Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

Published on June 22, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.

Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.

David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."

Comments (Page 12)

166

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"Science can deal only with present processes to which alone it has access."

And that's all you get too.

"Were you there to witness creation?" Ham asks, and you have to answer no.
Were you there when the Bible account of creation was written? No.
Can you even show me evidence of who wrote it beyond a long chain of unverifiable eyewitnesses? No.
Can creationist theory be retested or reexamined? No.

When predictions don't pan out, science discards the theory. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence appears that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and do you revise? No. Science makes a claim, and you demand evidence before accepting it. The Bible makes a claim and it is true by default. That's why science is science and religion is religion.

"It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal process of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite process of innovation and integration for its production."

First, it is a straw man dealing with the beginnings of life and the universe, not evolution. Creationists like to confuse bystanders with long, poorly-constructed but scientfic-sounding sentences to distract from questions they can't answer. Second, nothing in the physical laws he clumsily cites would rule out current theories of evolution. Coincidentally, he just makes the statement and offers no argument to back it up.

P.S. I assume you can explain why it is "obvious to anyone not willfully ignorant", since you pose it as an argument. Why is what he is saying true? You aren't willfully ignorant are you?

"Whenever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible that in one manner or another must give way."

No, that's a lie, too. What is asked is for is scientific evidence to the contrary. You simply expect the Bible itself to be seen as evidence, when there's absolutely no reason to believe that anyone who wrote it had scientific knowledge, or even had THE INTENTION of promoting it as a scientific work.

"We are not told that "science" should correct its answers in the light of scripture. "

Why should it? Please tell me why the scriptures should be considered scientific evidence of anything. Please show me where they a) claim to be inerrant, and

claim to be scientific. Why claim they are when they don't even claim they are?

"Yet this is really surprising for the answers which scientists have provided have frequently changed with the passing of time. The "authoritative" answers of pre-Copernican scientists are no longer acceptable; nor, for that matter are many of the views of twenty five years ago."

That's not insulting science, it's pointing out the flaws with creationism. Science admits its mistakes and moves on. Creationists just make up new excuses to believe, and then demands science refute what creationists didn't have evidence for in the first place. People demand proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist, too. I demand proof that he does.

"Second...let's talk about honest. You keep bringing that up. Creationists are the liars right? Ok how familiar are you with.......Ernst Haeckel and his embryonic drawings?...

Ernst Haeckel's embryonic drawings are a straw man argument. Haekel published AFTER Darwin. His ideas of embryology have no effect on modern ideas of evolution, and probably caused a lot of people to be more careful. Nothing I am arguing relies upon them, nor does anything I believe.

Darwin wasn't dishonest about the Cambrian explosion, and we have plenty of fossils from before and after. This is just creationists misunderstanding science and then basing arguments on the misunderstandings. The Cambrian explosion is a very, very interesting period in evolution worthy of study, but nothing about it proves creationism or disproves evolution.

Peppered Moths. Another 20 year-old argument that creationists just pass on without even understanding the issue. The problems with the study cited haven't defeated the findings about natural selection; they still play out nicely. Actually you've already agreed with microevolution, haven't you? So it's kind of a facetious example.

Darwin's Finches. Again, you're griping about micro evolution, and the "problems" you are pointing out aren't an issue in terms of whether or not these species had a common ancestor.

Re: Behe and Gould, in reality Gould was openly admitting and condemning Haekel in his own books long before Behe was, so the idea that Gould was somehow covering up or keeping quiet is, again, a lie. If (your new source) Wells had wanted, he could have QUOTED Gould openly condemning Haekel, and instead he says Gould was covering for him. Would you call that honest?

It's sad that the best you can do is point to a handful of scientific aberrations. I willingly, gladly concede that there has been oversight and downright dishonesty in science. Will you acknowledge the spurious "facts" and downright lies that creationists pose in discussions without bothering to understand them or even look them up to see if they've already been found false?

Do you think it is godly to divert, avoid, misrepresent, and outright lie about facts that are easily looked up? Yet oddly in science that is the aberration, and in creationism that tends to be the standard operating procedure. Mr. Ham has to keep a list and beg people to stop embarrassing themselves, and yet they keep right on doing it.

167

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"what have I said that is counter to scientific evidence? ... (and later) ... I'm not refusing to look at evidence."

After all that, after people spend hours and hours discussing it with you, they offer evidence that you ignore, challenge you with questions that you ignore, and in the end you blindly ask the same question you started it all with. I've shown you the dishonesty at work in many creationist arguements. I've shown you how you hypocritically hold evolution to standards you refuse to apply to creationism. It's just an argument of attrition; ignoring them and hoping they will eventually give up.

I'll ask one more time. You insist that the holes in the fossil record are proof that evolution is not a valid theory. ANSWER THIS, if you aren't just dodging the question.

How has the fossil record, that you require for evidence, supported creationism? Where are the non-fossilized dinosaur bones? Where are the multitudes of fossilized humans we should see from the flood, when many/most other fossils were supposedly created? Why don't we have a SCRAP of proof that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side?

So, if evolution falls apart due to lack of "transitional fossil" evidence, but you have ZERO fossil evidence proving a 6,000 year old earth, will you honestly state that creationism has even less scientific basis than evolution? Every scientific demand that you make can be turned right around on creationism. Can you be honest about that?

That's why evolution isn't religion, and why creationism can't be science. I'll grant that science takes faith and belief, but so does a study of history, economics, or anything else. Until you admit that the creationism fails the standard of evidence you require from evolution, you won't be arguing honestly.

168

Larry Kuperman

on Jul 08, 2006

Hi, KFC. A good but short summary of some of the evidence of evolution can be found at Link

Another good source is Link

Quoting from the second article:
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

A nice compendium of resources is at Link

Good luck with those watermelons, by the way.

169

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 08, 2006

No more than you have Baker. I don't avoid anything. I asked you to show me where science has disproved scripture. All you have come up with is one Cardinal who made a huge blunder in interpretation. Heck I can find lots of people that still do that today. But I'll ask again....where does True Science disprove Scripture? I have answered you on many diff venues here and you just are unconvinced. I can't help that. I consider you a liberal in theology and myself very conservative and you understand the dynamics of that.

I've shown you how you hypocritically hold evolution to standards you refuse to apply to creationism. It's just an argument of attrition; ignoring them and hoping they will eventually give up.

and I've shown you that science is continually changing and the scriptures are not. I asked you what the word of God is and I don't remember you answering that either.

How has the fossil record, that you require for evidence, supported creationism?

well in a way it does. Well maybe not creation but the lack of human fossils discovered from flood time. I think the lack of human fossils could be evidence. Does that sound odd? So I guess it's based on non evidence. Remember animals were all over the planet but humans at the time of the flood were all concentrated in one area. It was until later they were scattered. Also I think the fact that there were so many dinosaur beds found with those huge heavy bones played a part. But remember they were all bits and pieces made up to what man imagined they looked like. We can't prove evolution or creation by fossil records.

Where are the non-fossilized dinosaur bones?

-Non-fossilized dinosaur bones would disinigrate since it's been over 4000 since they died. I'm surprised you ask this.

-Most fossils are put together by piecing together different bones that are scattered by many square feet

-Very very very rarely (if ever) do you go out and find an intact fossilized dinosaur to begin with

Why don't we have a SCRAP of proof that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side?

Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that. I know Ham will be putting both together in his museum maybe he'll have some ideas on this....but again maybe it'll be scriptual not scientific. . But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. Since I do believe scripture is the revealed word of God, I'd have to say I accept the fact they did live together. To what capacity? I don't know and I'm sure no one else does either. But another thing to remember is that crocs are considered dinosaurs remember and we do live among them still. When I went to Washington State some years ago there were fish in the Columbia River that were considered dinos as well.

Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980's at the infamous Arkasas creationism trial (McLean v Arkanas). During the trial he claimed that creation is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Dawinism is a science, he said, because it requires no philosphicl or religious presuppositioms. Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong and he now acknowledges that evolution is "metaphysically based." grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more scientific than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based.

I just found this .....check this out. Here you'll see Philip Johnson and Ruse together. Have you ever read Philip Johnson out of Berkely? I'd be interested in reading the encounter of the 5 Darwinists and the 5 ID proponents. Notice that it said the spirit between them was very good. I like that.

Link

Naturalism which is born from evolutiom is a religion. The entire philosophy is built on faith based premise. Its basic presupposition, a rejection of everything supernatural, requires a giant leap of faith.

Thanks Larry for the links. I'll check them out.

170

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"But I'll ask again....where does True Science disprove Scripture? "

*boggle* Again, it's a facetious, dishonest argument. Do you think science has an obligation to disprove Athena springing from Zeus's head? If anything that science didn't bother disproving was true by default, what a strange, strange world we'd live in.

When you offer evidence of the scientific truth of the scriptures, then there will be something to address. Until you do, there's no scientific way to disprove scriptures, just as there's no way to disprove Bigfoot. You demand scientific evidence, and then present none.

"and I've shown you that science is continually changing and the scriptures are not. I asked you what the word of God is and I don't remember you answering that either. "

And I have asserted that changing in the face of evidence should be APPLAUDED, and that creationists should be ashamed when they just make up new excuses every time they are presented with such.

"Well maybe not creation but the lack of human fossils discovered from flood time. I think the lack of human fossils could be evidence. Does that sound odd? So I guess it's based on non evidence. "

So, your assertion is that lack of fossil evidence is proof that human existed alongside many creatures that left behind fossils? Can you POSSIBLY imagine if a scientist tried to pull that off when debating creationists? Come on.

No, lack of evidence of something isn't really evidence. Again, if that were true, every religion on earth would be scientific fact, not just Christianity.

"Non-fossilized dinosaur bones would disinigrate since it's been over 4000 since they died. I'm surprised you ask this. "

You see, that has to be a purposeful lie, KFC, because you, yourself, know the opposite is true. I have held *North American* artifacts, textiles, and bones IN MY HANDS that were over 4,000 years old. You've seen plenty on TV, I'm sure. Are you really trying to claim that we don't have anything but fossils from more than 4,000 years ago?

No organic remains from Europe, Egypt, Asia, anywhere? Please. Come on. At least try. We have lots of bones from 4,000 years ago, and frankly we have a lot that are older than 6,000 years. Mr. Ham wouldn't even use that argument.

"-Most fossils are put together by piecing together different bones that are scattered by many square feet

-Very very very rarely (if ever) do you go out and find an intact fossilized dinosaur to begin with"

Diversionary. That has NOTHING to do with your lack of non-fossilized dinosaur bones. You see how you crab walk away from the truth when someone presents it to you? At least we find scraps of dinosaur fossils, and many intact ones. I'm still waiting for just a scrap from your end of the argument.

"Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that."

Then anything you post after you understand that which implies that creationism is just as scientifically valid as evolution is a lie.

"But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. "

Again, you're twisting the Bible to fit your beliefs. Job didn't say anything about dinosaurs. He talked about large creatures, which we now have many, and which prehistoric man had a lot more. That he's talking about dinosaurs, though, is a total assumption on your part, and more of your tactic of putting your beliefs in God's mouth.

"Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980's at the infamous Arkasas creationism trial"

Another lie. Michael Ruse is a professor of philosphy, not a scientist. He did not testify as to the scientific validity of evolution, nor could he. Were he here I have a feeling he'd be agreeing with me, not you. Here's his opinion in 2005:

" You argue that the Darwin vs. Creation argument is often a battle of two religions. Can you explain that?

Well, of course, this is what my new book is about. I am not saying that Darwinian theory is always religious – it is not. I am saying that often evolutionists use their science to do more than science and to give a world picture – origins, special place for humans at the top, moral directives – that we associate with religion. Creationism I argue flatly is a religion – the religion of biblical literalist, American protestant evangelicals of a right wing persuasion. Creationists deny that their position is purely religious, but I think that they do this to avoid the separation of church and state embedded in the US constitution. I suspect that many Darwinians will take issue with my claim that any part of their theorizing is religious – but I have made my case and rest it.

What is your personal view on the origin of life and its evolution?

Well, we have not solved it yet, but we have made major progress – both in working out when it came and what directions it took – following the path up to the Cambrian. Also molecular biology is working hard to see how life might have started in the first place. The latest hypothesis is that RNA might have been the first key molecule. People say that the problem is too complex to solve. I say, the problem is complex but for the first time we have the tools to give the solution are real try and we should be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

Note that I do not talk about the origin of life much in this book (or human evolution) – mainly because these are not issues absolutely central to my main theme about the evolution-creation dispute being essentially a debate between two world views or religions. "

Sorry, that sounds like my blogs, not yours. I myself assert that using science to oppose religion is wrong and unscientific over and over. That isn't what is at issue here. You are asserting that evolutionary theory itself is religion, and your cited philosopher doesn't believe that, either. He believes that many scientists draw philosphical conclusions from the science.

The link you post says NOTHING that is counter to my argument, or what Ruse has said in the past. His 'change of heart" isn't about evolutionary theory, it is about how SOME scientists apply that theory metaphysically. He's just as much the proponent of evolution that he always was.

"Naturalism which is born from evolutiom is a religion. The entire philosophy is built on faith based premise. Its basic presupposition, a rejection of everything supernatural, requires a giant leap of faith. "

Again, you sink back to the same, tired argument. Learn what naturalism means before you pose it as a religion. It isn't. It's a philosophy. Your confusion between religion and philosophy, and philosophy and science is part of your problem. One can be a scientist and hold philosophical and religious beliefs, without tainting their science.

I'm still curious about the quote you posted:

" It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal process of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite process of innovation and integration for its production. "

Would you please explain to me what this means? I have to assume you can, since you cite it as evidence of your points regarding evolution. If it should be clear to all who aren't 'willfully ignorant', and you most certianly aren't 'willfully ignorant', it should be clear to you, right? Either that or the guy is a liar, too.

171

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

You understand that 4,000 years ago isn't prehistory, right? The Great Pyramid is older than that. To say that we have no organic remains from that era has to be purposefully dishonest.

172

MasonM

on Jul 08, 2006

I have held *North American* artifacts, textiles, and bones IN MY HANDS that were over 4,000 years old.

I have to agree with this one as so have I.

173

MasonM

on Jul 08, 2006

Many mummies are 4,000 years or older.

174

messybuu

on Jul 08, 2006

Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?" I don't think so. It's all a matter of interpreting the evidence, and no interpretation is more authoritative than the next as they're all made by fallible humans. Creationists weren't the only ones who believed the sun revolved around the Earth before Galileo.

175

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

" Many mummies are 4,000 years or older."

And KFC knows that, MasonM. She's just grasping at straws now. I know how she feels, I did the same thing about when I was about 17 years old, and finally I just had to admit that what I had been taught about creationist 'science' was all a lie.

Even in the creationist timeline, there would be 4,000 year old bones still around. There's no argument from creationists that Mammoth bones are that old, and that we find them in a non-fossilized state, but they don't really explain why we don't find any dinosaur bones that way.

Hovind has all these theories about how mammoths were flash-frozen from a falling ice comet or something, but for some reason the dinosaurs missed out getting turned into an instant slurpee. Odd, that. Odd also that we don't find human fossils in the same strata with dinosaur fossils, given they lived alongside one another.

Science predicts where we'll find this stuff, and what we'll find, and heck if they aren't right more often than not. It theorizes that you won't find fossilized people in the same geological strata as trilobytes and tyrannasaurs, and you don't. Creationism believes they coexisted, and yet their remains don't; a fact they refuse to explain.

176

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?" I don't think so.

LOL, and yet when creationists start babbling about 'archeological evidence of the scriptures', they have no problem accepting dates. Well, if creationist dates are true, we have bones from that era that aren't fossils, and no dinosaur bones that aren't fossils. We have human bones, and no dinosaur bones. We have frozen mammoths and no frozen dinosaurs.

4,000 years ago was the FOURTH egyptian dynasty for heaven's sake. We aren't talking about cavemen, here...

"It's all a matter of interpreting the evidence, and no interpretation is more authoritative than the next as they're all made by fallible humans. Creationists weren't the only ones who believed the sun revolved around the Earth before Galileo."

That's only if you remove evidence from the equation. It isn't your word against theirs in science. That's the problem with creationists, they expect to pose no evidence and demand endless amounts.

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

177

MasonM

on Jul 08, 2006

#174 by The Penultimate
Sat, July 08, 2006 5:06 PM

Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?"

Yes, actually they do. The tag also includes the "made in Egypt" label as well.

178

messybuu

on Jul 08, 2006

4,000 years ago was the FOURTH egyptian dynasty for heaven's sake. We aren't talking about cavemen, here...

The point is, nobody's interpretation is more authoritative than any other. Has the scientific community become infallible recently? Sure, evolutionists think they are, but have they truly become infallible?

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

So, Galileo wasn't a creationist, but the church that fought him was? I never knew that evolutionism also taught history revisionism.

179

messybuu

on Jul 08, 2006

And no, creationists weren't the only ones that believed that, but they held out in the face of contrary evidence a lot longer than anyone else that I know of. That's the legacy of young-earth creationism, denying reality.

True. Young earth creationists do like to deny reality. They sure aren't alone though. Evolutionists think that humans have become infallible. I say they're both wrong, but what do I know? I'm not infallible.

180

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"The point is, nobody's interpretation is more authoritative than any other. Has the scientific community become infallible recently? Sure, evolutionists think they are, but have they truly become infallible?"

Again, you ignore evidence. Scientists put forth evidence for their ideas, and in the face of contrary evidence they change them. Dishonest scientists are in the smallest minority. Religion puts forth no evidence, then demands that evidence be provided to prove them wrong. When it is, they simply invent an excuse as to why they were right in the first place. That isn't the aberation of their behavior, it is the norm.

No offense, but by now you should realize how out of your depth you are here, penultimate. It's annoying to have to deal with this juvenile "Oh yeah, well you're not perfect either" crap when people are trying to discuss facts.

"Evolutionists think that humans have become infallible. "

And you, sir, are a liar when you say that, and a liar in my mind thereafter. You do your religion, whatever it may be, a huge disservice by lying in its defense. Of course you offer no proof that evolutionists say that, it's just more quasi-religious diarrhea of the mouth.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!