Replies

Um... Darwin’s theory describes biology, and does not mention religion at all.

Also, the constant comparison of evolutionary theory to religion (as evidenced by the terminology used to describe it) says more about the writer’s feelings about religion than it says about evolutionary theory. You cannot illustrate how debased a concept is by comparing it to a concept you claim to revere—unless you really do not revere the concept.

Also, I must point out that a theory in the scientific world is a framework that ties together the known facts and allows for the formulation of testable hypotheses. In science, a theory is the highest level of reliability. Theories frequently are refined and gain in complexity as new data comes along. The theory of evolution has undergone multiple refinements since Darwin and Lamarck first proposed alternate versions in the 1800s to describe a phenomenon known since at least ancient Greece. Darwin’s version was quickly recognized as being more descriptive of the process, although with current molecular techniques, we are finding out that Lamarck was not completely wrong.

Darwin's theory, a product of his pagan grandfather (and pagans before him) and of his own mind--which thing cannot exist within the framework of materialism---supposedly describes how life alchemically emerged out of pre-existing (where did this matter come from???) matter.

Since Darwinism cannot account for 'life' it can have nothing to say about biology, which is why many materialists are supporting the idea of extraterrestrials in a vain hope that they brought life to this planet. Certainly, this was the hope of C. Arthur Clarke in his book, Childhood's End.

we are finding out that Lamarck was not completely wrong.

It's up to the neo-Lamarckians to prove that DNA rewrites ARE transmitted down to future generations, rather than being erased - and research has shown that about 1% do escape imprinting, so...yes, in a large enough population, some of that new code is making it into future generations, and if the new code is beneficial to the species, or better suited to the environment, well then, that's where the survival of the fittest part takes over.

Who would have thought that the theories of Jean-Baptiste and Charles were joined at the hip?

“Um... Darwin’s theory describes biology, and does not mention religion at all.”

You evidently did not attend, or pay attention, to any of your college classes, especially political science classes, or a good portion of your high school classes, and have never watched many movies.