Evolution Is A Religion
By David Ben Yakov
Sometimes I like to ponder things in my mind. I will look at an idea or someone, examine their good points as well as their bad points. By looking at the actions of a person, or someone who believes in an idea you can pretty well figure out what is right and wrong or what a person's intentions were. While this works most of the time, there are still some times when I am wrong and I feel that I am man enough to admit it.
I have been looking at and reading about evolution for quite some time. In high school I took an anthropology class and was very interested in the supposed ancestors of humankind. I knew all of the names; such as Australopithecus africanus and such and really embellished what I thought was intelligence.
As I approached the end of my teenage years I found out that Jesus Christ is really the answer, which changed my thoughts about evolution. My thoughts about evolution didn't change overnight. Many a night I would wonder how evolution played into God's creation, but I really never could make the two adhere to each other. After a couple of years of basking in the love of God I came to the conclusion that evolution was dead wrong.
There are Christians I learned, who still believed in evolution. These people, called theistic evolutionists, try to unite the theory of Evolution with God's creation, and many of them think that they are successful. Such people, I think, really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of The Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days. They look at passages in the Bible that might have dual meanings, or words that have that same way, and they twist them to meld their love for evolution into Biblical Christianity. It's too bad that they just can't believe the Bible literally.
There is a strange thing in this whole evolution versus Christianity thing though. I have not heard of any evolutionary scientist who is trying to bring the Bible into an evolutionary light. Scientists are either hot or cold where the Bible is concerned. When a scientist learns and accepts the truth of Creation, they change totally and become strong Bible believing Christians.
The important thing here is to define what science is. According to the dictionary, the definition of science is:
Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.
Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
From the definitions above, we know without a shadow of a doubt that something can only become a scientific fact if it passes all of the rigors of scientific method. When a theory is established as fact, it becomes a law of science. Laws do not have to be proven anymore, they are established and concrete.
Take for instance the Law of Gravity. It is readily observed, you can experiment to your hearts delight and it still stays the same, because it is a law. On the other hand, theories are mere conjecture, as is stated in the definition below. They should not be presented as fact and certainly not taught as fact. But we must remember that to become a theory, there has to be a reason to believe that the speculation could be true.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought : SPECULATION : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light> : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.
Take for example seeing a house out in the country from very far off. When you first see it, you might make a few assumptions. You think, well, since this is out west, it is probably a stucco or adobe house with an old tile roof. Your theory is that you saw in a great distance an white adobe house with a tile roof. That is what you will tell your friends about your journey. You believe you are right but it is only through conjecture or speculation (theory).
Had you taken the time to hike to the house, as you would have gotten closer you would have had to change your opinion, because you notice now that you can see slats going across the house, denoting that the house has a wooden exterior with a dark tile roof. So you continue to walk onward toward the house and you notice that the roof is not tile at all, but is made up of shingles. Just by observing the house over a period of time, you have had to realize that the first conjecture was wrong. The fact (or law) is that the house is a wooden exterior with a shingled roof. If so required, you could even perform more tests on the house. For instance, it is possible that the siding is plastic siding, which is made to look like wood siding. A simple knock on the material would confirm or deny your suspicions. You could even take a core sample to examine if it is wood or particle board. You will notice that this was only done with direct observation. The only way you knew for sure was by time and tests.
For the next step, we jump 2000 years into the future. The observer is walking where that old house once stood. The elements have destroyed almost all vestiges of the old structure. The only thing that remains is a foundation. He looks real carefully because he wants to know how the old house was built. He wants to know what it looked like. He speculates that old houses in this part of the country were built of stucco or adobe, and that that they had tile roofs. If he is lucky, he might have found some old rusty nails or perhaps some copper pipe, but that is all he can find. Both of those materials were used in many types of homes. So, without knowing much, he makes his assumption, and writes his theory. He knows that he can't be wrong about his theory because he has been taught that all houses had that type of foundation 2000 years ago and because of where it was, it had to be adobe or stucco with a dark tile roof. He is dead wrong, but because of the status quo of current thought, he is right on the mark. If he were proved wrong, he would cover it up and continue the lie. Some institutions do not like to be challenged that they might be wrong.
Now let us look at evolution. First of all, what they say is evidence is really only taken from dead things. The foundation of evolution is what is called the Geologic Time Table. You see, without time, evolution is dead. The interesting thing about the geologic time table is that it was formulated back in the nineteenth century, close to 100 years before radio-metric or isotope dating ever came on the scene. With this time table, it was assumed that the deeper you go, the older the fossil or layer of rock should be dated. So someone got the bright idea and said, "this clam shell is on the bottom layer. It must be the oldest, so I say it is 750 million years old." So the assumption that all layers of that particular shell had to be around 750 million years old was formulated. Today in evolution something called "circular reasoning" is used to explain dates. If you were to find a fossil and send it to a archeologist and ask them how old it was, he would look at index fossils and tell you the age of the fossil, judging by the index fossil. How did he know the age of the fossil? He knew by what layer it was found in. If you took him a mineral sample from the same layer, he would ask you what sort of fossils are in the same layer and would make his assumption on that basis. Thus you have circular reasoning. It is faulty whether you are talking about 2000 year old house foundations or fossils, or anything else for that matter.
Scientists might argue that they have reliable dating methods that they use to date fossils and rock layers. The first method that they argue for is called Carbon-14, a radioactive carbon that is found in all living things. What science will not tell you is that it is not very reliable. Carbon 14 tests done on living animals have shown them in some instances to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. Where is the reliability here? Some try to say that they have used Carbon 14 to date fossils back hundreds of thousands of years. Carbon 14 has a relatively short half life and dates past ten thousand years are impossible and absurd.
Scientists claim with great pride the second test, called potassium argon dating. It too has shown to be unreliable. To prove my point, tests recently done on a fresh lava flow has shown it to be hundreds of millions of years old. The lies and falsehoods go on and on....
Let me ask you something. Let us suppose that you were not feeling well and you went to the doctor. Let us say that you have pain in the right upper quadrant of your abdomen. To add to this, you have yellowing of the skin and the white part of your eyes is a shade of yellow too. The doctor takes a blood sample from you and sends it to the laboratory. The laboratory performs the tests of your blood, but the tests are faulty. The laboratory sends back the result of the test telling the doctor that you are low in iron. The doctor (albeit a very stupid physician) prescribes you iron pills and sends you home. The weeks go by and you get progressively worse. You have faith though that the doctor and lab knew what they were doing, so you do not question them. A year goes by and you find out that you are dying because you have had hepatitis the whole time and the laboratory and doctor didn't tell the truth. This all happened because of faulty tests and a doctor that you thought you could blindly trust.
I think we all agree that the little story above is pretty horrible. I also think we all know doctors who would fit into that category. But I pose another question to you. Why do people blindly believe that science is right about evolution? It is because modern society has mistakenly put supposed highly educated people in a god-like class. We assume that because they have a diploma from an institution of higher learning hanging on their wall, they are correct about almost everything. What most people do not realize is that although much intelligence is taught in those institutions, very little morality or common sense is taught to the students. You can master all of the knowledge of the universe, but if it is not coupled together with morality and common sense then it is useless.
Evolution Is The Religion:
There are some of you who are probably thinking that I have gone crazy
for making the statement that evolution is actually a religion. Before
you judge any further, let us look at what a religion is and what one
has to do to participate in a religion. Below is a definition of
religion found on the Internet at the Webster's site:
I suppose we should look at ways in which those who believe in evolution
are faithful in their religious beliefs.
1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.
2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
I like to read articles in the newspapers that promote evolution theory.
It is the only reason that I take the paper at all. If you examine
the articles you will notice that the scientists are not very sure of
themselves. There are in many instances phrases like: "scientist's
hope," "scientist's suppose," and "scientist's
surmise," all phrases that should be big red flags for the reader.
The articles are filled with other words, such as: "could,"
"if," "may," and "might." Think about what
is being said. There is not a great deal of confidence in those words.
I think that a person who believes in such a doubtful religion is really grasping for straws. I know that as a practicing, Bible believing Christian, I have a great deal of faith. For instance, I know that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived here on Earth, died for my sin, and was resurrected. I also know, like I know the map of my own hand, that He will return again. Now, my hope is that it will be during my life time, but I know it will happen. But where evolution is built on suppositions without any evidence at all, I have a book, called the Bible, which has been proven to be ancient. That book has prophecies, many of which have been proven by their fulfillment with many more to be fulfilled in the future, and that, might I add, is more scientific than evolution.
Why Do Evolutionists Believe
So Ardently?
That is one of the simpler questions to answer in the whole big mess.
The basis for their disbelief is blatant disregard for the Living God
and a rebellious attitude that has hardened their hearts. Actually,
their actions are a sign of the times, and a sign of things to come.
Below you can read about what was prophesied in the Bible about these
times, and these people:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
It is not hard to see how big a fable that evolution is. Men do not want to be accountable to God, so they listen to the things that they want to hear. In the end this will only lead to destruction. Incidentally, the definition for the word "fable," is: "a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings." That is what evolution is, fiction!
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3: 1-7
The scripture above says just about all about the heart of the evolutionist. If a man loves himself, he cannot love God. It is even hard for such a person to love other human beings. The words that follow in that scripture give an illustration of the attributes of those who value themselves above others. And isn't that what the theory or evolution is all about, survival of one's self, survival of the fittest. Nothing else matters but self and the perpetuation of one's self. Finally, the end sentence illustrates what I said about some people who are educated at institutions of higher learning. A person can attain all the information that there is to learn but still not know the truth.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 2 Peter 3: 3-6
The above scripture reads as a prophecy of evolutionary theory. It is quite evident that evolution mocks Christianity. They are scoffers who say that they have a better way. They say that creation is not possible. Because they deny creation, they deny God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and cannot possibly believe in his return.
Where the scripture says, "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation," talks about the belief that many evolutionist's hold which is called "uniformitarianism." That belief suggests that all of the processes of nature have been uniform since the formation of the Earth. This denies the creation and the Genesis flood.
The scripture goes on to say, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished," which has some very interesting implications. First, it says that the evolutionist is willingly ignorant, meaning that they know the truth, but willfully refuse to believe it. Next the article says that God created the Earth and universe with the appearance of being old. The evolutionist teaches that the Earth was formed billions of years ago, denying the Word of God. The evolutionist teaches that the Earth was formed as a molten globe and that water later formed as a result of steam from volcano's and such. The Bible teaches that God had water on the Earth first and then formed the land. And finally, the evolutionist denies a worldwide flood and that God preserved mankind and animals through escape in the ark. This is where the evolutionist is very much willfully ignorant because of all of the evidences of Noah's flood all over the fact of the globe.
What is Religion?
I got to the Websters Online Dictionary and looked up the word, "religion," for this little study. The definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
So we see that a definition of a religion, as defined above in choice number two and especially in choice number four, does not necessarily have to do with a belief in God, but can be defined as principle or cause held to with ardor and faith. Now let us look now at what defines faith:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Below I have put the definition of faith from the Websters electronic dictionary, for those of you who may not accept a Biblical interpretation:
Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.
The first part of the definition of a religion has to do with faith. It is a belief in something, a faith in an unseen but controlling being or force. Where do evolutionists fall into this category? Evolution is permeated with faith. First, the belief in the Big Bang. Evolutionists believe that the whole universe started from just a small area of matter that exploded in some way to cause the universe. They however don't have an answer as to what caused the initial spark for the bang. They don't know where it started from or anything else about if for that matter. Yet, they believe in the bang and the force (whatever it was) that started the whole ball of wax in progress. Isn't it faith to believe in something that you never saw, in whatever started it. Yet, when a Christian professes a loving God that created the whole deal, they are called narrow-minded and arrogant.
Secondly, evolutionists believe that life started from a single cell. For a long time science thought that a cell was a simple thing, sort of trivial. Recent studies in biology have shed light on a whole new world. A cell is like a little factory, taking in food, producing energy and sustaining itself if need be. The DNA in each cell could fill many volumes with your personal information, yet it is all kept in one little package, the cell. It is virtually impossible to even think that such complexity could be manufactured by some amino-acids getting together billions of years ago. Again, there is a lot of faith involved here.
Lets look at a third aspect of evolution faith. Any biologist should be able to tell you that 99 percent of mutations that occur are detrimental or fatal to any organism. Yet, the faith of evolutionists would have you believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of mutations have occurred to produce all of the varied species that live now or have lived in the past on the Earth. Since the miraculous only is believed by those with faith, then we have to assume that evolutionists live by faith in miraculous mutations.
A fourth aspect of faith could be summed up by what Charles Darwin said about evolution. He said that if evolution is true, then we should stumble over transitional fossil forms when we step out of our houses. In essence, what he was saying is that there should be a lot of fossils of animals that were transitional forms. For instance, there should be many fossils of animals that are between reptiles and birds, or between reptiles and mammals, in the evolutionary scale. To this day, not one viable transition fossil has been found. So, since nothing of this sort has been found, to believe them (or that they will be found) is faith. There are other examples of the faith of evolutionists, but time and bandwidth cause me to move on.
Emotions and Morality:
Emotions:
While some debaters on the evolution side do conduct themselves in a dignified manner, the majority do not. When you challenge a evolutionist by debating him or her about their beliefs and theories, you are attacking their foundational theology. Similar responses can be seen with any religions debate.
Recently, I saw a debate on the Larry King Show, where there was a quite a debate. The debate centered on whether it was wrong for Christians to tell Jews about Jesus. You could tell that the air at the station was filled with fuel and it took all the expertise of Larry King to keep an explosion from happening. There was a militant Rabbi there who came out of the gates in anti-Christian rhetoric. For an hour he more or less made an ass of himself and constantly threw contentious remarks at everyone.
Now, why was the Rabbi acting in such a matter. I believe that he thought that attacking from the start would give him the edge. He felt intimidated and wanted to establish that he was right before anyone else could talk. The same thing happens in many Creationism versus evolution debates. Now, I am not saying that all creationists are above this form of attack, but many are because they have a solid foundation to stand on.
Laurence Tisdall, founder and president of the Christian Science Association of Quebec, tells a interesting story of a debate that he had with one female evolutionist. Mr. Tisdall tells of a teacher at one university who was a very calm person. She was known in her school as having a very even personality and it seemed that she didn't get mad about anything. Mr. Tisdall says that he presented the creationist side of the debate. He turned to look at the teacher, who was now red in the face. She yelled at Laurence and stomped out of the room. Why was such an even tempered person provoked to such anger? It is because Mr. Tisdall challenged the very foundation of the woman's beliefs. He stomped on her religious toes. You can visit Laurence Tisdall's site by following the link below: http://www.creation.ca/creationnisme/index_e.htm
Morality:
So, we know from the definition of a religion, that morality has a lot to do with being religious. The definition of a moral person is thus:
Moral: of or relating to character or conduct considered as good or evil: ethical: conformed to or directed toward right, virtuous: esp, vortuous in matters of sex: capable of knowing right and wrong: subject to moral law: supported by evidence of reason or probability.
So, in essence, a moral person, should, through a moral code of laws, be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and they should also be directed toward right, rather than wrong.
It seems that evolution is lacking in this aspect of a religion. There have been finds that have been falsified, such as Nebraska man and Piltdown man that been proved as fakes. The moral person would have been quite embarrassed by such forgeries, humbled themselves and done a self examination. Yet, evolutionists just sweep such frauds under the rug and move on.
Then there are the dating methods that are constantly thrown at an unsuspecting and unknowing public. Evolutionists know that most methods are unreliable, giving different readings all of the time. They take the time reading that most closely fits their model and accept it no matter how many other "dates" are contrary to their find.
So, how can such people be so immoral, yet still be classified as being in a religion. The answer is very simple. You see, there are many religions in the world today. Most of the larger religions, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam live under strict guidelines, basically the Ten Commandments. We know right from wrong and have a conscience. Even the Eastern Religions, including but not limited to Hinduism and Buddhism live by moral codes. While they differ greatly with the Western Religions, they still ponder cause and effect before (hopefully before) they act. And even if they don't consider cause and effect before they act, they are aware of the effect of their actions, and perform some sort of act, asking their deity for forgiveness.
There are however other religions who act with different intent than the main religions of the Earth. Take for instance the headhunters of Borneo. They thought nothing of cutting off the head of enemies or visitors. There was no ill effect to their moral codes for doing such things that made men of other religions recoil in terror. So you see, a religion doesn't have to conform to the basic religious model.
To the evolutionist, there really is no moral code to speak of. To them, if you make a mistake, just go out and find another skull that looks a little less apelike. If you make a mistake in dating a find, just use another dating method until you find the one that shows you correct. If you find rock layers that don't jive with your thinking, just think up some sort of geological event that changed the rock layers. To quote an infamous American leader, "it's all according to what your definition of the word 'is,' is"
Rites and worship:
I believe that before we go to this next subject of rites and worship; we should first define such terms:
Rite: n. a ceremonial form or observance, especially religious: a liturgy.
Worship: n. adoration paid, as to a god: religious service: profound admiration and affection: the act of revering or adoring.
The best analogy to the evolutionist's rites and worship of their finds and religion can be compared to the various apparitions of the virgin Mary that I have heard of throughout my life. First, there is the fame that is given to the person who first sees the image of the virgin. Next, there always a picture either on television or in the newspaper of the supposed image, even though it never looks remotely like the virgin Mary. Next, there are the faithful who flock to see the image and finally the image disappears, or is refuted as being imaginary or just a coincidence. After it is all over, the faithful people still believe that they saw an image of the virgin Mary even though they never really had any tangible evidence that it was there.
In the evolutionist example, the discoverer is praised for the discovery. If that person is famous, like Louis Leakey, it is all the better. Sort of like a priest finding the virgin Mary, there is no question that it is real. Next, the few pieces of skull, and perhaps a tooth are miraculously fashioned into a full skull that looks something like a cross between ape and human. It is photographed by the press, or the all faithful National Geographic Society and the image is shown to million of faithful worldwide. Those even more faithful, Leakey's fellow archeologists see the find and worship it with full adoration because although it was just a tooth and a few pieces of skull, it proves in their eyes that their religion is valid. Finally, the truth comes out and we hear from unbelievers, that the tooth was really found half a mile from the skull fragments, and that those fragments are really inconclusive, and could have originated from a true ape or a true man. The faithful still believe that the skull is from the missing link, knowing that the tooth was moved to it's place half a mile away by some geologic force and that that the skull just has to be what they were looking for. All without tangible evidence.
Now we have to look at what happens when certain relics are found, and the care that they are given. In many religions certain relics are kept to prove to the faithful that their faith is not in vain.
Take for instance the Shroud of Turin. There are many of the faithful who believe that the shroud actually covered the body of Jesus Christ when he was placed in the tomb. While science has neither proved or disproved this to be a fact, the shroud is held as sacred to many Catholics. It is placed in a church in Turin and is taken out from time to time to exhibit to the faithful.
Evolutionists do the same thing for the faithful in their religion. The pieces of skull that I mentioned are meticulously fashioned into the image that the discoverer wants. Even though no one ever saw the creature that the bones belonged too, a mental image is made into reality using clay and implements. The finished product is displayed in a museum or in magazines for the faithful, to bolster their faith.
So you see, both modes of belief took a great deal of faith. Both modes could not be substantiated by scientific method but both religions had faith that what they believe is true. You make the call.
Devoted fidelity:
Another word for fidelity is faithfulness. When a spouse has cheated on another spouse, it is called infidelity, or unfaithfulness. So, to have devoted fidelity to one's religion is to have unswerving faith in your God. The argument could be made that evolutionists have no god, but in all reality their god is mankind, whom they have elevated to the highest form of evolution, therefore god over evolution.
To persons of many religious faiths, fidelity comes in some basic forms. First and foremost is the adherence to a set of moral codes, set upon them by their deity. Secondly, there is an unswerving faith that their faith is the one and only true faith. Thirdly, but not necessarily last in the order, is the devoted commitment to the deity itself.
So how does the evolutionist fit into this mold? The moral code that evolutionists believe in is that whatever they have written is the gospel. Evolution is true and all other modes of belief are moot, even to the point of publicly denouncing other forms of faith in the press or in great debates. Since man is their deity, and the highest form of evolution, then the smartest men (in their eyes, scientists) are the writers of their moral codes. Those codes are gospel. And since man is the deity to evolutionists, then they are dedicated to committing themselves to man, and only man. That is one of the reasons why they become so impassioned about their cause in debates. When they are defeated in debates, they are dethroned from their divinity title. So, we see that in this aspect, evolution is a religion. They just have different gods.
Monastic lifestyle:
Many religions around the world incorporate those who live in a monastic lifestyle. Catholicism, Hinduism and many of the eastern religions have those who remove themselves from worldly concerns in order to find a path closer their god. Many of these sects are so far removed that they rarely see normal people in the outside world.
So, how are evolutionists like this. The higher ups in evolution have basically removed themselves from normal society. They rarely leave the college campus and really refuse to fellowship with those who are less enlightened then themselves. Those who are out in the field usually stay in the field, only to come into public light when they want to show something that they have discovered, after which they sneak back to their form of monastery.
Implications:
I think that I have proved that evolution is a religion. Lets face it; there are more similarities than differences where modes of belief are concerned. As a religion, there are some social implication that have not been addressed.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.
Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.
End.