Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

I think heliocentrism and evolution both have exactly the same problem for some people.It has nothing to do with God. The problem for them isn't that they make it easier or harder to believe in God. Heliocentrism doesn't move God out of the center of the universe. Evolution says nothing about how God became to be.The problem with both is the they remove humans from the center of the universe and from special attention. It is pure hubris that underlies some people problems with our increasing understanding of how the universe actually unfolds.Edited by NosyNed, : spelling

I don't see why you left these off your list:earthquakes
the sun
volcanoes
lightning
wind storms

The point is that they are all thing for which people used "god" as an explanation. Anytime a natural explanation is found for such things removes and "excuse" to believe in that god.If a believer has weak or little faith then that faith is subject to threat by new knowledge.If an individual attempts to use any scientific finding to "disprove" god then we might call that individual a militant atheist. Dawkins certainly falls into such a category. It is utterly ridiculous to call this "evolutionism" or any other such "ism" other than atheisim since it is an individual thing and there is clearly, creationist cries not-with-standing, no organization or plot to espouse this.It is also obvious nonsense to call it evolutionism since, as has been pointed out, you have to, when all is said and done call it:
physicism-cosmologyism-geologyism-chemistryism-biologyism-evolutionism.

It's too big to take up in this thread (look what happened to me yesterday) but this idea of such a progression is incorrect. (see Gould "Full House")

That is a misreading of the article. "Progress" is simply a stand-in for "increasing complexity".If you read the last of the wiki article you see that one of Goulds assertions is that there is no increase in complexity anyway. It is a mispreception from a biased point of view.The other point he makes is that the amount of increase we see in maximum complexity (without much change in average complexity is not because there is any direction but the result of a random walk away from a wall of minimum complexity on one side.