3 Reasons Why Evolution is a Religion

A recent debate over whether to put creationism into textbooks has sparked debate among the Church of  Evolutionism.

You just may stop reading after my statement, "evolution is a religion."  Why wouldn't you stop reading?  You disagree immediately, or perhaps you think I'm trying to start a new religion.

But ask the question "what is a religion?"  And you'll likely get as many answers as people you ask.  But let's boil it down to this: RELIGION is the sum total of the answers to these three questions: 1) ORIGINS: How did we get here?  2) PURPOSE: What's the point of life?  3) DEATH: What happens after we die?

Any philosophy that answers these questions has crossed over into "religion territory," and is ready to start collecting offerings and followers.  They're making plans to hire a pastor and teachers, and will soon be broadcasting on radios and TV's around the world.  They'll have their own authors, music and prophets.  And the followers will be united and identified by their creed.

How does evolutionism qualify as a religion? 1) ORIGINS: 16-20 Billion years ago, nothing exploded, and created everything. That's right.  And the rains came down on the planet Earth, which was a rock back then and lightning struck and life occurred in a puddle. The assertion is that all living things have a common ancestor. That dogs, cats, humans and bananas all have the same great great great grandfather. And that the "fossil 'record'" is evidence of this.

2) PURPOSE:  Since I am then a product of random chance, there is no such thing as good or evil, and thus right or wrong.  So the religion of evolution tells its followers, "if it feels good, do it!" This has become the mantra for generations of Pastor Darwin's church followers.  They have written about scores of philosophy books, sang about it in rap videos and now teach it in grade schools.  If there is no such thing as a moral law-giver, then there is no such thing as a moral law.  So each person becomes the law unto him or herself.

3)  ENDINGS:  When we die, we return to the earth. That's it. No afterlife, no reincarnation, no angels, no devils, we just cease to exist.  In fact, several of the bishops in the church of evolution will tell us that we're part of the problem. In fact, Darwin's Bible, "The Origin of the Species" has a rarely quoted subtitle, ""The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."  This would actually suggest that the quicker some people make it to the grave, the better for all of us (if you're "favoured" of course).

And the prophets of the church of Darwin, holding his Bible have been many, but the most notable?  Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to name a few.  These are heroes of the faith, even martyrs.

So I ask you, WHY is it a bad idea to include creationism as a possibility in the question of origins?

IN THE NEWS: "Extra small condoms for 12 year-olds go on sale"

You heard right.

A Switzerland company has begun selling the "hotshot" 'hat' for little boys who previously haven't had enough knowledge, or the right sized condoms, to prevent STD's and pregnancies.  Elementary kids can now trade the candy for condoms to keep in their crayon boxes.

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in Europe, and in this new effort to "halve" the problem, enter the kiddie condom.

I don't know how effective marketing will be for pre-teen boys to buy "extra small" condoms.  I know this is beside the point but consider the audience.  It would seem more appropriate to call it something along the lines of "The Big Magic Balloon" with a picture of Harry Potter on the wrapper.  Or better yet, Veggie Tales star, Cucumber Larry sporting the body-wrap...

But the logical end of marketing condoms to 12 year-olds would be a self-fulfilling prophecy: "give them condoms and they're gonna have sex."  But is that really the case? When I was that age, the local clinic gave out free condoms to kids from my jr. high but that didn't mean I was any more likely to "get some."  So where's the debate? 

All the arguments for or against giving condoms to children seem to be missing a major point: condoms don't prevent a broken heart.  If it's difficult for grown, married adults to navigate the treacherous, dramatic waters that come with a sexual relationship, then how can a child process the emotional baggage that comes with sex? When a 12, or 10, or 18 year-old girl or boy consummate a relationship, they may consider physical consequences, which can be avoided using a condom. But it is rare that they understand the emotional wreckage that could come their way.  We've all heard of painful divorces that rip families apart, even if there are no kids involved.  The only difference between a sexually active couple who breaks up and a marriage that ends in divorce is a short walk down an isle. 

So rather than argue whether it's right or wrong to make condoms available to children, let's do our kids in the United States a favor and educate them before they become victims of an oversexed society that would love for them to "drop trouser" at 12 years old.  This responsibility falls first on parents, then on the institutions that have historically been set up around children to protect them: the Church, schools, sporting programs etc...

I would really love to hear your opinion on the subject, don't leave without leaving your comment!

Advertising the Church

Is it sacrilegious to "brand" religion?  What is "branding?"

This is a discussion in response to "Branding Faith" by Phil Cooke.