Why are Darwinians atheists?
by John A. Davison
13 February 2010
As everyone knows, scientists ask questions and when they obtain answers they inform the rest of the world what they have discovered concerning the questions they have posed. I have asked the question -Why are Darwinians atheists? I already know the answer to that question but to maintain a modicum of suspense I will delay that answer for a while.
Being a scientist, I begin by asking – who are the primary spokespersons representing the Darwinian hypothesis today? Until a few years ago they were Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, colleagues at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University one of the world's most prestigious intellectual institutions. Alas they are both now dead and the torch of Darwinian atheism has been passed to another pair of atheists, Clinton Richard Dawkins, now retired from Oxford University and his New World counterpart Paul Zachary Myers, associated with UMM, a community college, the University of Minnesota at Morris Minnesota. Admittedly there are lesser lights supporting the Darwinian thesis like Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry of The Panda's Thumb and After The Bar Closes blogs, but it is fair to say that Myers and Dawkins are the most prominent voices preserving the Darwinian thesis. It is interesting to note that both Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry deny being atheists, the former being a Catholic and the latter claiming to be a Methodist. Dawkins found it necessary to berate Miller not for being a Darwinian but for being religious! As far as I know, neither Myers nor Dawkins have attacked Elsberry for the same reason. It is difficult for me to imagine what role the personal Christian God might play in the Darwinian scheme.
It is precisely this difficulty that serves to explain why Darwinians must be atheists. I am confident that both Dawkins and Myers recognize the weakness in the Darwinian proposal but are congenitally incompetent to deal with that transparent conflict. The question they should be asking but refuse to ask is the following – If the Darwinian model is inadequate, what must one conclude as to the mechanism which can explain evolution? There is only one conceivable alternative possibility which is some form of guided phylogeny. This they will not concede because they would have to abandon everything they believe to accept such a scenario.
A curious feature of the Dawkins / Myers relationship is its remarkable mutualism. They share the same fans, celebrate each others birthdays and sell the same paraphernalia in the form of Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs, all emblazoned with the same big red A for atheism. If you go to "Pharyngula," Myers' weblog, and click on the big red A you will find Dawkins exhorting closet atheists to "come out" and declare themselves. Furthermore, they have each completely abandoned any semblance of science to dedicate all their energies to the cause of Universal Atheism, a hopeless venture at best.
The simplest explanation for why Darwinians are atheists is pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Of course neither Dawkins nor Myers believe in sin, one of the luxuries of being an atheist. These people, and I don't know how else to describe them, are incapable of admitting they could possibly be wrong and accordingly cannot be considered to be scientists.
"Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins display the death throes of Charles Robert Darwin's Victorian masterpiece, a fantasy which contains not a word in support of its grandiose title – not a word.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison