The Religion of Evolution

It’s too bad that Fred Reed is an atheist, because he’s so good at deflating the bogus claims of Darwinists to scientific respectability:

[A]n entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple.

(1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no.

(2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no.

(3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no.

(4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.

I once posed these questions in a column on and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully.

Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none–not one–answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.

This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.

While I’m open to the possibility that our origins are more complicated that most Creationists would feel comfortable admitting (we may not even be the first group of bipeds to rule the planet), I just don’t have enough faith to believe that dead matter suddenly made itself live.

If that isn’t a metaphysical claim, I don’t know what is.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.