The reason why Darwin’s Idea of Evolution
Technically, it's the Theory of Evolution. But you're trying to be sarcastic, so I'll give you this one.
is so appealing to Atheists and Atheism is precisely because it makes no mention, no allusion, nor gives any credit to God.
1) It should be no mention of. -1
2) It's a scientific theory, which, by definition, is designed to give a naturalistic explanation. Thus, no reference to God.
3) It's appealing to atheists (capitlization is debatable, so I won't subtract any points, here) because it's based on scientific evidence, and not on wishful thinking.
Much similarly to Atheism, Evolution bases itself on nothing.
1) Similar to, or Much like. -1
2) Evolution is based on observations of data. The existence of this data is real (I've met very few Creationists who don't believe there are fossils). Therefore, evolution is not based on "nothing."
Yes, it is called a Scientific Theory, and a myriad of scientists attest to books and volumes of data, “experimentation”, findings, research, and other so-called scientific documentation to “prove” Evolution as some sort of fact,
1) This is how the scientific method works. You collect data, perform experiments, and submit your findings for peer review. How can you seriously disagree with that?
2) When in the middle of a sentence (unless referring to the theory as a whole), evolution does not get a capital "E". -1
but in reality, Evolution is a religion.
1) Still misusing the capital "E". -1
2) The Theory of Evolution in no way, shape, or form, resembles a religion. Buy yourself a dictionary.
All the data, experimentation, findings, research, and documentation is basically faith and hope based upon more faith and hope in the idea that a man’s faith and hope (that of Charles Darwin) is correct.
We have the fossils, we win.
Overall, you only receive a -4 (-7, if one feels that atheist and atheism shouldn't be capitalized) on my grammar scale. That's not too bad. Compared to other fundies, you are positively eloquent.
Your argument is still bunk, however.
