I recently viewed an interview that Richard Dawkins had with a creationist. During the interview, Dawkins sidestepped any reference to the inaccuracy of evolution by claiming the science was so much better now and the evidence for evolution was overwhelming. When the creationist pointed out that this so-called evidence was often misinterpreted or outright fraud, Dawkins claimed that only happened in the Victorian era.
Excuse me, but if a science starts out wrong and proponents of it won't admit its mistakes and correct them, doesn't that science qualify more for a cultish following than true science?
Yes. Evolution is the "Order from Chaos" Cult -- and very unscientific indeed.
One of the more chilling parts of the interview was when Dawkins admitted that he does not believe in an immortal soul. He claimed that consciousness alone qualifies someone as human. Although he then backtracked and tried to pretend he was for compassionate treatment of the ill, his "science" says that weakness should be obliterated. This means that anyone, the minute he or she loses consciousness, is now only a blob of material and not really human at all.
Kind of reminds you of the arguments for abortion, doesn't it? If a baby isn't born yet, it isn't human and has no right to life -- that's evolutionary thought for you.