What's the difference between Darwinism and atheism?

There is basically no difference between the two, seeing as Darwinism has become the preferred belief-system of atheists. Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern science.

In the West, with the advancement of modern science, the general population have lost their faith in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve, which doesn’t make much sense, anyway.

As more and more people turned away from the Church, they now relied on science to explain the reality of life.

In fact, science has become the new religion of materialists. It’s very important in a consumer culture, where constant economic growth is a sanctified goal, that people are trained up to become good materialists, both philosophically and in terms of life-style.

Now a days, people have the same awe and reverence for scientists that they used to have for their priests. So-called scientific theories like abiogenesis and evolution, even though they are pure and unalloyed myths, are being taught in all educational institutions of the world as scientific facts.

Before science came along, people needed religion to tell them about the world. Religion taught people that God created the world, that God was the original cause if everything.

Now a days, of course, we know better, because now we have science to tell us how the world works. Today we we know that chemicals combined to create life, and then evolution created all the different living entities.

The theory of evolution according to Darwin, is not even a theory anymore. It’s been updated to science. For the last five decades or so, evolution has been propagated to the general populace as a scientific fact.

So lets examine how existence is accounted for by evolution, and see if it makes any sense.

You see, first there was a pool of chemicals. Then, by the fluctuations of those chemicals, an amoeba-like creature was formed, and then this amoeba gradually, through many, many intermediate species, grew legs and learned to talk.

Ok, so far so good. Don’t even think about whether the first human was a male or female, that’s just an annoying detail, you don’t have to worry about. Such annoying details are not dealt with in evolution.

Then, how did the first human learn to talk, when there was no one to talk to? That’s another annoying detail they never address in evolution.

So, you are the first human on the planet, completely alone, no one to talk to. So what do you do? Do you sit down and wait for your counter part to evolve, so you can begin procreating? Maybe you grunt a little bit under your breath at the sheer idiocy of your situation.

Also when your counter-part finally evolves, you can begin grunting together and evolve some kind of language. Of course, don’t ask what language evolved, and was spoken by the first people, that’s another annoying detail. As far as we know Sanskrit is the mother of all languages, and how that fits into evolution is not yet clear.

Note, in contrast to the sheer idiocy of this evolution nonsense, and it’s linear concept of time, the logical, coherent and authentic explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - humans have simply always existed. Time is cyclic - civilizations goes through endless cycles of creation, maintenance, and destruction, age after age. At least that explanation makes sense to a rational mind.

The modern explanation of evolution is not only improbable and highly speculative, wishful thinking, it is also complete and utter anti-intellectual garbage.

Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective, scientific fact. It is considered completely rational and the best explanation according to observable facts. They actually teach you that in school - evolution is the best explanation we have right now to explain the world.

Of course, nobody with a brain actually believes in this nonsense, but this is how it is being propagated to the broad masses.

The fact is that modern mainstream people are brainwashed fools. They don’t have so much as one single independent thought in their brains. If they didn’t have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe, they’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

It’s a statistic fact that the general mass of people is more disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the biggest health problem facing humanity in the new millennium is that more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the symptoms of an evolved civilization?

It's rather peculiar how people in this scientific age are so little scientifically oriented when it comes to God and religion. The dogma has been created in modern society, that religion is faith only and science is knowledge only. That’s hardly a scientific approach to religion and God.

I can understand, how one may reject certain religions, but to downright deny the existence of a Supreme Being is simply irrational, and indicates an unevolved intellect.

There is nothing healthy or open-minded about being an atheist, and the proof is that at the same rate society dispenses with its former religious values, at the same rate society becomes debased, riddled with crime and insanity.

Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one can still be of an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we put on ourselves that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.

There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged by its result. Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits. So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their effects and influence. And the effect modern society has on nature and her inhabitants is one of destruction. Again, are those the symptoms of an evolved culture?

In conclusion, here is what science has to say about evolution.

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)