Darwinism is a religious faith when it is used as a springboard to justify atheism, denial of the supernatural, and so on. Witness Richard Dawkins stating enthusiastically “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”, Julian Huxley, Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne etc. ad nauseam. These are the “unwarranted and inaccurate” metaphysical conclusions. Referring back to Hayward, three (I assume) biologists conceding that they are convinced Darwinians without being able to prove the theory is a good enough example of faith for me, unless you have a better definition. That is how Christians etc. are criticised for their ‘faith’.

I don’t agree with your summary of my argument which, if I may say so, trivialises it. Here is something closer to what I’m arguing. All true scientific thinking is provisional, and the best that humans can come up with at any given time. We should always be on the lookout for revisions, improvements. Some bad scientists claim that the best we can currently come up with, or what they think is the best, is an eternal truth. They may do this because they are psychologically predisposed to wanting that theory, in the case of evolution because they are atheists, and this predisposition clouds their scientific judgment. They assume things which are not scientifically justified. I am not criticising the science of evolution, the fact of adaptation, genetics etc. We need to incorporate this, however, into a new evolutionary theory which goes beyond Dawkins et al. Some biologists are already doing this.