Stephen E. Jones

Projects: "Problems of Evolution" (Outline): 3. Religion (2)

[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents; 1. Introduction; 2. Philosophy (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5); 3. Religion (1); 4. History (1), (2) & (3); 5. Science; 6. Environment (1), (2) & (3); 7. Origin of life (1), (2) & (3); 8. Cell & Molecular (1), (2) & (3); 9. Mechanisms (1), (2) & (3); 10. Fossil Record; 11. `Fact' of Evolution; 12. Plants; 13. Animals; 14. Man (1) & (2); 15. Social; 16. Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography A-C, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z]

"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 3. RELIGION (2)

1.	Evolution is anti-supernatural
2.	Evolution is anti-design
3.	Evolution is anti-creation
4.	Evolution is anti-God (atheistic)
5.	Evolution is anti-Christian
6.	Evolution is a religion
	1.	Evolution is a religion of science
	2.	Evolution has its own god(s)s
		1.	Genes
		2.	Darwin
			1.	Darwin's birthday celebrated
	3.	Evolution has its own mythology
		1.	The Galileo myth 
		2.	The Flat Earth myth 
		3.	The Darwin myth 
		4.	The Darwin finches myth 
		5.	The Origin of Species myth 
		6.	The Huxley-Wilberforce myth
		7.	The Scopes Trial myth
	4.	Evolution has its own religious philosophies
		1.	Epicureanism
		2.	Gnosticism
	5.	Evolution has its own church
	6.	Evolution has its own clergy
	7.	Evolution has its own faith
	8.	Evolution can inspire fanaticism in its followers
	9.	Evolution sees Christianity as a rival religion

"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 3. RELIGION (2)
6.	Evolution is a religion
	1.	Evolution is a religion of science
Leading evolutionist philosopher Michael Ruse admitted that, "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more 
than mere science", but "as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with 
meaning and morality" (Ruse, 2000; (Ruse, 1993). Ruse continued, "Evolution is a religion" and this "was true of 
evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today" (Ruse, 2000; 1993).

Evolution is "a religion of science" (Grene 1959, p.48; Johnson, 1993b, p.203; Peck 1978, p.238; Appleyard, 
1992, p.228); "a scientific religion" (Lipson, 1980, p.138). Evolution's religious faith is naturalism (Van Till, 
Young & Meninnga, 1988, pp.157-158). 

	2.	Evolution has its own god(s)
		1.	Genes
Professor of genetics and member of the USA National Academy of Sciences, John C. Avise, calls genes "genetic gods" 
and claims they have assumed the roles in human affairs traditionally reserved for God (Avise, 1998, p.vi). 
[top] 

		2.	Darwin
Some evolutionists worship Darwin in the place of God. Browne notes that "devotees" would undertake 
"pilgrimages" to Darwin's home in Kent and if they were permitted an audience with "Pope Darwin", "Grown 
men could crumble in the presence of the god," describing it as "a near-religious experience" and some "turned 
Darwin into a secular saint and Darwinism into a religion" (Browne, 2002, pp.382-384). Neo-Darwinism's co-
founder, Julian Huxley, described the Darwin centennial celebrations of 1959 as "people arriving from many 
countries to render their homage to Darwin" (Huxley, 1973, p.182). An interviewer of Dawkins noted that his 
tonality about Darwin says, "I found my God" (Wattenberg, 1996). Evolutionists' regular observance every year 
of Darwin's birthday (12 February 1809) as "Darwin Day" (http://www.darwinday.org/; Palevitz, 2002) has its 
obvious parallel in Christianity's observance of Jesus's birth at Christmas. Evolutionists' widespread use of 
`Darwin fish' bumper stickers on their cars, showing a fish with legs in mockery of the Christian fish symbol, is 
another indicator that evolutionists see Christianity as a rival religion to Darwinism (Johnson, 1997a, p.125). 
[top]
			1.	Darwin's birthday celebrated
Darwin's birthday is celebrated annually by Darwinists, as Jesus' birthday (Christmas) is celebrated annually by Christians:

Darwin Day Celebration CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN February 12, 1809 to April 19, 1882 The Evolution of a 
Global Celebration Darwin's 200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009; it will also be the 150th 
Anniversary of the publication of his famous book On The Origin of Species. So, together we have 
time to evolve a truly International Celebration to show our appreciation for the enormous benefits that 
scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement 
of humanity. ... 

Darwin Day at Knoxville, Tennessee ... Darwin Day 2006 - February 7th, 8th & 9th Darwin Day 2006 at the 
University of Tennessee, Knoxville will take place over three days: Tuesday, February 7th, Wednesday, 
February 8th, and Thursday, February 9th. The theme for this year's events is 'Science and Religion', and 
why these subjects are not mutually exclusive. We will have two prominent speakers that will be giving talks 
both on campus and at local churches. Events will be held on the campus of the University of Tennessee, 
Pellissippi State, and off-campus at the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church and at the Church of 
the Savior, United Church of Christ in Knoxville. ...
Darwin Day ...  is sponsored by the Humanist Community. It is held in honor of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), 
whose profound theories on the evolution of life stand as a landmark of scientific achievement. ...  Darwin 
Day Celebrations Feb 12, 1809: On this date, two great men were born: Abraham Lincoln, Emancipator of 
American Slaves, and Charles Darwin, Emancipator of the Human Mind. Their positive legacies still endure. 
Dr. Bob Stephens will discuss how Darwin Day Celebrations can enhance the legacies of these two Great 
Emancipators.  Sunday, February 12, 11 a.m.  Mitchell Park Community Center, 3800 Middlefield Road, Palo 
Alto  ... 2005  What Would Darwin Say About Creationism? Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the 
National Center for Science Education 2004 Although we did not hold a widely-publicized Darwin Day this 
year, we did observe a Darwin Day at our Sunday Forum: Bob and Lola Stephens took us on a tour, via slide 
show, of many locations in England significant in the life of Charles Darwin. 2003  Origins and History of 
Darwin Day, an International Celebration of Science and Humanity Bob Stephens and Arthur Jackson (of 
our Humanist Community) As some of you know, the first Darwin Day Celebration began right here with the 
Humanist Community back in 1994-95. Since then it has taken on a life of its own, an idea whose time has 
come, and the Community has been a part of this for nearly 10 years. Darwin Day has evolved to become an 
International Celebration of Science and Humanity as well as a year-round educational website. The main 
activities occur on February 12, Darwin's birthday, and last year over 125 celebratory events took place 
across America and in several other countries. The Honorary President of Darwin Day is none other than 
Richard Dawkins; in addition many world-renowned scientists have joined our efforts. Our short-term goal is 
to build the excitement each year, so that in 2009, Darwin's 200th birthday, we can all come together in a 
global celebration and show our appreciation for science and humanity. We hope you will enjoy hearing 
about the Past, the Present, and what we hope to be the Future of Darwin Day. Various Darwin Day 
informational materials will be presented including Evolution Awareness ribbons, Darwin Day information 
cards suitable for sending to friends, information about the Darwin Day website: http://www.darwinday.org . 
Also, on Jan 26, Feb 2, and Feb 9, copies of "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", Ernst Mayr's article 
from the July 2000 Scientific American, will be provided to interested persons to help them get into the spirit 
of the occasion.  
This is unique in science (no other branch of science celebrates annually its founder's birthday), therefore this is further 
evidence that Darwinism is a religion to its followers.

Because Darwin's birthday fell on a Sunday in 2006, Darwinists managed to get (dupe?) a comparatively small number 
of churches to celebrate it as "Evolution Sunday", to `prove' that Darwinism (which denies there is design) and 
Christianity are compatible:

Churches say 'amen' for Darwin's theory: Many to celebrate scientist's birthday, Lisa Anderson, 
The Boston Globe/Chicago Tribune, February 12, 2006. NEW YORK -- Nearly 450 Christian churches 
around the country plan to celebrate the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin today with programs and 
sermons intended to emphasize that his theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that 
Christians have no need to choose between religion and science. 'It's to demonstrate, by Christian 
leaders and members of the clergy, that you don't have to make that choice. You can have both," said 
Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin- 
Oshkosh, who organized the event. Darwin's theory holds that all life on Earth, including humans, 
shares common ancestry and developed over millions of years through the mechanisms of natural 
selection and random mutation. The concept is repugnant to many conservative Christians because it 
conflicts with their belief that man was specially created in the image of God. ... 

At Churches Nationwide, Good Words for Evolution, The New York Times, February 13, 2006, By Neela 
Banerjee and Anne Berryman. On the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin, ministers at several hundred 
churches around the country preached yesterday against recent efforts to undermine the theory of 
evolution, asserting that the opposition many Christians say exists between science and faith is false. At St. 
Dunstan's Episcopal Church, a small contemporary structure among the pricey homes of north Atlanta, the 
Rev. Patricia Templeton told the 85 worshipers gathered yesterday, "A faith that requires you to close your 
mind in order to believe is not much of a faith at all." In the basement of an apartment building in Evanston, 
Ill., the Rev. Mitchell Brown said to the 21 people who came to services at the Evanston Mennonite Church 
that Darwin's theories in fact had compelled people to have faith rather than look for "special effects" to 
confirm the existence of God. "He forced religion to grow up, to become, really, faith for the first time," Mr. 
Brown said. "The life of community, that is where we know God today." The event, called Evolution Sunday, 
is an outgrowth of the Clergy Letter Project, started by academics and ministers in Wisconsin in early 2005 
as a response to efforts, most notably in Dover, Pa., to discredit the teaching of evolutionary theory in 
public schools. "There was a growing need to demonstrate that the loud, shrill voices of fundamentalists 
claiming that Christians had to choose between modern science and religion were presenting a false 
dichotomy," said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of 
Wisconsin Oshkosh and the major organizer of the letter project. ... 
Darwin's birthday evolves into holiday: Amid challenges, supporters stick up for evolution on Sunday, 
Kathy Matheson, MSNBC/AP, Feb. 9, 2006 PHILADELPHIA - Thanks to the "intelligent design" movement, 
Charles Darwin's birthday is evolving into everything from a badminton party to church sermons this 
weekend. Defenders of Darwin's theory of natural selection are planning hundreds of events around the 
world Sunday, the 197th anniversary of his birth, saying recent challenges to the teaching of evolution have 
re-emphasized the need to promote his work. "The people who believe in evolution ... really just sort of need 
to stand up and be counted," said Richard Leventhal, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Museum 
of Archaeology and Anthropology. "Evolution is the model that drives science. It's time to recognize that." 
The museum's celebration will include birthday cake, a little badminton (reportedly a favorite game of 
Darwin's) and a reading of his masterwork, "The Origin of Species," by Penn junior Bill Wames, who 
volunteered to dress up as the 19th-century naturalist. ... 
 
Note above that "Darwin Day Celebration began ... with the Humanist [i.e. atheist] Community 
back in 1994-95" to celebrate the birth of "Charles Darwin, Emancipator of the Human Mind" (that is, 
from religion in general and Christianity in particular). Note also above that, "The Honorary 
President of Darwin Day is none other than Richard Dawkins" who regards religion in general, 
and Christianity in particular, as, in the words of the titles of the two episodes in his recent BBC TV 
program, "The Root of All Evil": "The God Delusion," and "The Virus of Faith"! [top] 
 

	3.	Evolution has its own mythology 
The theory of evolution is the creation myth of modern, secular man (Denton, 1985, p.358; Midgley, 1985, p.154; 
Denton, 1985, p.358; Horgan, 1996, p.16). Creation myths "explain the origin of the world, who people are, how 
they came to be, and why" (Eldredge, 1982, p.16§). The theory of evolution is, "our creation-myth. ... it tells us 
how we got here, we expect it to tell us what we are" (Midgley, 1985, p.178). Like the creation myths of ancient 
man, it satisfies the same deep need for an all-embracing explanation of origins (Denton, 1985, p.358).

Evolution is the key mythological element in a materialist philosophy that functions as a virtual religion 
(Marsden, 1983, p.574). Evolutionists have created myths, including that evolution was simply the work of 
Darwin, that evolution's triumph was a purely intellectual and scientific success, of T.H. Huxley's defeat of 
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce at Oxford in 1860 (Caudill, 1997, pp.xii-xv; Darlington, 1959a, p.65), and that 
evolution was proved true over a century ago by Darwin and since then the evidence has increasingly confirmed 
Darwin's theory (Denton, 1985, p.76).

Evolutionist accounts of the origin of life are mythological (Bernal, 1967, pp.34-35; Eiseley, 1946 p.199), for 
example, the myth of the primeval soup (Croft, 1988, p.43). Darwinian evolution's metaphorical associations such 
as "survival of the fittest," "competition," "selfish genes," etc, arose from and resonates with cultural myths 
(Goodwin, 1994, pp.xii, 18).

Evolutionary biology contains some of the most mythic of scientific notions (Eldredge & Tattersall, 1982, p.2). 
For example that evolution is a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon (Grasse, 1977, p.8; Dobzhansky, 
1975). That the Darwinian theory of evolution is confirmed by the fossil record (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1981, 
p.163). Or that evolution is a process of constant change (Eldredge, 1982, p.3), which myth Darwinists still 
continue to perpetuate (Eldredge, 1996, p.105). Paleontologists promoted the myth of gradual adaptive 
transformation despite evidence to the contrary (Eldredge, 1996, p.63) Evolutionist stories about human 
evolution are often mythical (Eldredge & Tattersall, 1982, p.1; Fawcett, 1970, p.277).

Evolutionary writings contain mythological themes, including mankind's rise from savagery (Desmond, 1994, 
p.591) to future ruler of the cosmos (Fawcett, 1970, p.276).); the fall and redemption of humanity (Goodwin, 
1995, pp.30-31). Evolutionists' "Inherit the Wind" fictional portrayal of the 1925 Scopes trial is a "liberation 
myth" (Johnson 1996b).

Darwinism has propagated a number of myths which helped its success, for example, the myth of Darwin's purely 
intellectual triumph, and of Bishop Wilberforce's defeat by T.H. Huxley's at Oxford in 1860 (Caudill, 1997, 
pp.xiii-xv; 1-2ff). Another myth is that opposition to Darwin's theory was religious rather than scientific (Denton, 
1985, p.100). Yet another, created by Darwin himself and perpetuated by evolutionists ever since is that Darwin's 
theory owed little to his predecessors, a "myth-making ... to keep this man and his discovery inviolate-a unique 
act of genius without precedent and without precursive steps." (Eiseley, 1979, pp.73-74).

Evolution itself has acquired mythological status as unquestioned dogma in its community of believers (Denton, 
1985, pp.76-77). This myth of evolution's overriding supremacy has created an illusion that the theory of 
evolution was proved by Darwin and all subsequent biological research has only provided increasing evidence for 
it, when nothing could be further from the truth (Denton, 1985, p.77).

The longing for contact with, visitation by (Eiseley, 1946, pp.150-151), fear of (Drake & Sobel, 1991, p.xv), and 
even our creation by, superior extraterrestrial beings is part of modern man's secular, evolutionary mythology.

Some evolutionists, to their credit, admit that evolution is their creation myth (Kauffman, 1995, p.112; Denton, 
1998, p.xviii). For example, leading Harvard evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson, concluding what was then "The 
most sophisticated of modern American textbooks for introductory biology" (Gould, 1980b, p.156), asked "How 
much of this can be believed?" and answered, "Every generation needs its own creation myths, and these are 
ours" (Wilson, et al., 1973, p.624). Wilson later admitted that "scientific materialism," the philosophy 
underpinning evolution "presents the human mind with an alternative mythology," with "Its narrative form ... the 
epic, the evolution of the universe from the big bang" (Wilson, 1978, pp.184,198; Midgley, 1985, p.176).

Yet there is nothing in the Hindu mythology and cosmology more incredible than evolution (Hodge, 1892, 
p.II:20; Jacob, 1997, p.23§). [top] 

		1.	The Galileo myth 
		2.	The Flat Earth myth 
		3.	The Darwin myth 
		4.	The Darwin finches myth 
		5.	The Origin of Species myth 
		6.	The Huxley-Wilberforce myth 
Evolutionists continue to repeat the myth that "Thomas Huxley ... trounced [the] ... Bishop of Oxford, Sam Wilberforce, 
in the great evolution debates of the 19th century (McKie R., 2004a). [top]

		7.	The Scopes Trial myth 
"The Kansas City Star could not restrain its sarcasm. `In Topeka, Kansas,' the paper announced, `they're 
getting ready to stage the 2005 revival of [the Scopes Monkey Trial], also known as the Kansas Board of 
Education's hearings on evolution.' It was a reference to the recent hearings, held by the Kansas State Board 
of Education, to decide whether to adopt new science standards that would allow students to study scientific 
criticisms of Darwinism. Many reporters could not resist comparing the hearings to the famous trial that 
took place eighty years ago. But what most people don't realize is that almost everything they think they 
know about the trial is false. That's because most of what they learned about it was through a film that 
caricatured the trial called Inherit the Wind. These myths were exposed a few years ago when a Pulitzer 
Prize-winning book took on the vicious fictions perpetrated by this motion picture. The book is called 
Summer for the Gods, and the author is Edward Larson, a history professor at the University of Georgia and 
a Christian. Larson says that Inherit the Wind has become a `formative myth' that has all but replaced the 
actual trial in the nation's memory. For example, in the real-life Scopes trial, the ACLU advertised for a 
teacher willing to help challenge a law that forbade the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. A 
teacher named John Scopes-who had never even taught biology, let alone evolution-stepped forward, and 
the case was started. But in the film, the case begins when a mob of fundamentalist Christians, led by a fire-
breathing preacher, barges into a biology classroom, arrests the teacher, and throws him into jail. Another 
distortion: According to Larson, Inherit the Wind playwrights were determined to make the trial's Christian 
prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, `look like a senile, doddering old man.' They have the Bryan character 
making absurd claims, such as that God created the earth on October 23 in the year 4004 B.C.-at 9:00 a.m. 
According to Larson, the real-life Bryan acquitted himself well: He clearly articulated his social and 
religious concerns with Darwinism. And how does the ACLU lawyer, Clarence Darrow, come off in the 
film? As the defender of tolerance and reason. But in reality, Larson writes, Darrow was a deeply intolerant 
man, a `crusading agnostic' who was determined to take Christianity out of the public square. The 
playwrights who wrote Inherit the Wind acknowledged that the play-and later the movie-was not meant to 
reflect what actually happened in Dayton, Tennessee, but for many Americans it's the only version of the 
trial they know. Some of our cultural elites seem determined to keep it that way. " (Colson C., What's the 
Matter with Darwinists?: The Truth about the Scopes Trial," Breakpoint, May 20, 2005) [top]
	4.	Evolution has its own religious philosophies
		1.	Epicureanism
The ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus (c.341-270 BC), in order to argue against the argument from design to the 
existence of God, claimed "there are infinite worlds, both like and unlike this world of ours ... we must believe 
that in all worlds there are living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world" (Darling, 2001, p.93). 
Modern evolutionists, like Sagan and Darling employ Epicurean arguments for the same purpose, even citing 
Epicurus as their authority (Sagan C., 1994, p.18; Darling, 2001, p.93; Wilford, 1999). Indeed, "the Epicurean 
idea of an infinite universe of matter and space, indifferent to human hopes and concerns but whose workings can 
be understood, is the predominant scientific idea with which we now live" (Gaskin, 1995, p.ix). Epicureanism is, 
in short, the foundation of the "modern scientific worldview" (Dembski, 2002b, p.11; Wiker, 2002, p.20).

Epicurus was an atomist (Osborn, 1894, p.58; Russell, 1961, p.83; Sagan, 1994, p.18; Wilcox, 1994b, p.170; 
Rusch, 1959, p.9), and hence a mechanist (Mayr, 1982, p.51; Dembski, 2002b, p.11) and a materialist, holding 
that matter alone exists (Mautner, 2000, pp.341-342). However, Epicurus advocated a practical atheism, not 
denying that "the gods exist" but that they "do not do anything that has a bearing on human affairs" (Mautner, 
2000, p.48).

Epicurus' avowed aim was to avoid the "disturbance" of the gods intervening in nature and being called to 
account to Him in an afterlife (Dembski, 2002b, p.10; Wiker, 2002, pp.32-33). For Epicurus, "the *whole point* 
of natural science ... was not primarily truth-seeking, but therapeutic" (Wiker, 2002, p.33). To advance his goal of 
freedom from disturbance by the gods, Epicurus embraced the materialist worldview of the atomist Greek 
philosopher Democritus (c.460-370 BC), who held that reality in its entirety was just indestructible, eternal atoms 
and the void (Wiker, 2002, pp.33,54). To avoid the charge of atheism, Epicurus did not deny the gods existed, 
but held they were also part of the universe and made of atoms (Wiker, 2002, p.43).

Epicurus' next move was to assume that the universe was eternal and infinite (Dennett, 1995, pp.32, 178; 
Dembski, 1999a, p.289). Therefore, the number of atoms which made up such a limitless universe is also infinite, 
and therefore the random motion of those atoms must have produced a plurality of worlds (Wiker, 2002; Glynn, 
1997, p.44). Epicurus' disciple, the Roman poet-philosopher Lucretius (95-55 BC), declared in his On the 
Nature of the Universe, that "the purposeless congregation and coalescence of atoms" brought about all 
living things in our world-plants, people, and everything in between-then certainly `in other regions there are 
other earths and various tribes of men and breeds of beasts.'" (Wiker, 2002 ). Of course in Epicurus' day there 
was "no empirical evidence that there actually was a plurality of worlds, the belief in a plurality of worlds 
... for Epicurus or the modern materialist ... serves to release adherents of materialism from the disturbing thought 
that a divine Intelligence is behind it all." (Wiker, 2002, p.42). In this Epicurus' aim was to try to make God 
superfluous (Wiker, 2002, p.41), having nothing to do (Wiker, 2002, p.44) which is also the aim of modern 
epicureans like Sagan and Hawking (Sagan, 1991, pp.x-xi; Hawking, 1988, pp.10-12; Wiker, 2002, p.3).

While Epicurus himself originated no new evolutionary ideas, but adopted those of Empedocles and Democritus, 
his contribution to evolution was laying evolution's metaphysical foundations of materialism and anti-
supernaturalism (Osborn, 1894, p.59), and his influence on the evolutionary arguments of Lucretius (Osborn, 
1894, p.62). [top]

		2.	Gnosticism
Gnosticism was "a family of sects which flourished from the second to the fourth centuries AD, combining 
elements of Christianity with" pagan "creation myths" of Genesis and of Plato's Timaeus. Gnosticism was dualist, 
distinguishing the spiritual and good world from the evil and material world. Matter was the creation of a wicked 
demiurge. But a spiritual saviour had come to offer redeeming gnosis, or knowledge, of our true spiritual selves. 
The gnostic would be released from the material world, the non-gnostic doomed to reincarnation. Gnosticism 
initially threatened what survived it as orthodox Christianity, stimulating the latter to define its teaching on the 
nature of authority and revelation. Having been outlawed by the Christian Roman emperors, gnostic teachings 
survived in Syria and Persia and were absorbed into Manicheism." (E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York, 
1979). T.P. [to be continued]

God. The three main Western religions-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam-have all claimed that God is the supreme 
reality. Sometimes their thinkers have said that God is so great that we can not say anything in human words 
about what he is like. All we can say is what he is not-he is not evil. he is not foolish, and so on. This approach 
known as the via negativa was especially prominent in the period AD 500-1,000. But if that is all we could say 
about God, there would be no content to religious doctrines adequate to justify religious practice, such as the 
worship of God. Hence most philosophical theologians have tried to say something about what God is like. in so 
doing, they have generally regarded him as a personal being, bodiless. omnipresent, creator and sustainer of any 
universe there may be, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and a source of moral obligation; 
who exists eternally and necessarily, and has essentially the divine properties which I have list ed. Many 
philosophers (influenced by Anselm) have seen these properties as deriving from the property of being the 
greatest conceivable being God is the greatest conceivable being and so he has all the great-making properties. 
Within each of the religions, however, and especially within Christianity, there have been somewhat different 
ways of understanding some of the divine properties. God's being omnipresent, present everywhere is his 
knowing what is happening everywhere and being able to act everywhere-directly, in the way in which we act on 
our bodies. To say that God is creator and sustainer of any universe there may be is to say that anything else 
which exists depends for its existence from moment to moment on God's sustaining action. If the physical 
universe had a beginning of existence (as Western religions have usually claimed), God caused that beginning; 
but if not, then God has kept it in being for all past time. God is perfectly free if nothing acts from without to 
cause or even influence how he chooses to act. To say that God is omnipotent would seem literally, to mean that 
he can do whatever he choses to do. But how is 'whatever' to be understood? Can ...
(Pink T., "Gnosticism," in Honderich T., ed., "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy," Oxford University Press: 
Oxford, 1995, p.314) [to be continued]
One manifestation of Gnosticism as a major religious philosophy within evolution is the "religion is private belief 
and science is public knowledge" dichotomy. This separation of God and the world is one aspect of Gnosticism 
(Hunter, 2003, p.119), and these Gnostic ideas are encouraged by evolutionists (Hunter, 2003, p.119). Evolution 
has helped to advance the now prevalent view, particularly in the USA, that matters of faith should not be allowed 
to manifest themselves in public life but be kept strictly private (Hunter, 2003, p.119). God is to be kept separate 
from the world and unable to be objectively verified, so that what we believe about God is strictly subjective-a 
matter of personal opinion (Hunter, 2003, p.119). This is promoted as neutral (Hunter, 2003, p.119). [to be 
continued]

In America this is now firmly entrenched in a doctrine of separation of church and state (Hunter, 2003, p.119). It 
is now interpreted by the courts that the government (which includes everything from the White House to the 
local elementary school) may not support, or even allow, any type of religious activity (Hunter, 2003, p.119). But 
this view is that it is not religiously neutral as claimed, but is in fact Gnostic (Hunter, 2003, p.119). However, its 
advocates are generally so deeply Gnostic that they cannot perceive their own religious position (Hunter, 2003, 
p.119). To them their position seems to be religiously neutral (Hunter, 2003, p.119). But they are 
allowing only for a God who isn't involved in the daily matters of our lives, which is the god of Gnosticism, a god 
who is disjointed from the world (Hunter, 2003, p.119). [to be continued]

Such Gnosticism in science teaching is effectively atheism, because if God is omitted from accounts of origins, 
students will take that absence as implying that God has no place in the picture (Smith, 2000, p.132). This is a 
clear case of marginalizing (Smith, 2000, p.133). Religious claims are not squarely faced for their truth or falsity, 
but are eased out of the picture by classification - theism is religious, while its alternative is not (Smith, 2000, 
p.133). While this is supposed to reflect a national policy of neutrality, it is anything but neutral when the effect is 
to exclude important ideas about God's relationship to the world from public debate and policy (Smith, 2000, 
p.133). [to be continued] [top]

	5.	Evolution has its own church [top]

	6.	Evolution has its own clergy
Desmond refers to T.H. Huxley as "Evolution's High Priest" (Desmond, 1994). [top]

	7.	Evolution has its own faith
"Prof Richard Dawkins, the scourge of those who maintain their belief in a god, has declared that he, too, 
holds a belief that cannot yet be proved. ... the Oxford University evolutionary biologist is among the 117 
scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers who have responded to the question: "What do you believe is 
true even though you cannot prove it?" posed by John Brockman, a New York-based literary agent and 
publisher of The Edge, a website devoted to science. "I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all 
intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of 
Darwinian natural selection," said Prof Dawkins in the responses published yesterday on www.edge.org. 
That, of course, means that there is no need for a god to design the universe: "It follows that design comes 
late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore 
cannot underlie the universe." (Highfield R., "Science's scourge of believers declares his faith in Darwin," 
Daily Telegraph, 5 January 2005)   [top]
	8.	Evolution can inspire fanaticism in its followers
Evolution can lead its adherents, like leading evolutionist Richard Dawkins, to publicly claim that those who do 
not "believe" in evolution must be "ignorant, stupid or insane ... or wicked..." (Dawkins R., 1989). Another 
leading evolutionist, philosopher Daniel Dennett, publicly advocated that religious parents, even in mainstream 
Christian denominations like "the Baptists," who taught their children that "`Man' is not a product of evolution by 
natural selection," should be put in a "cage" like wild animals to "quarantine" them and their views from their 
own children (Dennett, 1995, pp.516,519; Numbers, 1998, p.13). More recently a pair of evolutionist 
philosophers in a leading peer-reviewed biological philosophical journal have bracketed leading Intelligent 
Design theorist, biochemist Professor Michael Behe, in the same category as "Stalin or Osama bin Laden" 
(Sommers & Rosenberg, 2003). [top]

	9.	Evolution sees Christianity as a rival religion
"The Supreme Court decision described in the second paragraph is Aguillard v. Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). 
The Justices probably did not mean to lay down a rule that the official theory of evolution may not 
be criticized or questioned in public school classrooms, but that was the effect of their decision. The 
Justices who signed the majority opinion seem to have been fooled by arguments from the science 
establishment that every claim made by the scientific elite about `evolution' is a matter of neutral fact and 
that all opposition to materialism comes from people who want to read the Bible to students instead of 
teaching them science. Perhaps a Justice who drives home in the evening from the Court will by now have 
noticed the `Darwin fish' bumper stickers on cars showing a fish with legs in mockery of the Christian fish 
symbol on other cars and will realize that the Supreme Court has been duped into taking sides in a religious 
debate." (Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 
1997, p.125)   [top]