Some of don't see evolution disproving religious authority and some religious authority doesn't see that either.
“Some of don’t see evolution disproving religious authority and some religious authority doesn’t see that either.”
_________________________________________________
Neither do I, but my point was the use of it for that purpose. Lee Harris, in a Policy Review article, “The Future of Tradition,” summarized succinctly what I meant to say: “This, too, explains why communities have historically reacted so severely against those who challenged their habits of the heart. What was really at stake in such a challenge was not the community’s ideological superstructure but the ethical foundation on which it had been socially constructed — its inherited visceral code.” The ideological superstructure in our case is obviously Genesis, but the ethical foundation attacked is pretty much anything that might impede a Progressive agenda ... such as opposition based on Natural Law!
I don’t know what to think on Darwin the man.
Lately I have read articles that he did not mean his search on Evolution to say there was no God that was not his agenda it was to explain some observation he saw in nature.
The article also stated it was the atheist that had adopted Darwin for their cause.
As we have witness in history this would not be the first time the non believers lie about prominent figures for boosting their agenda!
The gays have done it to claim leaders in history as being gay.
The atheist have said all our founding Fathers were Deist etc