Evolution on the other hand put all it's emphasis on death. Without death there is no evolution. Death is the driving force of natural selection. And natural selection is driving force of evolution. Hence, evolution is a teaching of death.
So, clearly if nobody ever died, nobody would ever go to heaven or hell. Without death, there is no resurrection. Thus death is the driving force of at least that aspect of religion.
Point is that the label "a teaching of death" carries no purpose other than to be inflammatory.
Even if natural selection did not occur (notwithstanding any moral judgements you wish to pass on it), death would still occur. So then something else would be the teaching of death; namely, whatever process has death as a necessary component. Economics, for example: that's a teaching of death. If people didn't die, we'd run out of resources pretty quickly.
What's the point of referring to some body of knowledge as "
the teaching of death"? I claim, simply to make an irrational moral judgement about it.
Lastly, I can just say, "No, evolution is the teaching of survival: that's where the emphasis is, not death."
Anyway I suggest that we stick to rational characterizations of evolution and religion, as opposed to purely rhetorical ones. Evolution is not the teaching of death. If you or Dionysios wish to form a causal link between evolution and instability in society, you had better point out something more convincing than a mere correlation; otherwise, I would urge you to take note that the decline in the number of pirates in the world is strongly correlated with global warming.
-Erasmus