Quotes: Evolution is a Religion

evolution religion.jpg

1.   Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.

REF: Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47.

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6 Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.



2.   Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

REF: Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

3.   Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

REF: Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.


4.   We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

REF: Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

5.   And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.

REF: Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

6.   As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.

REF: Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.

7.   "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

REF: Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and 'Row, 1964) p222

8.   "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)


9.   "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..."

(Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")


10.   Regarding the fact that there are no transitional fossils (halfway between snakes and frogs, cats and dogs, dogs and horses, horses and giraffes, dinosaurs and birds, apes and humans, etc.) in the geologic record, Charles Darwin, the ‘father’ of evolutionary theory, wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory." "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."

(H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin", vol. 31, p. 138.)


11.   "There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory -- that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress. Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had 'a damaging effect on scientific research', leading to 'distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science'."

(Dr. John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales), as quoted in "How evolution became a scientific myth", "New Scientist", 11 September 1980, p. 765.)


12.   Notice how way back in the 50’s you can see even in the Scientific American that people were seeing the religion of evolution take shape. Now though the solidification and radicalization of this religion is near if not complete. Now it would be impossible to see something like this in Scientific American. Believe me I read SA all the time. Their unrestrained hatred and disdain for those that don’t agree is on display pretty much every month. I will be doing my best to show you this. That will be able to be found in [[[[[[[Killing the Designer]]]]]]]

H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.


13.   The problem is so great that now we have to look for alien seeding or multi-verse possibilities. That is where our number one atheist scientist is at now Richard Dawkins. He must go to the Sci-Fi realm because anything else would be “Designer” and well “Designer” is off the table no matter what so anything is fine as long as it still gives us hope. Consider this:





Does this sound like a man trying to find the truth or a man trying to find a lifeline to keep his belief? These were exactly the types of things that made me abandon atheism. I knew there was something completely off.


14.  "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."

J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life," Cell Biology International, 28: 729-739 (2004).


No doubt we may never get to an understanding if our methodology is corrupt from the outset.


15.   Biologist David Sloan Wilson initiated a program in evolutionary studies called EvoS at Binghamton University that extends beyond just the life sciences to encompass the humanities and the social sciences: the program is now being adopted at other schools. Students learn the basics, that evolution is both theory and fact and, crucially, that it serves as a way of looking at the world that provides deep predictive and explanatory power. They then proceed to use this analytical framework to explore subjects as diverse as cancer, pregnancy, mate choice, literature and religion.



Check this out!!!