The "Darwinism's" coercing

I've been doubtful of Darwinism a long time. I think to coerce others to believe in Darwinism is human natural. This is just the same kind like the religions. The author's idea is more or less the same as mine. I think Darwinism is really like a religion.

 

Firstly, the way we teach it, you may take notice of it. We are not teaching it, but missionizing it. Just as the author present to us that Darwinists only give us the evidences which support the Darwinism, but cover up evidences that not in favor of them. And after Darwinism get the authority; it began to coercing others to believe it. Darwinists teach the theory as a "fact", and told everyone time and time again after they were born. This is extremely the same as religions. In the old days, even now, when a child is born, it will receive some kind of religion ceremonial. And it will be taught in a religion way in all deeds he/she did, is doing, or will do. And religions also prevent unfavorable evidences. They restrained things like heliocentricism. I believe Darwinism in this point of view is a religion, but not a theory.

 

Secondly, its effects are like the religions. Many people learnt it in childhood, and accept it as a fact. This is the most terrible fact. They could never doubt it. This, perhaps, should be the governments' fault, both in China and western countries. The governments should not mistake a theory for a fact, and teach its people this way, when no powerful evidences present. Now, I'd like to ask those governments: "What's the different between a religion and Darwinism when you spreading it?"

 

Thirdly, I think science means "progress". But it seems that the Darwinist didn't think so. They may think human beings should stay at a stage for good. They may argue that they are, too, in favor of progress. But I'd like to ask one question. When there are evidences, and strong evidences, that proof that Darwinism may not be true, why do those Darwinist still coerce others to believe Darwinism is "fact" and present no evidences that in favor of themselves? I think this is the same kink of reaction when religions are attacked. The Church coerced others to believe in them when they had no evidences in favor of themselves. What's the different?

 

There are certainly problems with Darwinism. The fossils found in China in the essay. And there's evidence in my village. When I was a child, there is a mother pig gave birth to a little elephant. For China's custom, we believe the little elephant was a devil, so we killed it. I'm not sure about it, for me myself didn't see it. But many people said they've seen it. Perhaps, if I'm a supporter of Non-Darwinism. I would write that I've seen it myself. I think we shouldn't kill Darwinism immediately. And we shouldn't still spread it as a fact. We should teach it in the way that the learners know it is a theory rather than a fact. And we should also present the unfavorable evidences. Let's find the truth of the origin of human beings and all other living things.

 

In scientific area, we should test all the possible ways, as stated in the essay, never skip any possibility for any reason. I think this the right way to get to the zenith of science. Perhaps, it is human nature to believe things they are favor of, and accept the evidences that in favor of it, omit the evidences that not in favor of it. But this is not science.