing classes should overlap. Clear boundaries ought to be exceptional rather than normative.

More detailed info here