Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, Religion » And they say Darwinism isn’t a religion …

And they say Darwinism isn’t a religion …

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

From “Ernst Mayr, Pioneer in Tracing Geography’s Role in the Origin of Species, Dies at 100” (New York Times, February 5, 2005), an obituary profile by Carol Kaesuk Yoon:

“He was the Darwin of the 20th century, the defender of the faith,” said Dr. Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, a historian of science at the University of Florida.

Also from the same profile:

Though Darwin titled his book “The Origin of Species,” little in the book, in fact, addresses the question of how new species arise. Dr. Mayr determined that when populations of a single species are separated from one another, they slowly accumulate differences until they can no longer interbreed.

Never mind that it’s far from clear that that’s how new species generally arise. Note how the Times writer throws in the fact that Darwin, who is practically worshipped now for explaining how new species arise, didn’t really do that.

He actually never needed to do that. he just needed to supply these people with a religion they could use for their own purposes. And what are those purposes?

David Berlinski explains:

One of the reasons that people embrace Darwinian orthodoxy with such an unholy zealousness, is just that it gives them access to power. It’s as simple as that: power over education, power over political decisions, power over funding, and power over the media.

From anything we have seen, that is true. Only a few pious fanatics  actually believe in the shell game. That would be like working for the Mob at the casino, and believing that the house is honest.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to And they say Darwinism isn’t a religion …

  1. I think it’s a bit unfair to characterize it as Darwin supplying people a new religious orthodoxy. Indeed, one of the common gripes about Darwin is the number of weasel words throughout his text. It’s a long string of coulda, woulda, shoulda.

    The irony in this is that it is no more than a long argument for stating that separate creation is not necessary and that non-separate creation should be allowed as a legitimate topic of discourse and study.

    Which is entirely correct to state. And it’s rather amusing to see that it is now going the other way about with ID stating that non-separate creation is not necessary and that separate creation should be allowed as a legitimate topic of discourse and study.

    Or, if you want to be smug, that Behe has inherited Darwin’s will.

  2. I never understand why say Darwin didn’t explain the origin of species in his bok.
    That was his point.
    I’m YEC but understand his point.
    He simply said nature copys human pigeon species creation by breeding.
    Then it sticks afdter enough time.
    In doesn’t however in breeding as it seems another ingredient is needed.
    HMMM.

Leave a Reply