Evolution: Religion or Science?

[eMTee]

Gurdur. You have faith in the scientists and their studies, you have faith in the evidence, you have faith in evolution, you have faith in there being no God, you have faith that the evidence out there suports evolution, and you have faith that those will not be overturned.

 

I simply do the same thing.

[Harzburgite]

Faith doesn't come into it, facts do. I trust you agree there is a difference between facts and faith.

Scientists (good scientists, for their can be charlatans and imbeciles in any calling) base their beliefs on facts, not faith. They may begin there path to establishing new facts with an act of faith. If subsequent work shows their direction to be flawed they will abandon it. That is how an evolutionist differs from a creationist. S/he will be changed by facts, while the creationist's faith is resolute in the face of any fact - "it contradicts the bible; it must be wrong."

[Boerseun]

Faith doesn't come into it, facts do. I trust you agree there is a difference between facts and faith.

Scientists (good scientists, for their can be charlatans and imbeciles in any calling) base their beliefs on facts, not faith. They may begin there path to establishing new facts with an act of faith. If subsequent work shows their direction to be flawed they will abandon it. That is how an evolutionist differs from a creationist. S/he will be changed by facts, while the creationist's faith is resolute in the face of any fact - "it contradicts the bible; it must be wrong."

Very well put!

[Boerseun]

And there will be a day in the last days, that Israel will turn back to God. And they will go throughout the World Bringing many to salvation in the last 7 years

What'll it help for Israel to revert back to God, seeing as it's the end of days? What's the use of going throughout the world bringing many to salvation, seeing as it's the end of days?

I am not for sure if the United States is mentioned, but the Bible mentions the Eagle, and that is loses it’s right wing, and somthing else. I’m not for sure, but the Bible might be referring to the United States in that. I should read the book Revelation. I think it’s mentioned there.

Revelations is notorious for being THE one book in the Bible to be interpreted exactly the way the reader wants to. But this is probably the craziest interpretation of that book that I've read in quite a while.

Go check Ezekiel for an awesome running report of a UFO landing.

 

Please revert back to the subject of this thread, if you don't mind too awfully much.

 

Thanks.

[Hawkens]

Evolution is Religion—Not Science

Henry M. Morris*

 

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

 

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message?

Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

 

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.

Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.5

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of just-so stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudo-scientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding.

It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism.

Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”17 Then he went on to say that: “the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

 

References

1. Morris, Henry M., “The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I,” (Impact #330, December 2000), pp. i–iv.

2. Morris, Henry M., “The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II,” (Impact #331, January 2001), pp. i–iv.

3. Scott, Eugenie, “Fighting Talk,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.

4. Ericson, Edward L., “Reclaiming the Higher Ground,” The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.

5. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.

6. Mayr, Ernst, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.

7. Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.

8. Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

9. Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.

10. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

11. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

12. Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

13. Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.

14. Appleyard, Bryan, “You Asked for It,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.

15. Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.

16. Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and ‘Row, 1964), p. 125.

17. Ibid., p. 222.

18. Ibid.

[C1ay]

What a bunch of hogwash....

[eMTee]

Faith doesn't come into it, facts do. I trust you agree there is a difference between facts and faith.

Scientists (good scientists, for their can be charlatans and imbeciles in any calling) base their beliefs on facts, not faith. They may begin there path to establishing new facts with an act of faith. If subsequent work shows their direction to be flawed they will abandon it. That is how an evolutionist differs from a creationist. S/he will be changed by facts, while the creationist's faith is resolute in the face of any fact - "it contradicts the bible; it must be wrong."

 

Is that why you believe that there is no god? "facts" tell you that?

 

how about this simple thing. one man after dinner with his family, asked his kids what they wanted for desert, havung faith that the Lord will provide. The kids said that they would like chocolate chip cookies. after they said that, a knock at the door, and it was opened and the neighbor was standing there with a plate full of chocolate chip cookies, and offered them to take it.

[Hawkens]

Myth: Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.

Reality: This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?

Myth: The fossil record proves evolution.

Reality: There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.

Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.

Reality: The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.

Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.

Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life id complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plans and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.

Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.

Reality: Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.

Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.

Reality: All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.

[Harzburgite]

This may be straying off topic, but can anyone tell me why the richest, most technically advanced country on the planet, with more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world put together is also home to intransigent, shortsighted, self-deluding religious fundamentalists, who must be offending God by the wanton misuse of their intellect? Is it something in the water?

[Harzburgite]

Myth: Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.

Reality: ....... The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. .

This law, like all the other came into effect at the moment of the Big Bang. And what is it you have against Roman Catholic theologians anyway?

Myth: The fossil record proves evolution.

Reality: There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.

There are. There are many. They are abundant. They are confirmed by DNA anlysis. You are talking nonsense.

 

Sigh,!! Its not worth the effort. Tonight is not a good night to confront ignorance, systematic self-delusion and pig headed arrogance. It is too, too depressing.

[Skippy]

Faith doesn't come into it, facts do. I trust you agree there is a difference between facts and faith.

Scientists (good scientists, for their can be charlatans and imbeciles in any calling) base their beliefs on facts, not faith. They may begin there path to establishing new facts with an act of faith. If subsequent work shows their direction to be flawed they will abandon it. That is how an evolutionist differs from a creationist. S/he will be changed by facts, while the creationist's faith is resolute in the face of any fact - "it contradicts the bible; it must be wrong."

The problem, Harzburgite, is that evolutionists have accepted too many unsubstantiated guesses to provide "proof" for their continued adherence to flawed science. When something can't be explained, too often a "scientist" will form a new hypothesis and then seeks to persuade others that physical and experimental proof are not really necessary - it is then accepted on the "intellectual" basis of it alone.

[Harzburgite]

Give one specific example please.

[Hawkens]

Sigh,!! Its not worth the effort. Tonight is not a good night to confront ignorance, systematic self-delusion and pig headed arrogance. It is too, too depressing.

At least I'm not ignorant enough to treat a theory as fact without proof.

 

The problem, Harzburgite, is that evolutionists have accepted too many unsubstantiated guesses to provide "proof" for their continued adherence to flawed science.

One example...how about the Fossil Charts? Nothing but a collection of artistic drawings based on fossils place in a time range that they "assume" is correct and then use it to base all new findings off of. Then they try to explain how a monkey turned into a man all of a sudden without any transitional fossils.

 

I mean I'll accept it as a theory (just like Creation is a theory) but it isn't fact.

[Erasmus00]

One example...how about the Fossil Charts? Nothing but a collection of artistic drawings based on fossils place in a time range that they "assume" is correct and then use it to base all new findings off of. Then they try to explain how a monkey turned into a man all of a sudden without and transitional fossils.

 

You betray in this statemnt a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works. You have insisted several times that there are no transition fossils, which simply is not true. I suggest, instead of using the ICR and other creationist pages as your loan source of information, you also examine the other side. http://www.talkorigins.org/ has the scientific response to many of the points you have raised and questions you have asked.

-Will

[Harzburgite]

;)

I mean really ;)

If this post gets me banned, so be it, but this needs to be said and said as clearly as I know how.

Item 1:Skippy made the claim that "evolutionists have accepted too many unsubstantiated guesses to provide "proof" for their continued adherence to flawed science."

That is not a claim with which I can agree, but it was made in a reasonable manner and can certainly form the basis of a discussion. Therefore, I asked

Item 2 "Give one specific example please."

Item 3 Skippy had not yet replied, but Hawkens offered this point "One example...how about the Fossil Charts? Nothing but a collection of artistic drawings based on fossils place in a time range that they "assume" is correct and then use it to base all new findings off of."

Item 4 Hawkens I came here to discuss science in a mature, technically rigorous manner, not to debate the value or otherwise of over simplified kindergarten illustrations. I do not know of a single investigation into the evolution of any species, genera, family or phyla for which 'fossil charts' have played any role in establishing the facts.

The fact that you cite this as an example reveals you as wholly ignorant of the scientific method, woefully unaware of the processes of palaeontological study, and, by implication largely devoid of even a smattering of intelligence..

Yes, that is a personal attack, because your ignorance, paraded as knowledge, is a direct assault on the objective, scientific method and an affront to those who will be guided by logic and facts, not superstitious dogma. Your bigoted, narrow-minded, self delusional vision of the world is capable of corrupting impressionable young minds, looking for certainty where there is, instead, the glory of steadily unravelliing uncertainty.

Your viewpoint constitutes a danger to society and humanity. So, yes I am ;) , still, really :) .

[Skippy]

You betray in this statemnt a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works. You have insisted several times that there are no transition fossils, which simply is not true. I suggest, instead of using the ICR and other creationist pages as your loan source of information, you also examine the other side. http://www.talkorigins.org/ has the scientific response to many of the points you have raised and questions you have asked.

-Will

Because the ICR has the same argument as other non-evolutionists does not mean that the ICR is our source for everything we write here. I have pointed to the uncertainty of evolutionary theory evident in evolutionist's language, I may have used an ICR page once to sve time typing, but my problems with evolution cqme from personal observation.

 

You use a site which is nothing more than the antithsesis of ICR. At the bottom of the Talk.Origins Home Page is a link to Panda's Thumb, a site "dedicated to explaining the theory of evolution, critiquing the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world." (Hmm, wonder why they need to defend the integrity of science?)

 

Note the following from one Talk.Origins page:

 

Debates, Gatherings & Court Decisions

 

"It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same."- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis [1777] (interesting way to start a "scientific" page - nice propaganda technique)

 

Debates and Gatherings...

 

Debating Creationists: Some Pointers

The creationists' strength lies in their debating and rhetorical skills. In separate accounts, Scott and Trott describe the tactics of the creationist and provide some pointers for anyone preparing to take one on.

 

How Not to Argue With Creationists

Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates with creationists, as this continuation of an exchange between James Lippard and Ian Plimer illustrates.

[Hawkens]

Do you even remember what this topic is about and what type of evolution is being refered to as religion?

 

The fact that you cite this as an example reveals you as wholly ignorant of the scientific method, woefully unaware of the processes of palaeontological study, and, by implication largely devoid of even a smattering of intelligence...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

 

Read it for yourself then and then try to tell me they are not using fossils to piece together how animals evolved. Because they are and what I am saying is that it is just a theory. It's not fact but I do enjoy learning about it. However, don't expect me to change my belief over another theory (which isn't even a very good one IMO).

 

Macroevolution is a Theory so if your assuming it as fact then you are assigning it as your belief (Religion).

Creationism is a Theory so if your assuming it as fact then you are assigning it as your belief (Religion).

 

So if you want to label me arrogant and pig headed then fine...I can live with that. At least I'm not buying into the prapaganda that Evolution is how man came into existance on this Earth without some real proof. Did you know Hitler used Evolution to explain his Master Race? Did you know that some fossils found were hoaxes to either get money or to be used to counter Creationism? There are many that "believe" in macroevoltuion solely because it isn't about God. This is why Creationists have labeled it the "Athiest Religion". I just accept it as a theory.

 

You may ask why I come here then....well I like to read the debates and I love to visit the links posted from both sides of the debate. I also enjoy the Computer Science area (even though I haven't posted anything in there).