Looking at the title of this article can be severe. However, before defending this position, it is necessary to define the component parts: Darwinism is defined as a “set of ideas of transmutation of species or of evolution.” Evolution is herein defined as macro-evolution – the creation of a new, different and unique species. (After all, everyone knows that a simple change in temperature is a form of evolution).
The last two words, ‘religious scholasticism,’ is really the focus of this article. First, the definitions: religious according to Merriam-Webster is a “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Dictionary.com has a very similar definition: “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.” Finally, scholasticism, once again according to Merriam-Webster, is “close adherence to the traditional teachings or methods of a school or sect.”
By using the principles found in mathematics and replace the words in the article title with the definitions: ‘The understanding/acceptance of transmutation of species (that is the creation of a new, different and unique species) is a close adherence to the traditional teachings of a particular set of beliefs and practices.’
Why is this title necessary? It reflects that Darwinism or macro-evolution is a religion, a non-thinking, non-rational, religion. This is necessary because when confronted with true scientific facts, a hard-and-fast macro-evolution-Darwinian will not alter their beliefs.
Two illustrations will validate this point. For the first illustration, Dr. Ken Miller, to refute Intelligent Design, postulated pseudogenes. “One argument against an intelligent designer is the amazing amount of flotsam and jetsam in genomes. The human genome is 90-95% apparent junk, useless sequences, many of which resemble functional genes, but are clearly beaten up beyond working order.” However, ENCODE has discovered otherwise. “In the lead research paper, published in the journal Nature, the authors wrote, ‘These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.’”
The second illustration is from Richard Dawkins; Mr. Dawkins wrote: “We are… robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” The late Australian philosopher of science David Stove calls this ‘sociobiology.’ Stove proposes that Dawkins’ stance is a religion and calls genes a god. Stove said: “In traditional religion, humans exist for the greater glory of God; in sociobiology, humans and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.”