Darwinism is an anti–religious religion, with all of the absolutism and fanaticism that can accompany any philosophy or belief. As Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha in order to enrich their lives, Darwinists follow the teachings of Darwin. Where they diverge is that one is a philosophy, the other masquerades as absolute truth.
Taken without a grain of salt, scrutiny, or the allowance for debate, any information claiming to be absolute truth is, most likely, lying to you. The lie may be brilliant white while simultaneously being rigid and unyielding. Let's examine a few things:
People thought the world was flat. Really, they did, dragons and all. This was effective until long-distance positioning became important, then it was empirically determined that the world was spherical. The new absolute truth of the time was more correct than the prior flat ideal, but was, as we know today, also not wholly correct. Insert additional false beliefs that have been overturned in the presence of evidence: Earth-centricity, circular orbits, etc.
Because there is an absolute, measurable truth, (I hope) those who held beliefs differing from reality would have revised their stance in the face of evidence, and will continue to do so in future. This is why we have debate and things like freedom of speech.
Religions (generally; not all do) claim to have an absolute description of the creation of the universe, and a description of how things have come to be, and usually (sometimes violently) decry the truths of other religions.
Darwin's theory of evolution appears to have branched into two main camps: plain evolutionary theory, where there are reasonable restrictions on the definitions, and Darwinism.
Darwinists claim the theory of evolution to be an absolute truth; an idea from which everything flows naturally, a truth that has no room for superstition and unverifiable claims despite itself still relying upon a theory. It decries religion itself.
There are insane amongst any statistically significant grouping of humanity. [And yes, I did just say that.]
Without evidence, there can be no science. In the presence of doubt, there can be debate. In mathematics there are no rules of thumb; a truth is not absolute unless there is a valid proof. (Thus Pythagorean Theorem still being a theorem and not a rule.) Why is the core of science so willing to accept something which, while appearing elegant on the surface, offers no verifiable grounding? How did the first cell develop? We do not know, and until humanity invents time machines, we likely never will know. How did the universe transition from whatever it was before the big bang to the largest (and now slowest, as apparently the universe is still expanding) explosion in measurable history? Again, we will likely never know. But under no circumstances should we outright prevent people from attempting explanations. Darwinist explanations vary from pure chance and Frankensteinian lightning kick-starts, to chemical growth on the back of mutating crystals. (Thanks Ben Stein for that great quote.)
Why is the concept (given at least a modicum of credence through unexpected and unexplainable complexity, elegance, and chicken-egg paradoxes) of some intelligence setting in motion everything that lead to the creation of us (or plastic; maybe some entity really wanted plastic) more absurd than a just so lightning strike? My teachers (thanks Ms. H-T!) always taught me to keep an open mind, examine facts, and form my own educated beliefs. I'm pretty sure a2+b2=c2 for all values greater than zero. I'm also pretty sure that the chance of the universe being created just so to create life (or plastic) as being so miniscule that the concept of a creator becomes plausible.
I believe in a here-after; there is too much unexplained about consciousness for it to be just this. I also believe that since there is no direct evidence for a here-after, you have to treat the here-and-now as all there is. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
I believe in a creator. More likely a committee. Water does some really screwed up things at around 4°C, and quantum entanglement knocks my socks off. I don't believe a universal creator really cares about my personal opinion, successes, or problems. It is simply arrogant to think otherwise in this regard.
I do not believe we will ever know the why or how of creation; universal, cellular, or that of consciousness.
I, for one, thank the flying spagetti monster for all it has done for humanity, and welcome our robot overlords. Hail Eris, all hail Discordia!
— Alice.
P.s. This is written at nearly 2AM after a long Monday. Insert appropriate PC riders about my own absolute statements being obviously not absolute and all that BS. I get an idea in my head, haven't posted in a long time (I aim to fix that) and needed to get it out. Enjoy, discuss.