[dmz]

you beat me by 11 seconds. You are right, it is a lovely word, but I’d have to question its usage in this context. Or did I miss a violent rush on Christians by angry Darwinists?

Considering that the argument has been going on for, what?, 150 years, there has been no rush, nor violence. Plenty of hyperbole, though.

[ahayes]

You are right, it is a lovely word

I suppose that depends on the context. *flees*

[js1138]

You are right, it is a lovely word, but I’d have to question its usage in this context.

I think the usage is fine, and hyperbole is common in political writing. I simply expected a different, more commonly used word.

That said, the question of whether science would benefit from the irruption of supernaturalism seems to have been settled in the 18th century, by Newton, among others.

[betty boop]

"The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed...."

I’d have to question its usage in this context.

The context is social change within the timeframe you suggest (150 years). I don't think the usage is at all hyperbolic. People bragging about their atheism seems to be a rather striking development. Dawkins' and Dennett's "brights" campaign is a good illustration of an "irruption of atheism" that is quite aggressive in its tactics.

At least it looks that way to me, FWIW.