Is Evolution Satanic?

One of the basic arguments made by creationists is that evolution is a Satanic viewpoint, created by the Devil to deceive people into abandoning Jesus. Organized science, therefore, is nothing more than an atheistic, anti-Christian cult who -- through evil intent or naïve ignorance -- are dedicated to doing the work of Satan by spreading “evolutionism” and destroying decent Christian values.


The creationists are actually quite open about this belief, and will freely assert that evolutionary theory -- even so-called “theistic evolution” in which God is the planner and driving force behind the evolution of the various species -- is the work of Satan.


To quote the Reverend Doctor Henry Morris, “Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of ‘that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’.”


These same people assert that the reason why the modern scientific community spreads the teaching of evolution is not because it has literal mountains of evidence behind it, or because its the best explanation of how species arrive, but rather because they -- the scientists that is -- are atheistic agents of Satan. John Morris, a “creation scientist” at the Institute for Creation Research -- a religious organization that doesn’t actually do much research to be honest -- flatly states that “most scientists reject God.” Creationist Jerry Bergman writes that, “The atheist belief structure is the norm for science. The fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best non-theists for whom God is irrelevant.” Henry Morris asserts, “Modern evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists have ruled out the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God as creator of the universe” and concludes that evolutionary theory can only be accepted “if one categorically dismisses the existence of an eternal God.” Creationists have referred to science fiction giant -- and great scientific mind -- Isaac Asimov as “the atheist Asimov”, and repeatedly assert that astronomer Carl Sagan was “blind to the abundant evidence of God.”


In the mind of a creationist, every area of modern society is permeated with this Satanic conspiracy. Every area. Take, for example, Henry Morris’s opinion regarding Hollywood:

“That old Dragon called Satan had invaded Paradise and God had cast him out into the earth, where he continues to this day leading men and women to rebel against God and His word. ‘Paradise’ is translated directly from the Greek, which in turn was taken from the Hebrew word ‘pardec’, meaning park. Thus, it is no coincidence that Hollywood’s leading atheist producer, Steven Spielberg, chose to fill his “Jurassic Park” with a bestiary of revived dinosaurs. Once again, the serpent is loose in Paradise.”

Apparently, the existence and success of “Jurassic Park” is proof positive that Steven Spielberg is just another part of the International Satanic Evolutionary Conspiracy. Last I heard, Steven Spielberg is a practicing Jew who actually believed in God in addition to believing in evolution. Funny how that works.


The creationist notion that they are the victims of some vast Satanic conspiracy simply cannot be taken seriously. These people attempt to paint their viewpoint as the only Christian viewpoint, implying both that their theological interpretations are representative of Christianity as a whole, and that their interpretations are the only rational view on the subject, while all other viewpoints are the work of Satan.


Neither of these assertions are true.


The fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis followed by the majority of creationists are, in fact, a tiny minority within Christianity as a whole. Every mainstream Christian denomination flatly dismiss the idea that evolution is the work of the Devil. This was amply demonstrated during the Arkansas “Balanced Treatment” trial. All but two of the plaintiffs were representatives of mainstream religious organizations and churches, including the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Bishops of the Unite Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, and African Methodist Episcopal churches, the head of the Arkansas Prebyterian Church, and individual clergy from the Southern Baptist church. One of the witnesses who testified against “creation science” was a Catholic priest who held a PhD in genetics as well as theology.


How do creationsts respond to the fact that nearly every mainstream religious organization in the United States rejects their theological viewpoint concerning evolution? By claiming that these religious organizations are themselves just another part of the Satanic conspiracy.


Can you think of anything more ridiculous than the idea that the various scientists -- in league with non-fundamentalist religious denominations and film director Steven Spielberg -- are engaged in a vast conspiracy to silence “the truth” that the Devil is actually behind evolution?


The very idea is the product of paranoid insanity. I’m serious. If this is what you really think, you are utterly insane.

It's Simple: Intelligent Design Is Not A Scientific Idea. Period.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific idea.  Its just not.  And if you think otherwise, then you need to actually learn what "science" is, because right now you're demonstrating that you know less than nothing about it.


Part of the problem is that the terminology used in "design theory" aren't actually defined.  The way that the ID movement uses the word "design", for example, has nothing to do with the definition of "design" as it is normally understood.  "Design" is defined in terms of some intelligent agent actively and purposefully arranging something.  The IDers, on the other hand, define "design" by pointing out what "design" isn't (known regularity and chance), therefore making their definition of "intelligent design" the product of an argument from incredulity.


In engineering, a solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or else the "solution" is no solution at all.  Any theory about design must, therefore, address the agent and the purpose, or else its not really about design.  No proponent of Intelligent Design has ever included the agent or the purpose in any attempt at a "scientific" theory of design, and some absolutely come right out and say that these two factors cannot and  should not be included.  Thus, even if the ID crowd were to somehow prove that the universe was purposefully put together, this proof would be practically meaningless.  And it would certainly say nothing about the design in the usual sense of the word.


The idea of "irreducible complexity" also isn't scientific because it, too, is an example of an Argument from Incredulity fallacy.  "I think this is too complex to come about naturally, therefore it must have been created."  Anyone paying attention should recognize how utterly subjective this is.  Whenever one person can think something "too complex to be natural", but another person can say, "No, its still not complex enough... its still natural", the idea behind it isn't science.  Science is either true, or its not.  There's no "might be true" in science.


Lastly, at its core, intelligent design just makes no damned sense at all.  Take spider webs, for example.  Intelligent design says that, because spider webs are complex acts of engineering, the spiders that make them must be intelligent.


And by "intelligent", they mean the spiders must be as smart as people.


Or, it might be that the spiders aren't the intelligent ones, but rather its the spider's designer who instilled into the spider the ability to create heavily complex webs.  The problem being that it could just as easily be argued that the spider's designer isn't intelligent... its just that the spider designer was himself instilled with the ability to create complexity, and was designed that way.


So the question would then become "who designed the designer?"  Or was the designer's designer merely designed?


Such infinitely regressive nonsense gets us nowhere.


But anyway, last and certainly not least, its been admitted by several of its proponents that the entire "Intelligent Design" thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sneaking religion into our science classrooms in a way intended to avoid the First Amendment non-establishment clause.

Five Lies That Creationists Think Are True For Some Reason

One of the most frustrating things about arguing with a Creationist over evolution is that they quite commonly use arguments that have not only been refuted already, but have been conclusively refuted over and over and over.  These lies are ideas that no educated, intelligent person believes anymore.  These ideas are not only wrong, they're stupidly wrong.  But despite this, Creationists seem to believe them.  Not only that, they refuse to accept the fact that they are wrong even after having it shown to them how wrong they are.

These are hardly the only lies in the Creationist arsenal, but I do believe they are the most common ones used.  Others include misunderstanding how radiometric dating techniques are used, trying to apply moral value to science, lies about the origins of Evolution and Charles Darwin, and so on.  I don't have room to list them all, so I only handled the top five.

Lie #1:  Evolution has never been observed, therefore evolution is false.

Way wrong.

Evolution is a change in the genes of an entire species over time.  The rise of bacteria who are resistant to anti-biotics is a perfect example of evolution that's observed all the time.  In addition, the origin of several new species has been directly observed in laboratory conditions, including one case where scientists filmed a species of yeast mold move from being single-celled organisms to being a mutli-cellular organism.

But even without these cases of direct observation, its ludicrous to say that just because its never been seen (and it has, remember).  Evidence isn't limited to eye witness accounts.  You don't have to see things with your own eyes to know they're true.  Evolutionary Science makes predictions about what you ought to expect to see when examining the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, geographical distribution of animal and plant species, and so on.  In the overwhelming percentage of cases, these predictions have been accurate.  The number of observations that support Evolutionary Theory are countless.  Evolution is literally the most well-supported concept in science.

A variation on this lie is "No lizard has ever given birth to a bird" or something similar  This is absolutely true.  But this is also not what evolution says should happen.  In fact, a lizard giving birth to a bird would be evidence against Evolutionary Theory.

Lie #2:  Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Wrong again.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics reads as follows:  "The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."  What this means, when put in simpler language, is that heat (energy) will never transfer from a cooler object to one that is hotter.  To put it simply, it means that in a closed system, the amount of available useable energy does not increase.  And that's basically all it means.

You might be wondering what that has to do with Evolution.  Well, the problem is that Creationists insist on defining the word "entropy" to mean "disorder", and thus they interpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics to mean that order cannot arise naturally from disorder.  This is a blatant falsehood.  Its an attractive idea, especially to those whose scientific education is, to put it bluntly, lacking, there is no evidence that shows that order cannot arise from disorder naturally.

Ever open a brand new, shrink-wrapped box of paper clips and found several of them linked together?  That wasn't the result of someone at the paper clip factory playing around.  Most paper clip factories, like nearly all factories today, are automated.  The paper clips link themselves due to the jostling chaotic mixing going on as they are dumped in the box.  Order from disorder, naturally and randomly.   A similar phenomenon is sometimes seen when nuts and bolts are kept in the same container:  the nut will spontaneously thread itself onto a bolt just through the jostling the pile of nuts and bolts receives while the container is moved.  Order from disorder, naturally and randomly.  Dust bunnies.  Fibers from blankets, lint from clothing, pet hair, human hair, and other materials fall to the bedroom floor, and circulating air moves them around so that they congregate in places where the air is calmest.  In the process they combine and cling together into little fuzzy clumps.  Once formed, they persist, until swallowed up by a vacuum cleaner.  Order from disorder, naturally.

In addition, when Creationists make this argument, they're ignoring the fact that the earth is not an isolated system.  Maybe you've noticed this big, bright glowing thing in the sky during the day called the sun.  The sun drops terrawatts of energy onto the earth every single second of every day, twenty four hours a day.  Thus, the useable energy of the earth is constantly increasing.  Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things in their lets them create order and since that information comes "from God", its not really a natural process.  This ignores the fact that life is irrelevant to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  I've already demonstrated this in my examples of paper clips, nuts and bolts, and dust bunnies.  In any system which has a lot of energy flowing through it, you'll find order arising somewhere.

Lie #3:  There are no transitional fossils.

Nope.  Sorry.  Wrong again.

The phrase "transitional fossil" is defined as a fossil that looks like its "in between" two other species (usually an ancestor species and a descendant species), carrying a mix of features from both.  

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false.  We have truckloads of them.  Oh sure, there are still gaps in the fossil record, but there always will be.  Erosion and the rarity of conditions that promote fossilization will always make it rare that an entire lineage of fossils can be presented.  But more fossils are discovered all the time, and the gaps in the fossil record are closing.  We have many cases where entire sequences of transitional fossils have been found.  Some of the notable examples where there aren't a lot of gaps are the transition from reptiles to mammal, from land animals to whales, and from early ape to humans.

For the most part, this misconception is perpetuated through a self-serving manipulation of definitions.  A Creationist will look at a transitional fossil that marks where dogs and their close cousins, the bears, separate and will say, "But that's still just a dog", despite the fact that the earliest common ancestor between bears and dogs had a mix of features that any zoologist worth his degree could point out.  Similarly, they will look at theArchaeopteryx fossil and declare it "100% bird" when it is clearly a mix between bird and reptile (in fact, it has more reptile features than bird).

The problem is, these categories are man-made and artificial and have little to do sometimes with actual groupings.  And animals are included in the wrong groups all the time.  For example, during the early days of taxonomy, hyenas were classified as a dog species.  Scientific examination in the late 1800s and early 1900s put them in their own category because they weren't quite matching up with the other dogs.  Modern genetic sequencing, on the other hand, has shown that hyenas are actually an evolutionary branch of the feline family.  That's right.  Hyenas are a type of cat and not dogs at all.  Who knew?

Lie #4:  According to evolution, life arose from, and is the product of, random chance.

Except evolution doesn't say that, and anyone who says this has no idea how evolution actually works.

First, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life.  The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began.  It has nothing to say about how life arose at all.  But let's consider the problem for a moment.  Some Creationists will argue about the probability of life arising by itself, but their argument ignores the fact that on the early earth, there were literal oceans of organic molecules to start with, and billions of years in which life could form.  And we're here, so it obviously did.  A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it can recognize the immense range of starting materials that the first life form might have formed from, the uncountably high number of different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been completely non-random to start with.

Second, while there is a certain role random chance plays in the evolutionary process, the truth is that evolution is far more driven by natural selection than random chance, and natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance.  Random chance, in the form of mutations, does provide for genetic variation.  But genetic variation is the raw material that natural selection uses to construct new species.  Natural selection sorts out which genetic variation will be passed on to the next generation and which variation won't using very specific standards.  Those variations that make it easier for a creature to thrive and reproduce meet the standards.  Those variations that make it harder don't meet the standards and are discarded.  When the environment changes, so do the standards, leading to entirely new species.

Lie #5:  Evolution hasn't been proven because its just a theory.

This lie is what I call the "idiot test."  Anyone who says this isn't just ignorant, they're stupid.

The irony here is that calling Evolution "just a theory" is technically the truth.  Its the reason they are saying it, and what they mean when they say "theory" that is wrong.  According to the Random House American College Dictionary, a scientific theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a group of phenomena."  That's a fancy way of saying "an idea that has a metric fuck-ton of evidence behind it, to the point that no one with an ounce of sense argues with it anymore."  A "theory", in science, is not a guess but a near certainty.  In science, a theory differs only from a scientific law in the fact that you can usually explain a scientific law in fewer words.  Being declared a theory means that an idea is self-consistent, agrees with observations, and is useful.

Science deals with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.  The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still hasn't been "proven" to 100% certainty.  What evolution has is what any good scientific theory has is evidence, and lots of it.  Evolution is one of the single-most supported scientific ideas in the history of the human race, if not the most supported.  Evidence for evolution comes by way of genetics, anatomy, ecology, biology, zoology, paleontology, and many other scientific fields.

Creationists and the Problem of Mutation

So... we've got this quote from Young Earth Creationist Chris Callesen:

"The thing that debunks evolution in simple terms is math.  Being that the number of possible code combinations to even form one molecule of DNA is the numeral 4, with a THOUSAND zeros behind it. Given that margin for error, and coupled with the fact that there are 1000 DESTRUCTIVE mutations in a row before a supposed "beneficial mutation" (oxymoron) the numbers defy this backward logic that every complex and beautiful creature developed slowly over millions of years until these random mutations "accidentally" got it right. Its absolutely profoundly stupid when you do the math."

Well... no.


Sorry, but your reasoning is faulty on many levels.  Your understanding of basic probability is faulty, but even worse is your understanding of how mutations work in combination with natural selection to drive evolution.  The fact that you think "beneficial mutation" is an oxymoron makes that clear enough.


So, a quick refresher on just that subject.


Your average species sees several dozen mutations appear in each generation.  The overwhelming majority of these mutations are perfectly neutral.  That is, they neither help the individual creature that possesses them, nor harms the creature.  They just are.  When and if that creature reproduces, there's a chance the mutation will be carried to the next generation, but since the mutation provides no benefit, its just as likely that it won't.


I'll give you a for instance:  I have webbed toes.


My webbed toes are from a mutation that causes the individual toes to not separate from one another.  Each of my toes is still there, they have individual bones and muscle and toenails, but the toes themselves are not separated past the first "knuckle" of each individual toe.  It gives my feet the appearance of being short and stubby.  My mother's toes are the same way, as were her mother's toes.  We're not sure how far back they go, to be honest, but I do know that none of my children have webbed toes, so its possible that the mutation stopped at me.  However, its just as possible that my grandchildren or great-grandchildren could get them.


The point being, they are a neutral mutation, and as such are just sort of there.


Interestingly enough, a neutral mutation has every chance of becoming a beneficial or harmful mutation, depending on changes the creature's circumstances and environment undergo.  For example, if I was suddenly left to fend for myself in an environment that required I have normal toes (just go with it), I'd be in trouble, and so would any of my descendants that inherited my mutation.


After neutral mutations, the most common form of mutation are, in fact, the harmful ones.  These are the ones that are bad for you.  A harmful mutation will do all kinds of nasty stuff, like cause a baby to be born with acephaly (a lack of most of its brain) or non-functional organs, or be unable to process a certain needed enzyme, and so on.  Most harmful mutations either prevent or make it very, very difficult for the creature to reproduce, and they do this usually by simply killing the creature that possesses them.


Now, I can hear the Creationists out there screaming "AHA!  SO YOU ADMIT MUTATION CAN'T CAUSE EVOLUTION AND THAT EVOLUTION IS A LIE!"


Shut up, sit down, and listen.  That's not what I said.


What I said was harmful mutations kill the creature that posseses them, usually before they can reproduce.  What that means is that the harmful mutations are almost always weeded out of the population almost as fast as they are introduced.  They are very rarely passed on to the next generation of creature because of this.


Which leaves us beneficial mutations.


A beneficial mutation is any mutation that gives an individual creature a leg up when it comes to survival and reproduction.  And because they grant advantages to the creatures that possess them, they invariably get passes on to the next generation of creature.  Since the mutations that are being passed on are advantageous, they accumulate and spread throughout the population of the species.


And when enough changes accumulate, you end up with a new species.


So, Mr. Callesen, that's how mutations work with natural selection.  Next time, I'd advise you to keep your trap shut about things you don't understand, lest you look even more like an idiot than you already do.

Ten Questions For Believers in Divine Creation and Intelligent Design That Never Seem To Get Answered

Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other religion's version of Divine Creation?

Follow-up questions:

• If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
• If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
• If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
• Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

Why do so many Christians accept Evolution as truth?


Is there any scientific observation which supports any feature of your theory?  (Note:  an adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be wrong.  Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than the Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough.  Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

Follow-up question:

• Is there any scientific observation which was predicted by your theory?

Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)

Follow-up question:

• Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give thesame answers.)

Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test?  (This is often stated as "Is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified?", after Karl Popper's criterion.  Another way of phrasing it is, "Is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?"

Follow-up questions:

• Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
• Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world?   What this question is asking is how is it possible that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia?  Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only?  This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.

Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? What this question is asking is how many of each kind of clean animal truly went on the Ark?  Please present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted.  If you change the text of Genesis in the course of constructing your answer, give a reason for the change other than the need to make the text of Genesis fit your specific beliefs.

Follow-up questions:

• Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)
• What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
• Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.  
• Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.  
• Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.
• Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle.
• Explain the meaning of the word "kind".
• Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
• Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (8) and to the distribution referred to in question (7).  
• Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? 

Follow-up question:

• Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Why Evolution Is Not A Religion

On the subject of Evolution being a religion, let's just dispose of this nonsense once and for all. To me, this accusation is ridiculous. I can't ever decide if Creationists who make this accusation are trying to weaken Christianity by equating it with Evolution as “just another religion”, or are trying to strengthen Evolution by doing the same thing.

Here's the thing. Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that describes one small, if overwhelmingly important, part of the natural world. The fact that this one small part is overwhelmingly important, and thus is taken seriously by billions of people around the planet, does not make it a religion. The fact that it deals with a part of nature does not make it a religion. In fact, nothing makes it a religion, and people who think that Evolutionary Theory is a religion are idiots.

Let's just make a side by side comparison of the two, shall we?

Religions are designed to ultimately explain all of existence; not just the physical realm, but the spiritual as well. Evolution, on the other hand, specifically and solely deals with the proliferation of animal species. Evolutionary Theory doesn't even include the origins of life; merely, its about why there's so much diversity in life. And that's all.

Religions describe humanity's place in the universe. Evolution does not. Evolution explains solely our biological background in relation to other animal species.

Religions almost always include recognition of and reverence for some supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.

Religions have inherent social structures built around their beliefs. While there is a social structure amongst scientists, there is no social structure that pertains specifically to evolutionary biologists, and even if there was one, one would not be required to participate in it in order to be an evolutionary biologist.

Religions impose a moral and ethical doctrine on their followers. While evolution has, in the past, been misused in order to justify certain moral or ethical opinions in the past, those opinions are not a part of Evolutionary Theory, but rather are political and social opinions made by human beings that have nothing to do with the science of Evolution itself.

Religions have rituals and sacraments. Evolutionary Theory has no similar components.

Religious dogma is static and unchanging, and its adherents are often violently hostile to change, sometimes to the point of provoking bloody and destructive wars whose purpose is to somehow prove who is “right” and who is “wrong.” Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly, sometimes on a daily or even hourly basis, as new information is uncovered. This is in keeping with modern scientific methodology.

So, if Evolutionary Theory were, in fact, a religion, it would be a religion without adherents, doctrine, dogma, restrictions, ritual, or beliefs. The truth is, if asked their religion, the overwhelming response from people who are familiar with and who accept the truth of religion would label themselves as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on. None would identify their religion as “Evolution”, because the idea of doing so is simply too stupid to be comprehended.

It Evolutionary Theory is a religion, it is unique in the whole wide world as being the single and only religion ever rejected by 100% of its so-called “members.”

There is, of course, one definition of “religion” that does apply to Evolutionary Theory. That definition is “something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” However, insisting that Evolutionary Theory is a religion on this basis also makes stamp collecting, baseball, raising chihuahuas, watching soap operas, NASCAR, jazz dancing, Star Trek, Harlequin romances, playing video games, putting together jigsaw puzzles, and Republican politics all religions. Calling Evolutionary Theory a religion in this manner makes the word “religion” effectively meaningless.

Lastly, its important to note that Evolutionary Theory has been ruled to not be a religion at all by the US government in Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, Wright v. Houston Independent School District, and in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

So give it up already. Evolutionary Theory is not a religion, and you saying so over and over and over does not change this.