Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, not Science.

Within the context of the questions pertaining to origins the Centre for Intelligent Design UK is fully persuaded about the positive and powerful case supporting the design hypothesis in e.g. cosmology, origin of life chemistry and biology. The detailed arguments are laid out and discussed elsewhere on this site. Aside from the positive supporting evidence, C4ID also has real concerns that the case for Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth is not able to bear the burden of proof which many assume it to carry. Furthermore, there are characteristics which pervade the neo-Darwinian position which do little more than demonstrate that it is philosophically driven and not supported by the scientific evidence on which its adherents lean.

The following is taken from an article by Prof Phil Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in which he makes the case that Darwinism is materialist mythology, not science.

Science has been given two contradictory definitions in modern culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving procedures like careful measurements and repeatable experiments. Science by definition requires investigators to maintain a sceptical attitude,  insisting that all claims be carefully tested.  That requirement of unbiased testing should extend to the central Darwinist claims that some combination of chance and physical law is sufficient to cause life to emerge spontaneously from non-living chemicals, and that the Darwinist mechanism of random genetic variation and natural selection is capable of designing complex organs such as brains and vision systems.  There is no proof that natural selection- or any law/chance combination- has any of the creative power Darwinists claim for it. Dawkins concedes that even the simplest living organisms contain immense amounts of genetic information, and natural selection has no demonstrated information-creating power.

That lack of proof should be enough to discredit Darwinism, except that the second definition of science comes to the theory’s rescue by dispensing with the need for proof.   Science has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism,  or naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, and nature is made up of particles. It follows that matter had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included a role for anything outside of nature, such as God.  Scientists guided by this second definition are not permitted to approach materialism with open minds or sceptical questions, but must believe it on faith and consider no objections.  If materialism is true, then something at least roughly like Darwinism must also be true as a matter of logic, because materialist science has no viable alternative.  Scientific inquiry is limited to the details, because the fundamental points are all decided by defining “science” as applied materialist philosophy.

The reason the theory of evolution is so important to society is that it is the main scientific prop for a godless philosophy that either repudiates Christian theism or confines it to the marginal realm of subjective personal experience that has no standing as public knowledge. Students first learn to recite that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation.  That means that God is out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.  It is futile for Christians to try to reconcile their faith with Darwinist claims by imagining that natural selection is God’s means of creating, because the claim that natural selection has creative power is derived not from impartial testing of evidence, but from a materialist philosophy that excludes God by definition.

All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim atheism when they are not trying to disarm the religious people with illusory reassurances.  Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for any who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Stephen Jay Gould condescendingly offered to allow religious people to express their subjective opinions about morals, provided they don't interfere with the authority of scientists to determine the "facts" -- one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth.

There are a lot of dissenters, and there would be many more if people were not intimidated by the mystique of “science” and by the bullying of Darwinists like Richard Dawkins.  Sagan deplored the fact that "only nine percent of the American public accepts the central finding of biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved from more ancient beings with no divine intervention along the way." To keep the other 91% quiet, organizations like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences periodically issue statements about public school teaching which contain vague reassurances that "religion and science are separate realms," or that Darwinism is consistent with unspecified "religious beliefs."  (British Darwinists see less need to mollify the Christians, and hence dare to be more explicit about their atheism.)

What the reassuring statements mean is that the realms are separate because science discovers facts and religion indulges fantasy. The acceptable religious beliefs the materialists have in mind are of the naturalistic kind that do not include a supernatural creator who might interfere with evolution or try to direct it. A great many of the people who do believe in such a creator have figured this out, and in consequence the reassurances merely insult our intelligence.