Religion of Evolution

[jcrawford]

The following link makes the case for believing that the teaching of evolution is religion, not science.

http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactfeb01.html

 

[Dan Todd]

Even athiests have to have an answer as to where we all come from.

Since they rule God out - the only thing left is the theory of evolution - that things just happened!

IMHO - Satan's refute of biblical creation is evolution!

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist evolutionists themselves admit to this. They show that evolutionISM is the "alternative" to the Creator Himself. (Hence - evilution)

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."
FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?
MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple – the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But "some" even mong our atheist evolutionist frineds see a place for the "crutch of religion" though it has been "expelled" from Genesis and the Creator is shown "by evolutionism's doctrines" to be mere myth.

Here is the "place" they allow the Creator to live in...

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."

FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html


QUESTION: If you could wave a magic wand and have the world be the way you think it should be, what would you see as being the proper relationship between science and religion today?
MR. DAWKINS: If I am asked is there a role for religion, would I just like to wave a magic wand and wipe it out? It's not quite so straightforward as that. It could sound patronizing, but I could imagine that the consequences of simply wiping it out with a magic wand could -- there could be social, psychological consequences which could be rather drastic. I mean, there are people who have come to depend upon it. There are people who rely upon it like a crutch.
…
But as far as serious intellectual discourse is concerned, as far as actually trying to understand the world where humanity is concerned, yes, I think we are wasting our time doing that.
…
But theology as opposed to Biblical history and literature -- when you argue about the true inner meaning of the trinity, or the transubstantiation, and try to come up with some symbolic meaning -- I think that is a total waste of time. I mean, a good satirical parallel might be to suppose that one day in the fullness of time science discovers that the DNA double helix is false, that we got it all wrong, and DNA is not a double helix. Now, any scientist would say, "Right, pity about that, but we'll now work on finding out what it really is." My satire on theology would be: "Ah, but in some other sense the DNA double helix surely has some meaning for us. What is the DNA double helix trying to tell us in the world today?" Maybe the twisting of the two strands of DNA has some significance for the uniting of human beings one with another -- we must set aside the purely mundane issue of is it true, which is crude and facile -- we are not talking about truth in any simple sense -- we want to find the underlying symbolic truth. There never was an underlying symbolic truth. Either it's true or it isn't.
At the present we think DNA really is a double helix. If ever that's found to be false we throw it out of the window and we start again, and we don't try to rediscover some inner symbolic meaning, which is exactly what they're trying to do with things like the Book of Genesis. They have thrown it out as historical fact, which is what it always was thought to be, and which many of its authors presumably intended it to be -- and they have now replaced it with a symbolic meaning: the true meaning of the Book of Genesis is this that or the other. You know the kind of thing I'm talking about. I think that it is a waste of time. I think it's nonsense.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcrawford]

The "explanation by evolution" is all cockamamy anyway if evos can't tell the difference between Human races and species.

In league with the Christ. jc

 

[Trotter]

It takes more faith to believe the "facts" of evolution than to believe what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ. I know, because I have been there.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Evolution isn't a religion. Evolution lacks a deity, an essential part of the definition of a religion. Evolution is only a scientific theory. The evidence is that it is true. It's only a matter of believing your eyes and understanding what you are seeing.

And it is perfectly possible to go on trusting Jesus as your Savior when you do that, because I manage to do it.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
The "explanation by evolution" is all cockamamy anyway if evos can't tell the difference between Human races and species.

In league with the Christ. jc

What evolutionist can't tell humans from other species? Are you thinking of some of the extreme animal rights groups, perhaps?

Would you think it was fair to take the extreme views of some of the christian sects - like the KKK for example - as an argument against Christianity?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution isn't a religion. Evolution lacks a deity, an essential part of the definition of a religion.

I guess buddhism, confusionism and a host of others are not religions? You did say 'essential', so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Evolution is only a scientific theory. The evidence is that it is true. It's only a matter of believing your eyes and understanding what you are seeing.

Evolution is a scientific theory, yes. But it also is the foundation for a religion. Humanism.

That, and evolution is akin to a scientific impossibility, statistically speaking.

And it is perfectly possible to go on trusting Jesus as your Savior when you do that, because I manage to do it.

I personally do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. I just feel that if one believes in evolution they may be ill informed.

Evolution is one of the principal reasons I became a Christian in the first place. Realizing the farce of evolution made me seek out the truth.

jason

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
What evolutionist can't tell humans from other species? Are you thinking of some of the extreme animal rights groups, perhaps?

Would you think it was fair to take the extreme views of some of the christian sects - like the KKK for example - as an argument against Christianity?

Modern evos (unlike Darwin) deny there are several distinct human races still alive today and then try to tell us there are several extinct human species in the fossil record. If Neandertals were not a racial type of human being then Homo erectus is not a 'special' type of human 'species.'

If the KKK was the only Christian sect in existence then it would be reasonable to argue against Christianity unless of course one possessed a copy of the Bible to refute the KKK.

 

[BobRyan]

As Dawkins points out - evolutionism's doctrines were invented with the very purpose of "Explaining" that part that the Bible attributes to our "Creator".


Eolutionism's myths and fables offer an alternative to Christ the Creator (John 1:1-3) such that (as Dawkins points out) the Creator "contributes nothing".

For some Christians - this "shrinking God" attribute of doctrines of evolutionism is "just fine". Even though it requires some pretty "bad science" in terms of the scientific method - to get there.

Christian believers in evolutionism's doctrines find themselves in a foxhole that is rejected by the atheist evolutionist science elite as well as by Bible-believing - Christians that choose to trust the Creators "account" of His own act in creating the world.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Atheist evolutionists themselves admit to this. They show that evolutionISM is the "alternative" to the Creator Himself. (Hence - evilution)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."
FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html


QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?


MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing ...

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

</font>[/QUOTE]Very instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[john6:63]

The following example shows that evolution is basically philosophical or, better, religious.

Creation
Self-existing external Creator
Cosmos created by divine fiat
Basic systems completed in the past by supernatural processes
Net changes in created systems ‘downward’ toward disorganization

Evolution
Self-originating or self-existing cosmos
Cosmos organized by itself.
All systems developed by still-continuing natural processes
Net changes in evolving systems ‘upward’ toward higher organizations.

 

[Frank]

Dan:
I agree with you, sir.
Jesus spoke of Noah as a genuine historical character. The Lord believed the great flood to be a real event ( Mat. 24:37-39). He affirmed the historicity of the beginning of man and marriage in the garden (cf. Gen.2, Mat.19:1-9).

Christians should not be "holding hands" with this evil.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Modern evos (unlike Darwin) deny there are several distinct human races still alive today and then try to tell us there are several extinct human species in the fossil record.

Physically they are intermediate between humans and animals. We can't read from a fossil what was going on with the soul.

If Neandertals were not a racial type of human being then Homo erectus is not a 'special' type of human 'species.'

I'm sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Please rephrase.

If the KKK was the only Christian sect in existence then it would be reasonable to argue against Christianity unless of course one possessed a copy of the Bible to refute the KKK.

Based no doubt on their dogmatic persistence in clinging to error against all reason and sense, clinging to their traditional interpretation of the Bible for justification of their errors.

Not a good way for them to behave, right?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

You can find all kinds of info about Creation Science just by typing "creation science" in your search window and hitting "enter".
This will enable you to present evolutionist with facts.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

A while back I issued a challenge: find one website dedicated to anti-evolution and young earth views of more than three pages that does not contain a plain scientific error. Several were suggested and none were found. This should tell you something.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
A while back I issued a challenge: find one website dedicated to anti-evolution and young earth views of more than three pages that does not contain a plain scientific error. Several were suggested and none were found. This should tell you something.

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Creation Science Evangelism

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[UTEOTW]

Hovind's offer is not a serious one. He has the rules rigged such that it could never be proven. That no one has met his "challenge" is no slap against science. Here, read all about it.

Hovind's Offer

Now Paul's challenge is an interesting one. He is right, no one could come up with a YEC website that did not have serious errors. In contrast, Paul and I both posted mainstream sites for which no YECers could find any problems.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution isn't a religion.... Evolution is only a scientific theory.

No matter where one falls in the C/E debate, your statement is quite right. It's often the YEC literalist crows which attempts to elevate evolution to a religion, because it is the only way to attempt to refute it. Based on observation alone, evolution is generally a sound theory which explains the observations.