I don't really think they do. Some critics just fail to realize that criticizing Darwin does not do anything to the theory. I've heard people use the statement that he denounced it on his deathbed, so why do people still believe it. They don't realize that he simply made observations and came to conclusions based on those observations, and one man denouncing it doesn't mean it isn't true. God's existence is not dependent on a believer, nor is Truth. Some critics also fail to realize that modern evolutionary science is far beyond the observations of Darwin. Anyway, that's what I've noticed anyway... I hope this all makes sense. I'm a bit too tired to say it any better than this right now...

Many may see him as sort of an antithesis to "their God", so assume that those who accept evolutionary theory do also.

Evolutionists are very aware of who Darwin was. He was no God.

Darwin helped establish evolution, he has always been called the father of evolution. I think critics assume we need to believe in some higher being so they assume its Darwin, when it most likely is not!

I'm not sure I understand your question, Zeb. This is how I see it...if you are "religious", you toss out evolution. If you accept evolution, then whatever your religious beliefs are, they do not prevent you from accepting evolution. I saw a talk show host on The View insist that the world came into existence when Jesus was born, so it is far younger than scientists would have you believe..she sincerely and seriously believes that so that is the history and size of her world. She ignores everything that doesn't fit into that small box :(

Some people just can't seem to comprehend that not everyone believes as they do. Even their assumptions are often blindly presented.

Because it's much easier to argue against if the can manage to bring evolution - and all rational thought by extension - down to their irrational level. Hence "atheism is just a religion" and other similar nonsense.

No prob Cowboys. You never did explain how I made your point, though :-)

Because they teach and "protect" their religion and territory with blind religious fervour!! ... allowing none the right to be heard but their own "evidence" of evolution. They prevent even other discoveries that disprove evolution from ever being heard! Consider what else got 'swept under the carpet'!! I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally proven that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. Comprehensively, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study. There, after satisfying the natural laws of nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all differentiation among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act of its Opposition to Man and God!! A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER TO MY Q: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. DAD’S RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The claims by geneticists that we all spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background. It has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Similar DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order for it to efficiently exist and satisfactorily survive. Snakes and Man share DNA similarities, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, they are precise Opposites – even among those survival features that are necessarily similar. VESTIGIAL APPARATI {the snake – some – have miniscule Internal pelvises, though, in typical opposition, a man’s [a woman’s in particular] is more outwardly obvious. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigial in nature}: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause that snakes present as opposite Man: re the Vestigial structures you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner, however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is.