Georges LaMaitre(Jesuit Priest) , father of the Big Bang Theory and Gregor Mendel(monk) who took a balanced approach to evolution slightly ahead of Darwin are two good examples.

Did God had a sense of humour ? - a monk called Gregor Mendel actually ended up as THE FATHER OF GENETICS. Unlike Darwin's "blending theory" (proven false), he actually came up with his theory and proved it true through a practical application of probability, math and statistical methods. By contrast, Darwin and his followers have been unable to prove it for 120 YEARS. Such a theory would have entered the dustbin by now except that the only other viable theory available is that creatures were created by design by another entity and this is not acceptable to science.

Mistakes of Darwin - his theory of "blending" and complete ignorance of Gregor Mendel's work proving inheritance of traits (published only a few years before his own)

WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS

Darwin’s theory stated that evolution can change one type of organism into another. He also thought the father’s contribution “blended” with the mother’s, and that a trait which supports survival would become reproductively dominant over time. Darwin did not have a clear understanding of the laws of inheritance of such traits, because they were discovered a few years earlier by an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel. In the 1900 geneticists incorporated Mendel’s four laws of inheritance into Darwin’s theory. They called the new theory “ neo-Darwinism “ in which the individual units of inheritance were generation to generation. For example, when Mendel crossed a pea plant having round seeds with one having wrinkled seeds, all the offspring in the first generation were round peas, not “blended.” The wrinkled seed gene was present, suppressed by the dominant round-seed gene. However, wrinkled peas appeared in one-quarter of the offspring in the second generation. Blended traits do not exist. Now we know that mutations cause chemicals changes to genes.

What Evolutionists Say We Ought to See
If neo-Darwinism were true we would expect to see strong evidence of change from one species to another (for example, ape to man, or descent with modification from a common ancestor). We should see the traits follow the genetic laws of Mendel and appear relatively stable from one generation to the next. However, dominant genes do not become more dominant as had been hoped by those favoring Darwinian evolution. Mendel’s laws of inheritance only explain microevolution, such as natural or domestic breeding of desirable changes or variations within plant and animal species.

For macroevolution to occur we ought to see something which dramatically changes the genes, something like gene mutation, a proposed mechanism to provide an increase in species complexity. We should see the effects of beneficial mutation and natural selection making significant changes in species. While mutations can be increased by heat, chemicals and radiation, most mutations are harmful. Most lead to structural impairment, genetic diseases and death. (The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is at least 10,000 to one.)

What We Actually Observe in Nature
We observe microevolution both in nature and through purposeful domestication within species. We do not observe macroevolution. Purposeful domestication (selective breeding) has been used to produce changes or desired variations within many species for more than 2000 years. Examples include cats, dogs, beef and milk cattle, race and plow horses, roses, wheat and corn. All have been changed through microevolution which follows Mendel’s law of inheritance, not the concept of blending traits envisioned by Darwin. Scientists admit macroevolution cannot be observed under natural conditions. If it happened, it occurred in the distant past and would be too slow to observe now.

However, in laboratory experiments, fruit flies have been altered to grow legs from there heads, one of many freakish major mutations possible. These changes were produced by large doses of radiation to greatly increase the mutation rate and alter genes. These changes neither created a new structure (just altering existed ones) nor changing the fly into a new kind of insect. These flies may breed under laboratory conditions, but cannot survive in nature because of this harmful mutation.

Davis writes, “Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutations.



What Scientists Say

Some scientists promote evolution despite the lack of evidence. Others point out the failure of evolution. “There is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred,” writes the National Academy of Science of the U.S. In 1995, the American National Association of Biology Teachers stated, “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of . . . descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance . . . and changing environments.”

Many secular scientists disagree. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences writes, “ No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Molecular biologist Michael Denton says, “The failure to validate the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology.” Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes,” One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written (Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Ferguson says, “Scientists are particularly loath to relinquish the last form of prejudice . . . It must be true because anything else would be unthinkable.” For example, Dawkins says, “ . . . the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and [we] both reject this alternative.


THE KICKER:

Charles Darwin had rascist theories that were linked directly to his THEORY of evolution. The followers of Charles Darwin considered him to be highly EVOLVED and called him a genius. His seminal work in this area led his cousin Francis to create theories of EUGENICS,(Francis, cousin of Darwin is called FATHER OF EUGENICS) widely employed by the Nazis to annihilate Jews, Gypsies and handicapped children in World War II and now actively followed by "Planned Parenthood" in America and other anti-human (or selective human) organizations. Interestingly Charles Darwin's children were all born sickly.

WHY IT IS POPULAR ESPECIALLY AMONG ATHEISTS?
Because the only other theory is intelligent design and creation by God and this cannot be accepted by science. Even then, the acceptance of evolution requires a leap of faith and an ability to see how random molecules or proteins came together even over millions of years, similar to that required in religion. Darwin might be called the "god" of atheists and rejecting their long-dead unproven god causes them to get angry just as it would any religionist.