Darwin is NOT a god

Reading an article in the New York Times, I was jarred by this statement (emphasis added):

“For me, that’s too much anthropomorphic thinking,” Dr. Palese said. “Look, I believe in Darwin. Yes, the fittest virus survives. But it’s not clear what the ultimate selection parameter is.”

I know what Dr. Palese means--it is nicely explained in his next sentence. But generally speaking, geologists don't say, "Look, I believe in Wegner (or Steno or Hutton or Lyell)" when discussing various geological principles, and mathematicians don't generally say, "Look, I believe in Euclid" when discussing algebra.

Many people who don't believe in evolution claim that by teaching Darwin's theories, we are teaching students to reject God. I disagree with this sentiment--I can believe that the theory of evolution explains many scientific observations without losing my firm faith in God. Unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way, and many have replaced their faith in God with faith in Darwin.

Look, Charles Darwin was a man--a brilliant one to be sure, but just a man. His theories are intriguing and explain much of what we know observe. But he and his theories are not infalliable, and may be modified or completely replaced in the future. One can believe and support his findings without "believing in Darwin."