Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H





Evolution is an attempt to explain life and the complexity of life without God. It denies that there is any plan in nature. It simply says that change happens and just happens.  There is no goal.  There are countless things that look like goals but are not.  You cannot assume what looks like a goal is a goal.  Remember Occam's Razor. 


Evolution does not mean things are improving.  If blind force makes a clock that is not improving for the whole picture has to be considered.  What has been ruined in the process? The entire process is too complicated to be assessed so what looks like an improvement in the bigger picture is really nothing at all and indeed may make many things worse.  One things "design" is everything else's "un-design." 


If life can be explained by evolution then there is no need for God. Actually to start claiming that God is behind evolution would be silly. It would deny the fact that science says evolution just happened.
Religion ignores that and pretends that evolution requires the guidance of a God more than the old theory that God simply made all life does! Or they suppose that it requires it at least as much. This is a denial that anything can be a refutation of God and is an extremely arrogant and stubborn claim. To say evolution requires God is to say that it shows the signs of being the work of God. This is a scientific idea. It is making God a hypothesis. But God can never be a scientific hypothesis. You can't find God in a test tube. You can't see him in a telescope. You can't detect the presence of God through scientific investigation.  Even worse science never detects any activity that could in theory be put down to God!!  In other words there is nothing like, "There is something outside of nature - extra-natural or supernatural doing this.  Some would say it is God.  We don't know but they might be right."
Evolution is the idea that life came from non-living things and that it grew more and more complicated and that it is through this process and natural selection the species currently on earth appeared. Controversially for Christians it teaches that man and ape had a common ancestor. Evolution is a theory but science terms many proven things as theories. Evolution is proven. Science calls proven things theories for science has to commit itself to whatever evidence says meaning it opposes dogma and the idea of scientific orthodoxy. It has to be very open-minded. In principle, science has to be open to new evidence that may refute evolution and then revise the theory or scrap it. In this sense, science and religious dogmatism are incompatible. A genuine religionist cannot be an honest scientist for science is antithetical to dogmatism.
Creationists try to make evolution sound absurd. But is it? They say we cannot say evolution is true when we cannot make life in the lab. Consider this. We have the power to evolve even junk food into ourselves. Our bodies and whatever our minds are are being continually remade and replaced. The burger you eat today will be your body tomorrow. We don't have to be able to make life in the lab to know that substances can become a living being. We prove it can be done every day though we do not know how. It is dishonest to reason, "I don't know why such and such is the case so I will attribute it to the work of God." Why not just say you don't know and leave it at that? Why use a God of the Gaps to fill the holes? Why not an angel or an alien civilisation of the gaps? When we cannot argue, "We are unable to make life in the lab so God must have done it" why bother trying to use him to fill other gaps which many Christians interested in science do? The God concept cannot fill the biggest and most important one - which incidentally is not a real gap at all! It will do little good filling up the rest.

Evolution necessarily rejects the notion of a perfect God for a God who knows all things will not need to use trial and error to form us. Using trial and error would imply God does not clearly know what he is doing.  And if God goes through the motions of trial and error and knows what he is doing then he is a fraudster and his followers are his equally duplicitious cronies.
The creationists say that evolutionists who claim to believe in God arrogantly assume, "Most creatures that ever lived only existed for the sake of producing the creatures that live today. They suffered and bled and died for that. We must be something special for the human race is a speck of dust compared to all the living things that had to be tormented by God's plan to produce us." The argument would imply that as we enjoy the fruits of all the torture and death that others underwent that we are the zenith and purpose of evolution. God used the creatures and the people that went before as means to the end of producing wonderful and incredible us. The creationists are right to see the argument as hideous and vile. The argument logically flows from belief in evolution and in God. They are a bad mixture.
The Christians who claim that science is right that complex life forms have emerged through trial and error (natural selection) and this was the way the all-knowing God chose to do it are contradicting themselves. It's saying both that all things emerged by chance and they didn't emerge by chance at all. When Christians talk such bullshit, its only to be expected that some Christians will resort to the nonsense that is creation science.
For evolutionists, the process of natural selection churns out DNA in forms that can't survive and some that do. Just like some junk seems to serve a purpose, we are junk that seems to serve a purpose. We might think our purpose is to progress and learn but for all we know we might nuke ourselves to bits next week. Thus if evolution had never produced anything more than amoebas it would have been better than making us. We look at ourselves and think we are so wonderful that evolution was set up by God to make us. But we don't know that. We are guessing what the purpose of our existence is and reading that into the evidence. It is not there.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that things will get more chaotic and worse as time goes on. We could be speeding up that worseness so we are not the great masterpieces we think we are.
The notion that God set things up to make themselves is akin to finding a fine doll in your Christmas stocking and because you can't explain how it got there you say thin air was set up to make itself. That is not science but the perception you impose on the situation. Its irrational.
Evolution emerged as a major theory through Charles Darwin. Religion at the time taught that people and animals were created directly by the action of God.

The notion that God making us by snapping his fingers means he is less involved in making us than he would if he used evolution is outrageously bizarre and foolish.  Coming from reasonably smart believers it is obviously just a deliberate lie.  God making us by magic would imply that he is more involved. His hiding and making us from a distance would imply he is less involved. Both views claim that God helps our character formation so he would be equally involved that way. That would be the only form of divine involvement that would matter.


The argument that evolution needs God more than direct creation does is a plain lie. But that aside what do those who say it mean by it? Do they mean that the natural course is for us to be a new form of animal derived from other animals but God took over to ensure that we would be something special perhaps spirits living in bodies of flesh and bone?  Yes.  They are ashamed though to be that clear about it.  And also they are trying to create the illusion that they are pro-science.
If Christians wish to say that science and faith in God are different things and that God is not a scientific hypothesis, they have to say they assume there is a God despite there being no sign of him in creation. Those who say that there are signs of design will have to say that the designer may be a great being but not necessarily a god.
Fundamentalist Christianity pretends that it opposes belief in evolution and belief in Darwinism for they imply that survival of the fittest is and should be the law. The Fundies say that evolution destroys morality and particularly it attacks the Christian doctrine of charity that you should esteem others as much as yourself and not be trying to defeat them to be top person. They are right. But the problem is that even if evolution and Darwinism is untrue, it remains true that we live in a survival of the fittest world. So it makes no difference.
It is thought by some that survival of the fittest does not mean that the strongest and the most intelligent will get the upper hand. They think it means that it is those who are the best at adapting to change that survive and get the upper hand. But true strength and intelligence involve adapting to change so we are still saying that only the strongest and the smartest should survive. 

Consider the doctrine:

All people in the world do not make up one big family. Whether Darwinism is true or not, survival of the fittest is the law. Get all you can out of life for someone else will get it what you could have if you donít. Life is naturally competitive. Religion bizarrely condemns survival of the fittest which amounts to seeing it is a deadly problem and fact of life.  Denial makes the issue worse.  Then you cannot be prepared.
If you encourage others not to be competitive so that you will end up with the benefits they could have got, that is not going to help your self-esteem. Moreover, you will fear that just as they lost, you might lose too.
Survival of the fittest is more inexact than wrong. Survival of the most versatile is the best way to put it. The fittest would be those who adapt the best and quickest to change.
If the law of survival of the fittest just happened, you don't have to approve of it. It would be better to believe that it just happened that survival of the fittest is the law of life. The law is down to chance. That would imply that you don't have to approve of it. To believe that a God who is all-good set it up implies that you do have to approve of it. If God created the law and you take it to imply that you possibly have to approve then you are really welcoming evil. Belief in God condones evil. Unbelief abhors the evil. Even to suggest the possibility of approving is diabolical. Yet if you believe in God you would have to go much further than that and bless the evil! Are you trying to console the sufferer? Are you not like the lick who when a child is molested by her father would tell her, "But no matter how it seems, he loves you really!"? Shove your consolation!
Evolution might need us to behave as if we are God. Evolution endangers belief in God. Belief in evolution is suited to the idea that God does not really exist and that he is just a human idea. He is not real.
Fundamentalist Christianity does not really care what damage if any belief in evolution does. What it really cares about is stopping people from seeing that its ridiculous Bible is full of lies.
The Bible says that the first man Adam was made from the dust.  Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into Adamís nostrils and Adam became a living person then. This cannot be used to prove the Bible teaches life begins at birth or the first breath for Adam is not a born being. The usual image is that he was built and was just a thing and object became alive when God breathed into him. [Against that it can be argued that the Bible says God is a potter making dead things and breathing life into them which could be saying that a baby is only a person when it is born. But that is best seen as poetry. It does not necessarily mean the author was really claiming we should see that an unborn baby is just a thing until it breathes.]

Evolution says there was no first man but loads of men who were evolved from ape like creatures.
The rationalisers or excuse-makers say that Adam, the first man, was made from the dust indirectly. His ancestors were made from the dust and eventually through evolution they produced the first man! The simplest interpretation of the text is the right one. The man was directly made from dust.
The Bible says that God made Adam sleep and when he was asleep he took a rib from him and turned it into a woman Eve. This contradicts the evolutionary idea that men and women evolved together.
Theologians point to the absurdities and errors in the story of the creation of life in the Bible and argue then that the story was never meant to be taken literally! Of course it was! It was written in an age that had silly religious stories. To argue that a religious text proven to be false must be true but metaphorical is just more religious excuse making. It means that there is more belief in making excuses than in the text! If fundamentalists today can take the creation stories literally, how much more could the authors have done so all those centuries ago?
Theologians hide the discrepancy between their Bible and science by making out that the Bible is not a scientific textbook but a religious one. But just because the Bible never mentions experiments or never uses scientific terminology does not mean it cannot think of itself as science!
Religious people like to lie that evolving means the same thing as improving. It does not. Let us pretend that it does. If we are evolving then we are better than the men and women that came before us. The men and women of the future will be better than us. The further back you go the less value the men and women have. This contradicts the view that God is a God of egalitarianism.
It is said that even if we are better, the people of the past were less evolved and so cannot be condemned for the hideous things they did. You cannot criticise your dog for not having evolved to talk to you. But evolving really means not that we will be better overall in the future but will be better in some ways. And some of these ways might have nothing to do with how we treat each other. We could become smarter but less compassionate.


The view endorsed by some that evolution is fine as long as you do not believe humans evolved is common in some religious circles. It suggests that the human creatures that evolved were not really humans. The Bible is clear that the first humans were created by a miracle. It says man was made from dust and there was no woman until later.  Many Muslims say the creation of man was miraculous but how can they when their religion is not about miracles? Muhammad did no miracles nor did he want to or say they were important.  Anyway it sounds evil to imply that human beings may not be human if they evolved.  It is a form of racist bigotry.
Evolution leaves no room for God. A God who hides his presence by making evolution look like a purposeless force is a God who is not there at all!
Evolution is incompatible with the Bible and the concept of God has no relevance to it.
Evolution describes the trial and error through natural selection that helped create the complicated forms of life we see today. The bottom line is that evolution says that nothing intended for us to be so well developed but it still happened. Bringing God into it by saying that he guides the process is a denial of evolution. Something that looks like evolution is not evolution. Christian evolutionists are at heart anti-science and lying that they are pro-science.



Science never starts off with an answer or explanation or a theory or a hypothesis.  It tests and tests and then the tests will point to a theory that may or may not be correct.  Religion always starts off with the supposed answer.  Religion is about arguments from authority and science is against such arguments for it wishes to let the evidence speak.

Science says that we need to be open and make all hypothesis verifiable or falsifiable. In other words, science is open to what new evidence may say. It may have beliefs and has no problem changing them when the evidence implies that the beliefs are false. Religion puts the God hypothesis beyond falsification. Nothing - not even people going to hell to spend eternity in unholiness and suffering disproves their God. To make the God hypothesis unfalsifiable is to declare science evil for science orders that. And it is particularly awful to be unscientific in relation to God because it is declared by Christianity to be such a central and absolutely important concept.

Religion telling us to believe in God and ignore evidence that contradicts this belief is bad enough. But it does not limit this attitude to the God doctrine. For example, Catholics say you shouldn't be sceptical about Jesus being at Mass in the form of bread and wine. There are countless examples.

Evolution is defined as living things progressing into more complicated things over a huge period of time but there is no ultimate goal.

Religion says there is but cannot answer us when we ask what the goal is. The answer that we are to spend eternity enjoying a relationship with God is very general. It is too general to be an answer. And it is about the enjoyment not the relationship. It is not really about God being the goal.

A Christian looks at the cruelty of evolution and argues or assumes that God has set up this seemingly cruel system for a purpose that justifies it. The atheist looks at the problem and admits it is cruel and horrid. Who then has the most compassion? Who has the most decency?

Evolution is defined as something that just happens. Religion denies this. Even if religion claims to believe that man and apes emerged from a common ancestor this is not evolution. It is a close relative.

Darwinism teaches that nature itself works to ensure that the fittest will survive and the weak will be destroyed or lose out. Eugenicists have used Darwinism to justify their attempts to breed strong people and destroy the weak and to refuse to help the poor and favour the rich and powerful and ruthless. But Darwinism says it must be left to nature. If you start claiming that some being is controlling evolution then that objection to manipulating eugenics is out the window. The Eugenicist could say like Hitler that he or she is a part of Godís plan to make a master race.

Some say that evolution is not survival of fittest but of those most adaptable to change. But those do the best job of being adaptable to change are the fittest so we are back where we started.

Christians deny survival of the fittest and thus are lying when they say they accept evolution.

All Christians object to the fact that the law of nature is that the fittest will survive and thrive. Everything in nature competes against everything else. The fittest person for the job will get the job. What about the sexy floozy who canít type who gets a job as a secretary in a firm run by randy old goats? She is still the fittest person in her own way. She is there for what they want her for.

To pretend that survival of the fittest is not the law is to repudiate evolution. Whether evolution is true or not, survival of the fittest is a fact. Christians who accuse evolutionary theory of espousing survival of the fittest need to realise that.

I am not saying survival of the fittest is good. It is cruel and vicious and nature is red in tooth in claw. I am merely saying survival of the fittest is a fact.

If you accept evolution, then you are accepting that God has chosen to make us in such a way that it looks like as if there was nothing supernatural in that process. The thought that God uses evolution to make us is like saying that when the baker makes bread she does it in such a way that it looks like it was made without her. She would sure be going to a lot of effort to hide her existence. And so would God. When a Christian accepts evolution, he or she is undermining belief in God.

A God who hides is preventing us from using what he has done to help us understand and know him.

Christians often use the fact that evolution is described as a theory as an excuse for saying there is no evidence for it for it is just a theory. But no matter how much evidence there is for something science still refers to it as a theory. The reason for this is that science is about doubt and experimentation and going wherever the evidence leads.

Science has to make generalisations otherwise it is useless. Suppose someone claims that Padre Pio has cured them miraculously of a form of cancer that is always terminal. You canít expect science to say, ďThis form of cancer is incurable and always results in death except for x and y and z who were cured by a miracle.Ē The Church itself says that the declaration that it is a miracle is only a statement of belief. It says the evidence says it was a miracle but it could be that it was a natural event mistaken for a miracle. It says its a possibility that it is not a miracle. It merely says its unlikely though. Anyway, its possible that the cure shows that science is wrong about how incurable the illness is.

The Church says that if we believe in evolution we must still believe in Adam and Eve. The idea is that God used evolution to make them. The fact that DNA evidence has refuted the idea of Adam and Eve is ignored. Adam is far more important in scripture than Jesus Christ in the sense that if there was no Adam then Jesus didnít need to come and save us. The Bible gives no clear hint that Adam and Eve are symbols.

The simplest reading and the most straightforward of Genesis is that Adam was made as a man by God out of dust there and then. Later Eve was made from his rib.  The natural reading comes first and must be understood as the intended one. And it is clear that it was Adam as a grown man that the rib to make Eve was taken from. It is clear denial that men and women co-existed always. It was male first and then woman. This totally contradicts evolution.  In fact any reading of the story in any other way is not a reading but a fantasy.

John Paul II is alleged falsely to have approved evolution in 1996. He wrote, "Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being."

That does not read like a doctrine of evolution by natural selection. It fears that thinking man was the accidental product of natural selection is degrading. Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn noticed that the letter is not a yes to modern science or Darwinism but its opponent. He wrote to that effect in the New York Times in July 2005.

One would think that as long as you got a spirit it would not matter if it were created directly or through a process. The pope thinks the spirit concept gives you dignity. He denies that randomness makes us. Some feel that God has created randomness so God and evolution can agree. But the pope denies there is any randomness in how man became a living soul.

When science contradicts the Bible the Church says the Bible is being symbolic or non-literal. This is just another tedious Christian cop-out. For example, when the Bible God says that rabbits chew the cud, the theologians claim that it is referring to the fact that rabbits merely look as if they do. Others guess that it is about an extinct breed of rabbit that did chew the cud. They don't care that there is no evidence for these rabbits among the remains of rabbits from those times.

To make excuses for Bible errors and contradictions simply opens the road to credulity. Any rubbish can be made to look like it is not rubbish.

Those who say theism, belief in God, is compatible with evolution need to be asked which of the two is most important to them? Which one would they abandon if there was a choice? If they say theism then their science is biased and suspect. It is not real science. God by definition is the most important. God by definition refers to your ultimate concern.

Christianity says that God has made it natural to be good.  But the fact remains that if evolution is true that it is also natural to be bad.  Any good we have is nothing compared to the violence that has happened around us and before us.  It is "more" natural to be bad!  Everything naturally possible is natural for nature lets it happen.  If nature gives you the desire for plastic surgery then its natural - as unnatural as it seems it is using nature in an unusual way.  Nature being bad does not necessarily mean you can be bad too if you want to be.  It is a fact not a permission.  In fact saying that God uses evolution to make us is in fact inferring that it is a permission.  If evolution belief makes people bad then connecting it with God confirms it in its badness.  If a doctrine is bad then it is bad but confirming it is only trying to support its badness and put the seal of approval on it.  Thus it encourages you to be worse.  It makes no sense to argue that if there is no God then it does not matter if we are bad or good for its natural for it is possible that God could let nature go on as if he was not involved.  Christianity says that when Adam and Eve decided to sin they broke the universe away from God so that it acts as if there is no God.  God lets it have its own way.  Thus God is irrelevant to the question.  The doctrine that God is involved is a doctrine about God not a doctrine of God.  It is not automatically true if there is a God.  If morality is natural we all ignore the fact that immorality is natural too.  That makes morality fundamentally dishonest an while it tells us to be honest! 

And moralists disagree on what is actually natural or moral.  People think their version of morality is the natural one.  Even if they deny it is natural they are driven by the feeling that it is natural.  As nature is full of combat it follows that when able people will shove their morality and religion down your throat.  They ignore your disagreement with them for as far as they are concerned you don't disagree deep down.  How could you when the morality is natural?  Morality is used by evolution to set groups against each other so what can you expect?  One fear people have of people who are "immoral" is that they will distort the way others are affected by nature and pervert them.  So as nature is the Bible of morality people have to be forced to conform in order to protect nature.  Moralism then as much good as it does has a dark side.

Christianity has no credibility. It cherry-picks from philosophy and science to create the illusion of rationality and credibility. It is really the enemy of science. Evolution and Christianity do not agree. The Christians that say it does are only hoping we don't test their claim carefully.