In an interview conducted by the Hoover Institute, David Berlinski said:
“Darwinism provides a mythological framework for a scientific theory. It provides an account of human origins; it provides an account of biological origins; it provides an account of change. And that account, at every point, is the substitute for a biblical account. That is, the accounts that we had all been led to believe, say, before 1859 were essentially biblical…in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Heretic R.L. Dabney writes:
The evolution hypothesis is, indeed, no novelty. It is, after all its pretended modern experiments, but a revival of the “atomic theory” of the Greek atheist, Democritus, adopted by the Epicurean school. Its application to the descent of man from some lower animal, has often been attempted, as by Lord Monboddo, who almost exactly anticipated Dr. Chas. Darwin’s conclusion. In the eyes of some modern Physicists, however, it has received new plausibility from the more intelligent speculations of the Naturalist La Marck, and the “Vestiges of Creation” ascribed to Mr. Robert Chambers. But it appears in its fullest form, in the ingenious works of Dr. Chas. Darwin, “Origin of Species,” and “Descent of Man.” I therefore take this as the object of our inquiry.
“Evolution is disputed by lots of people — as Malcolm Muggeridge put it, in retrospect evolution will be seen as one of the great jokes of history. But that is neither here nor there. The fact is that it is disputed. …All life is related. I am blood cousin to the moose, the canary, the dog, the postman, the condor, and the elk. I am allowed to shoot the elk at particular times of the year, but not the postman. How come? What is the line of demarcation and why? Who drew it, and who left him in charge?” (Douglas Wilson).
Some more quotes from Wilson (and thus ends this post):
“But if evolution is occurring in an atheistic universe, then we do not have this problem with evil, because there is no such thing as evil. But then we have the enormous problem of explaining the mechanics of how matter can organize itself into higher and higher degrees of engineered complexity. All that engineering, and no engineer.”
“By what standard do you judge anything? We have a standard and everyone knows what it is — Genesis through Revelation. You make quite as many value judgments as we do, even if it is only about us, but when pressed for details on exactly when and how your secular moses came down off your secular sinai, everything goes blurry.
But if you have a fixed standard, then please tell us what it is, and why it is binding on the rest of us. If you are open relativists, then open wide and swallow the reductio. After all, it is your cooking, not ours.”
“Why is the invisible logical rule against affirming the consequent binding on anyone? Why is modus ponens the way in which you and your descendants after you are commanded to walk? People get what they want by appealing to logical fallacies all the time. They don’t get the same results by disregarding the law of gravity. And speaking of the “best results” that obtain through obeying gravity, why should we even care about these best results? Who died and left the pragmatists king? Why is the nihilist wrong when he pitches himself off a high building?
Your relativism is a universal acid, and however you try, you cannot keep it from dissolving everything. The unexamined epistemology is not worth living.”