Darwinism and popular culture: David Warren refuses to be bullied by Darwinists
From one of Warren's recent columns:
What struck me, hard, in reading so much more apoplectic rubbish about Darwinism, which I drew down on myself with my Sunday column, was the refusal to look at the key, the hinge, of the whole argument. For I wrote: “We can now roughly date the origin of our universe, and 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Verily, 15 billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time.”
But, David, at this point you are supposed to say, "Well, anyhow, I guess Darwin dunit!! HoorAW!!!" Hey, you're good. You could win big prizes ...
Naw. You never liked crap. (Nor me neither. ) He goes on, merely speaking the truth:
Time and again it is said that the “God thesis” is not proven, while Darwin’s thesis is supported by an immense accumulation of biological research. But read almost any current biology text, and you will find that after ritual obeisance to Darwin and Darwinism in prefatory remarks, the rest of the book hardly mentions them, and the author(s) will keep slipping into the irresistible vocabulary of design, while trying to communicate how an organism works. Res ipsa loquitur, as we say in Latin. (“The thing speaks for itself.”)
He has reached the same conclusion as I have, that "Darwinism is a religion, and moreover, a false religion, in fear of free inquiry."
Well, but what would you expect of people who worship the shibboleth of randomness?