The religion of evolution

I’ve heard this claim more times than I can mention, and I think that it’s a feeble attempt to bring the theory of evolution down to the level of the accuser. If they believe in a religion, and they have faith that their god is the divine creator, then by the same standard any opposing theory must also be a belief, require faith, and slot into the category of religion. The first mistake that they usually make is not researching evolution enough to understand it, and fail to recognise that a scientific theory is based on gathered evidence, as opposed to a standard theory which is an idea, or a suggestion to explain an event. The second mistake is thinking that the scientific method requires faith, as it’s deeply rooted in scepticism and doubt, and unlike a religion it’s able to adapt upon discovery of new knowledge, and/or evidence.

I read a dreadful article on AIG where the authors, both claiming to be doctors, suggest that there’s no observable evidence for evolution, but creationism has observable evidence in the Bible, as it’s the word of god. There are many examples of observed evidence for evolution, and nothing except words from the Bible and speculation on divine creation. Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

“2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, 2,000 years from Abraham to Christ, and 2,000 years from Christ to today.” – Source

Here’s the scientific version.

“By dating the rocks in Earth’s ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth’s neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.” – Source

As you can see there’s a tremendously vast difference in the age of the Earth from both parties and it’s actually a four billion five hundred thirty-nine million nine hundred ninety-four thousand difference. So when you accept how creationists blindly believe the words of the Bible over science, then it’s of no surprise that they think that evolution requires faith, so by their logic, must be a religion, but that’s assuming that creationists are able to apply logic in the first place. The way the creationist mind works is obvious, and it’s a fear of uncertainty. The Bible maps the birth of the universe and the start of life as an encyclopaedia, a pseudoscientific one, but all of the answers that they require are there. Whereas science whilst in the search for knowledge, being derived from the Latin word ‘scientia’, literally meaning knowledge, it’s about applying reason and doubt. Both of these processes go back as far as the archaic Greek philosophers, mainly the skeptics.

“Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.” – Socrates

Having the honesty to say ‘I don’t know, as the evidence is insufficient’ is a frightening concept to them, and it’s rare to find a sceptic person of faith, as gods require absolute belief and obedience.

Scientists claim that they think unicellular to multicellular is in principal the same as a ‘ratcheting mechanism’, in that it can only go one way. What this means is a scenario is created where it’s only beneficial to a group, and destructive to anything alone, meaning there is no reversion to the state it was in before. In other words unicellular life banded together as a group and became reliant on each other, so there was no chance of a mutation to turn multicellular life back into unicellular life. In a group state, mathematically there’s more chance of mutation, but a mutation to go forward, and not backwards. This is Microevolution at work when there are small, but significant changes at a molecular and cellular level, caused from selection, genetic drift, gene flow and of course mutation. This is certainly a possibility of how life went from unicellular to multicellular. Biologists have been studying evolution for centuries are there are several key areas, and they include:

Anatomy – which shows that species that are similar in structure ie: humans and chimpanzees. Dogs, whales and humans all have similar bone structures in the forelimbs, which suggests that not only did the whale once walk on land, which will explain why mammals live in the sea, but the development of the related bone structure developed in a common ancestor.

DNA – genetic coding that’s shared throughout species that prove a universal common ancestor. This includes the building blocks of life; amino acids.

Resistance – this is how a species evolves to survive ie: bacteria vs antibiotics, and insects vs pesticides

Fossils – that provide evidence of our long extinct relatives.

Natural selection – is the change of biological heredity of a population through generations. Considering bacteria mostly has such a short life span, then several generations can happen very fast. Some microbes can live for hundreds of years on a surface, and some, like HIV only last seconds, but most don’t last very long at all.

Convergent evolution studies how significantly distinct species have evolved the same way through evolution. The strikingly similar features of a shark and a dolphin, despite one being a fish and one being a mammal. To look at they are similar, but anatomically they are very different. A shark has gills and cartilage structure, whereas a dolphin has bones and breathes fresh air. Physically they are very similar in that they have evolved for a common goal. To swim fast and efficiently through water.

Divergent Evolution takes us back to unicellular life, and how the diversity of modern life came from it, and how life can develop from a common ancestor.

Real time observation – watching species evolve over time, and a great example of this is the Florida green lizard who over several generations evolved its feet to climb higher up trees to narrower branches to avoid competition.

Vestigiality – this is organisms that have retained redundant body parts. Did you know that snakes have pelvic bones? Creationists will argue that was god’s doing as he punished the serpent in the garden of Eden.

Biographical relations – put the same species of animals in two different environments and over time they will change to suit the habitat. This is what inspired Charles Darwin to study finches at the Galápagos Islands.

“The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.” – Source

The above quote is taken from another creationist organisation, and this time it’s the Institute for Creation Research, and as you can see, they are as delusional as Answers in Genesis. This article, however, is extremely bitter and is a direct attack against atheism, in which because we can’t prove there’s no god, then we must have faith, thus making it a religion, and they also claim that evolution isn’t promoted as a science, it’s promoted as a secular religion. So that means that I not only practise the religion of atheism, but I also practise the religion of evolution. How do these people genuinely expect to be taken seriously when they manufacture things to suit their agenda? Because scientists can’t fully explain naturalism, or provide evidence of abiogenesis, does this mean that because we’ve an incomplete picture, then it’s obviously false? And by their standards, believing something that they claim is without evidence is a religion, then surely it’s a two way street and they are being hypocritical?

Contradictions of Christianity

There are many common misconceptions and fallacies that theists love to push, like atheists are controlled by Satan, and we are going to Hell, and my personal favourite ‘Free Will’. Free will is an hilarious concept, and the fact that theists think that they have it is comedy gold.

Free will

If the Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, how can we have free will when he knows everything, is always watching us and holds all of the cards? If free will exists, sin cannot. If they have free will, it’s their choice as to what they do. Why suggest we have free will, if there’s a list of commandments saying ‘obey me or else!’? I really struggle to understand the failure of comprehension that theists have regarding this concept. Free will cannot exist.

Objective morality

I’ve covered this in depth in previous articles, but for something to be objective it has to fit a criteria.

1: To be objective it’s a person’s judgement that cannot be influenced by personal feelings, bias or opinions. It must be considered real and based on facts, and a universal truth.

2: God, whilst Christians are convinced of his existence, cannot be proven to exist. Faith is all they have, and the essence of faith is accepting something without evidence.

3: So combine point one and point two and the conclusion is that God’s existence cannot be proven, thus this alleged source of morality cannot be objective. Objective means being impartial to prejudice and reacting to facts only. Christians often cancel this out with their prejudice towards homosexuality, other religions, atheists and their history of aggressive racism.


A sin is the breaking of a religious or moral law, but if you look at Hebrew translations you’ll find that they had no word for sin, and the closest translation into English for the word chait (what Christians claim to mean sin) actually means ‘off the mark‘, or ‘a mistake‘. If it’s deemed as just a mistake, does this mean that Christianity’s alleged God is incapable of forgiveness? This brings us back to free will, as if I’m an alleged sinner for being an atheist and I’m going to Hell, where’s God’s compassion if he loves me?

Adam and Eve supposedly went against God’s wishes by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why did God request that they didn’t eat from it? Did he not wish them to know the difference between wrong and right by themselves, and wanted to pre-program them like the future sheep of his flock? When they realised they were naked they covered up their genitalia, but God obviously didn’t want this, he must have preferred them walking around with their junk swinging in the breeze. But because of their ‘sin‘ he made child birth painful, and some Christians claim that every sick child, every disease and every birth complication is because of their sin. But correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Jesus sacrifice himself in a degrading, humiliating and brutally painful way so he could die for our sin? Did that not cancel out Adam and Eve being naughty, as if it didn’t, why did he die in vain?

The concept of sin was created for one purpose and one purpose only – CONTROL. Making someone feel guilty and putting the threat of eternal damnation into their minds, everyone is going to conform and do as they’re told. Free will? Yeah, right. But Christianity isn’t about control I hear you cry.

 “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” – Romans 13:1

Divine truth

People that are capable of reason and independent thought know full well that due to the concoction of contradictions in the Bible, it cannot be a divine truth, as if it is actually the words of a God, he’s slightly confused. Old age perhaps? Over a few thousand years there have been multiple versions of the Bible, it’s been translated countless times by countless people, and it’s been edited and updated. How exactly can it be the word of God if he’s changing his mind as the years progress? Many Christians claim that there are no inconsistencies and it’s down to doubters lack of understanding, but some noted theologians admit there are inconsistencies but in their opinion that doesn’t mean that the Bible is false.

The Christian Old Testament is thirty nine books, the Jewish Old Testament is only twenty four as some book are combined, and the Roman Catholics have an additional seven books in their Old Testament which are known as the Deuterocanonicals. And it gets even more complicated than that, as different versions of the Bible word things alternatively, as do different sects of Christianity, depending on which section of the cult you belong to. It’s all confusing and incredibly unbelievable.

And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” – Genesis 6.3 New King James Bible

Then the LORD said, “I won’t let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than a hundred and twenty years.” – Genesis 6.3 Contemporary English Version

And Jehovah saith, ‘My Spirit doth not strive in man — to the age; in their erring they [are] flesh:’ and his days have been an hundred and twenty years. – Genesis 6.3 Young’s literal translation.

As you can see, three translations, and three interpretations, and this is consistent with every chapter, in every book of the Bible. Over forty authors and over a thousand years to write and compile, and people genuinely believe it’s God’s word. Despite the inconsistencies in the three quotes, it’s not put forward as an estimation, as it seems like the word of God is attempting to make a point with the figure of one hundred and twenty. How upset must he be when he realised that Russian ‘Koku Istambulova’ lived passed his sell by date in excess of nine years!


I’m sure you’ll agree that life is extremely difficult and full of complexity, and most people know that actions have consequences, and if you’re lucky you’ll live to a nice old age. Why only Heaven and Hell? Sure it’s pretty much inline with every other religion having one afterlife with reward and one with punishment, but not everyone has the same start in life. Some people have a positive, loving upbringing, whereas others may have been born into a life of torment, poverty and hopelessness. So how can these people both be judged in the same way, or fairly? You could also have an atheist who’s spent their whole life helping and giving, but because they lack faith, they are destined to Hell, whereas someone could be a bigoted, zealot Christian, but goes to church and prays, and automatically they get a place in Heaven.

The Holy Trinity

As we all know, the Holy Trinity consists of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Religious scholars claim that whilst Jesus was physically on Earth he taught the Old Testament, which outlined the atrocities committed by God. He never tried to denounce anything from the Old Testament, and allegedly publicly promoted it. If God and Jesus are the same, then Jesus was either an accomplice or solely responsible for genocidal, serial killing, and cruelty. But Jesus is perfect, pure and without sin, I hear you cry!

“And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.” – 2 Chronicles 21:15 King James Version

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” – 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 New American Bible

“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.” – Isaiah 14:21 New American Bible

These are three easily discoverable Bible verses that show that God was tyrannical and by association, so is Jesus.

Why did God wait more than 9,200,000,000 years after creating the universe to construct the Earth?

Why did God wait 4,500,000,000 years after creating the Earth to create human beings?

Why did God wait 100,000 years after creating modern human beings before making any contact with them?

Why did God allow 3,500 years to pass after the initial contact with humans was made before his Word had spread world-wide?

If God is a perfect creator and designer, why is the universe so chaotic, disordered, and messy?

Your average creationist believe that the Earth is between ten and twelve thousand years old. They dismiss the notion of evolution and either accept that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, or God put dinosaur bones underground to test our faith. Some Christians accept that this is nonsense, but still believe in the Adam and Eve story, despite an abundance of evidence that makes it impossible. Life began as single-cell, not fully formed, developed and intelligent human beings. I wrote articles not too long ago that address the start of life and abnormalities that either occur naturally, or God is incompetent or twisted, that can be found here.

Ontological Naturalism

Naturalism is a philosophical concept that everything came about by natural law and has no supernatural influences, and all of the evidence should be examined by using the scientific method. Naturalism mainly focuses on ontology, which is the study of what exists within a material world, and things like spirits and poltergeists have no purpose in reality; so more than likely they are no more than superstition, but the concept would be considered if sufficient evidence was provided. Nature is reality and nothing metaphysical has ever been proven as there’s no physical evidence to observe; nothing to witness or test; no hypothesis or experiments can be constructed; thus no theory to be discussed.

As far back as the Hellenistic period in archaic Greece, schools of philosophies like Cynicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism, all attempted to explain reality as natural causes and mostly rejected supernaturalism. As you’d expect as Christianity grew, and secularism became less, naturalism was deemed as a crime and anyone who even suggested it was labelled a heretic and this lasted throughout the dark ages until the scientific revolution during the Age of Enlightenment.

“When you don’t have explanation for a certain phenomenon, as a real human, you should suspend judgement, instead of concocting supernatural explanations out of ignorance and primordial fanaticism.” – Abhijit Naskar

Naturalism is often frowned upon by theistic organisations as they refuse to consider that everything we see came about naturally as they think that anything that exists must have a designer. Yet this is no more than mere speculation as the scientific method has only ever discovered things that exist that have natural causes. No scientist of any authority has ever proven anything to have existed by divine architecture, so how can anything that’s not naturalism have any legitimate credence? Even if science has failed to supply a first cause ie: abiogenesis, there is still more evidence due to the theory of evolution to suggest that life either arrived here from extra-terrestrial origins or a natural cause as opposed to a supernatural origin. Supernaturalism simply has no reasonable arguments to support it, and however much theists make claims, they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever, yet constantly mock the idea of naturalism.

“Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.” – Ken Ham