If it is backed up with a source(s), then it is very likely to be true.
I don’t agree. There are many cases of sources and references being cited in articles and papers but when investigated turned out there was absolutely no connection to the subject matter. Some writers use sources and references to feign credibility.
What on earth is Darwinism? No, seriously? If you mean the scientific theory of evolution, why do you call it Darwinism? This makes it sound like a religion, which evolution is definitely not… I mean, do you call The Theory of relativity Einsteinism?
I think it is called Darwinism because it has become a religion to many people. They believe it it ardently even though it cannot be proven to be factual by the scientific method. Also the theory of evolution is not all there is to “Darwinism”. His beliefs and inferences in the book “the origin of species” is what I believe the term darwinism refers to.
And let me tell you, Evolution has far greater proof than this one thing you read about. The proof is practically undeniable. (if anyone disagrees, you are free to tell me so, and why)
I would like to know some examples of the “proof” you speak of. Evolution as far as I am aware is still a theory. If there were proof it would be a fact. There may be “evidence” for evolution which is largely circumstantial (by Richard Dawkins’ own admission) but certainly there is no proof of it as no one alive has ever seen it happen and it cannot be witnessed in a timeframe conducive to human experimentation. Piltdown man, neanderthal man and cro-magnon man have all been uncovered as clever (and some not so clever) hoaxes. So has the archeopteryx (reptile-bird) and many other “missing links”.
What evolution proponents fail to produce is what Darwin himself said would be the only evidence that evolution was true…transitional forms/species. Instead of the these transitional forms what we see are huge leaps in speciation and orders of organisms. Also many evolution proponents use the “presence” of vestigial limbs or organs (leftovers) on exsiting or fossilized organisms as evidence of evolution only to find out that these organs actually had uses (See the book: vestigial organs are fully functional and see many lists and information on the so-called vestigial organs).
The truth is that evolution, although it may be true, given the current evidence available to our scientists, requires more faith and imagination to believe in it to be considered a true scientific theory to me.
But as others have said, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. But atheists use evolution a lot. (I also use it) Usually to counter arguments like; “The human body is too complex etc…”
Firstly your expression “believe in evolution” reflects why the term Darwinism is being used to much to describe the “movement”. No one says they believe in gravity. Why? Because gravity is a provable and testable phenomenon. It is not a theory. Evolution is not real science in its truest sense becasue it cannot be tested and is based on circumstantial evidence. Secondly I doubt highly that using the theory of evolution to counter such arguments makes much logical sense because evolution cannot explain the complexity of life forms in any event.
Like I said evolution may in fact be true but it cannot be explained without admitting to an intelligent driving force for it to have occurred in such magnificent order as it has without all species going extinct. Evolution presupposes that countless mutations took place to organisms over great periods of time and some of these mutations have, by pure chance/accident proved to be beneficial to the organisms. Hmm. Now lets put things in perrspective here. Did the giraffe, the woodpecker or the flagellum develop their complexity by mere luck and chance over zillions of years after zillions of mutations in zillions of species? Evolution says they did so evolution must be religious since the only way for this to be possible would be for it all to be actioned by an intelligent being or beings…ah.