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 13)

181

messybuu

on Jul 08, 2006

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.

They change evidence but believe the same things. They only believe what they've been taught, just like you. Like them, you've already made up your mind and are simply looking to prove it even further.

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.

I apologize for making stereotypes that are as polarizing and ridiculous as yours. As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that?

I think you do the scientific community a disservice by being so religious about evolution.

182

MasonM

on Jul 08, 2006

Where are my boots?

183

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"They change evidence but believe the same things. They only believe what they've been taught, just like you. Like them, you've already made up your mind and are simply looking to prove it even further."

Lies, lies, lies.

They don't 'just believe what they've been taught' or there wouldn't be ongoing research and revision of old research when new evidence presents itself. Creationists claim that science is unreliable because it always changes its mind and then Penultimate says they don't believe anything beyond what they've been taught.
...just like me? Actually, if I only believed what I had been taught, I'd either be a young-earth creationist, which is what I was first taught, or I'd be a atheistic proponent of totally random evolution, which I was later taught. I don't ahere to either, so that's a lie, too.
It's also a lie to say that I've made up my mind when I haven't, not even close.

'I apologize for making stereotypes that are as polarizing and ridiculous as yours. As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that?

I think you do the scientific community a disservice by being so religious about evolution."

You claim that what I portray people as are stereotypes, and then you back that up be being exactly what I claim folks like you are, liars. You haven't posed an honest perspective on this in how many posts now? You don't even base your estimation of me on anything I've said.

"As for evidence, do you expect me to provide a statement from a respected evolutionist that explicitly states that?"

Yes, I have pointed out lies by creationists to back up my belief that their standard operating procedure is falsehood and misdirection. If you are going to tell me that science believes humans are infallible, I expect you to provide at least a single example of one saying that.

184

no way bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

there are tons of human fossils, bakerstreet... you lied... in fact most of what your "proof" and what you use for evidence for evolution is based on lies. the facts that you do bring to the table have been distorted. either you are ignorant of this, or you are purposefully making an attempt to decieve.

185

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"there are tons of human fossils, bakerstreet... you lied... in fact most of what your "proof" and what you use for evidence for evolution is based on lies. the facts that you do bring to the table have been distorted. either you are ignorant of this, or you are purposefully making an attempt to decieve.

Where? Show me. Cite them. Be careful, mr./ms. anonymous, because proto-human/primate fossils are not considered human by creationists. They claim that MODERN humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Yet, and I QUOTE Mr. Ham of Answers in Genesis...

"As far as we are aware at the present time, there are no indisputable human fossils in the fossil record that we could say belong to the pre-Flood human culture(s). When we endeavour to understand some of the processes that may have occurred during the Flood, and also the real nature of the fossil record, we are not embarrassed by the seeming lack of human fossils.

We don't have all the explanations as to how the evidence came to be that way, and it may be that in the future we will discover some human fossils. However, there is also much about the fossil record that the evolutionists have a hard time explaining. On the other hand, we should also realize that we don't have all the answers either, and we never will.

Even though God has left us with evidence for creation and the Flood, the Bible still says that without faith it is impossible to please and believe Him (Hebrews 11:6). Because we weren't there at the time of the Flood we cannot scientifically prove exactly what happened, so there will always be aspects that will involve our faith. However, it is not blind faith. As we have investigated the evidence, we have seen nothing to contradict what the Bible says about a world Flood. We can be satisfied that there are reasonable explanations, consistent with Scripture, for the seeming lack of human fossils in Flood rocks."

Feel free to put up or shut up, Mr. Anonymous, but according to the bleeding edge of creation science there aren't any. Maybe you could educate Mr. Ham.

186

messybuu

on Jul 08, 2006

...just like me? Actually, if I only believed what I had been taught, I'd either be a young-earth creationist, which is what I was first taught, or I'd be a atheistic proponent of totally random evolution, which I was later taught. I don't ahere to either, so that's a lie, too.

Not true. I only believe what I've been taught, and I've been taught a variety of things, including evolution. Yet, it's true to say that I only believe what I've been taught, even if what I believe now and what I believed even just two years ago is much different. Right?

You claim that what I portray people as are stereotypes, and then you back that up be being exactly what I claim folks like you are, liars.

I back it up by using polarizing stereotypes. But I'll refrain from doing so since it's clear that only you may use them as a form of intellectual argument.

Yes, I have pointed out lies by creationists to back up my belief that their standard operating procedure is falsehood and misdirection. If you are going to tell me that science believes humans are infallible, I expect you to provide at least a single example of one saying that.

I haven't seen you provide a quote where creationists explicitly say: "I deny reality" or "What's reality except a delusion?" or something along those lines. I might have overlooked it, but if so, would you do me the honor of reposting it for me?

187

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

"Not true. I only believe what I've been taught, and I've been taught a variety of things, including evolution. Yet, it's true to say that I only believe what I've been taught, even if what I believe now and what I believed even just two years ago is much different. Right?"

No, because in many places in your writing you say openly that you don't end up agreeing with anything exactly. You don't just believe what you are taught, you have combined many different teachings to form your own beliefs. You admit that you haven't even decided about some things. That isn't believing just what you are taught, and I am no different.

" haven't seen you provide a quote where creationists explicitly say: "I deny reality" or "What's reality except a delusion?" or something along those lines. I might have overlooked it, but if so, would you do me the honor of reposting it for me?"

You haven't seen creationists claim that much of the proof of evolution is really devised by the devil and not the reality of history? You haven't seen KFC a few posts back deny the existence of bones that creationists even admit exist? This whole discussion is FULL of people differing with what is right in front of their face.

And I know you'll say that it is a matter of interpreting those things, but not so. It has been said time and time again that the Bible is 'truth' and what we see with our eyes and touch with our hands is suspect. Are you denying that creationists have proposed such? Is that not saying that reality is suspect?

188

semicolon

on Jul 08, 2006

BakerStreet, your arguments are perfectly valid. However, I think you are just wasting your time convincing those who can't be convinced. IMO, this debate is quintessentially about religion vs. science not about creationism vs. evolution. A belief, especially a religious one, is undisputable according to its followers. Science, on the other hand, always seeks answer through testings and evidence. Demanding a religious person to follow scientific value is impossible let alone arguing it through scientific perspective.

189

semicolon

on Jul 08, 2006

As a clarification, I referred the "religious person" to those who are uneducated in science background.

190

bakerstreet

on Jul 08, 2006

semicolon: I have no doubt you are right. My assertions are just trying to address the idea that the theory of evolution is just as much a religion as creationism, in other words, that the scientific evidence for evolution is no more reliable, and that it takes just as much blind faith to believe it.

Granted, there's not much chance that I'll convince the opposition otherwise, but there's something else to consider. I've been in a lot of religious discussion online, usually on the religious side, believe it or not. You'd be surprised how many times I have had third parties chime in and say that while they don't necessarily agree with me, they have more respect for my argument, or that I had defeated falsehood or bias that they had previously held. That's enough for me.

I think Kupe above (#168) was giving us the same sort of hint that you are. He is admirable in that he doesn't need to duke it out, he's satisfied to have his say and leave people to their beliefs. I like to think it takes all kinds, though, and that my pigheadedness serves some small purpose.

191

MasonM

on Jul 08, 2006

my pigheadedness serves some small purpose.

Keeps me entertained.

192

Dr Guy

on Jul 08, 2006

my pigheadedness serves some small purpose.

Keeps me entertained

And threads going!

193

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 08, 2006

Hey Baker, good quote by Mr. Ham. Haven't I been saying that all along? The last thing I said today was this: So you can't say that I'm one of those creationists that is insisting that scientifically we have evidence that man and dinos lived together in past times.

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

I've been gone all day and haven't had the chance to read all the updates....but I can see the argument seems to be a heated one.

And Baker, I don't differ with anything right in front of my face. Some of this is based on your interpretation just as much as you say mine is. And it's tiring that all my thoughts or beliefs or anyone I present is a liar and all your guys are not. You pride yourself on objectivity but I only see subjectivity. I've shown you also where the "other side" lies including Darwin but you refuse to believe it. His own wife accused him of holding back as I've said before. There are always answers to objections and so as I've said repeatedly....this is where faith comes into play. You have a strong faith in your side and I have as strong a faith in mine.

You have faith in what you "see and hear" from the Scientifc community and I have faith in what I "see and hear" but also in what I don't see. Like Tova's example of Thomas. There is more than meets the eye.

I read this Proverb today and thought of our discussion.

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." Prov 30:6

I don't care if an evolutionist or a Scientist or you Baker calls me a liar, but if God does, that would crush me.

194

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 08, 2006

just saw this

It's also a lie to say that I've made up my mind when I haven't, not even close.

what is it with you and lies? We make a comment now and it's a lie? Granted he made an assumption on what he's reading from you. I could have said the same thing but it would be based on what I'm reading you as saying Baker, not a purposeful lie.

Geeeeesh.

195

Ionolast

on Jul 08, 2006

"Oh, I've had enough of this."

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!