Evolution is a religion

Recently, a U.S. District Judge ordered the removal of a sticker from Cobb County, Georgia science textbooks. The following is the text of the sticker that the Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education had developed and approved for placement on the science textbooks:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The judge ordered the removal of the sticker because he claims it is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This sticker does no such thing. It simply stated the truth. After all, don’t scientists claim they approach their work with an open mind, study the evidence carefully, and critically consider the results of their experiments? Isn’t that what scientists do? This ruling reveals the real nature of belief in evolution – evolution is a religion believed by its adherents not because there is overwhelming, hard evidence to support it but rather because they know if evolution is not true there is only one alternative and that alternative is unacceptable to them.

It’s time our courts quit forcing the religion of evolution on us.

Subscribe to be notified when a new post is published.

8 Responses to “Evolution is a religion”


  1. Daniel Hank says:

    If as you say this sticker merely asserts what scientists say about everything they believe then why would a school board want to put it only in the section on evolution. Clearly, someone thinks (incorrectly) that there is less support for evolution than, say, the theory of gravity. That is a religious thought and not a very biblical one at that. In the Bible, many are called and few are chosen. Darwin could not have summed his theory better than that.

  2. The support for evolution is all speculation. Have you ever noticed the language they use? There are lots of “it suggests,” “it probably,” and “it might have.”

  3. The support for evolution is not speculation, unless of course you consider shared ERVs speculation. Then of course we have observed instances of evolution, even speciation. The sticker was also extremely false on many levels, evolution has nothing to with the origin of life, only how life diversified after the first self-replicators emerged. Also evolution is a fact AND a theory, just like gravity and electromagnetism.

  4. We have zero observed instances of one kind of animal becoming another kind. Speciation is merely one dog exhibiting different characterisitics than other dogs. It still is a dog.

  5. The word “kind” has no meaning taxonomically. Yes speciation has been observed to take place within a lab in fruit flies. The dog example doesn’t really work because most dogs are actualy the same species, as they willingly will mate with just about any other variety of dog and their mating will yield fertile offspring. In cases involving fruit flies where a population of fruit flies was split and both daughter populations were isolated after enough generations the two populations would no longer mate. The farroe island house mouse is another example of speciation, which wasn’t necessarily observed but was documented. There were no Farroe Island house mice until the English house mouse was introduced, and within 200 years the Farroe Island house mouse has established itself. The two species will now not willingly mate. Speciation outside of the animal kingdom is much more commonly observed and documented. Speciation in bacteria is quite common.

  6. In the case of the fruit flies, even though they would not mate, they still were fruit flies. In the case of the house mice, even though they would not mate, they still were house mice. In the case of bacteria, it still is bacteria. So how does that prove some goo from a billion years ago evolving into humans?

  7. They may still have been fruit flies, but the lack of mating compatibility along with the physical differences demonstrates that they are infact separate species of fruit fly. Fruit flies are any of the many many species of insect which belong to the genus Drosophila and house mice are any number of species belonging to various genera. It isn’t like when you have variations within a species, such as varies of dogs, subspecies of box turtle, or so called “race” in humans. In the cases involving variety, subspecies and “race” mating will still occur across those boundries. A great dane and a wolf will mate to produce fertile offspring, a three toed box turtle will mate with an ornate box turtle to produce fertile offspring, and a caucasian and a native american will still mate to produce fertile offspring. I never did say that observed and documented instances of speciation prove human evolution, only that they show that speciation does occur. Human evolution is confirmed by other evidence, esspecially shared endogenous retroviruses. Of course nothing actually “proves” human evolution, as science doesn’t technically prove anything, it can only confirm or disprove.

  8. If you are not saying that speciation proves evolution, then why even bring it up? If it isn’t relevant, then why mention it at all?


Got something to say?