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 2)

Draginol

on Jun 23, 2006

It doesn't take a "lot" of faith to believe in evolution.

Evolution is a theory. Some of its proponents try to pretend it's fact but it's not. It's simply a theory on how species evolve into other species. It does not argue how life began. It does not say there is or isn't a god. It simply argues that a series of mutations big and small along with adaptions that living things make to their environments, over time, result in new species.

Evolution, for example, does not mean that God or some other super being did not create life in the first place. It makes no suggestion of how life began.

There are some significant holes in evolution that are difficult to explain. But presently, it is, at worst, a hypothesis, and at best a very plausible theory. But it is not a religion any more than the big bang theory is a religion.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 23, 2006

You have nothing to prove that George Washington existed beyond the word of a bunch of dead people whose stories can not be verified.

Com'on Baker you can't even really compare the two. We have tons of stuff...eyewittness accounts and many things in his own handwriting, chairs he sat in, cups he drank from. Many differrent sources to get our info from that don't conflict. In contrast we have nothing of the sort to go back to the beginning of time. Nothing.

Your sanity itself is a belief system. When you get your keys and go outside expecting your car to be waiting for you, you are excersizing belief.

of course I agree. Every time I open up a can of corn, I expect corn in there. Why? Because everytime I opened up a can prior (using my senses) I expereinced corn in there.

Are you willing to put that kind of scepticism up against Bibical assertions? Who was the guy who witnessed the conversation between the devil and God in the book of Job?

Yes to the first question and a great second question Baker. I always imagined it was the Holy Spirit that moved Job to write what he did. But again it takes faith to believe the revealed word of God comes directly from God...and you know I do.

We cannot say we have a witness for creation (outside the HS) or for any evolutionary process. Both have to be taken at Faith value.

What you defend isn't the existance of God,

of course it is. I don't need the book to tell me. I see it all around me. That's one thing that drove me to his revealed word. Right now we have an 18 year old local boy who has come up to my son wanting to learn about God. He came from a crappy home, with no belief being fostered in him at all yet he knows there's a God. He wants to learn about this God. How does he know especially after 13 years of being schooled in a system that only preaches evolution? Because it's internal and it's also external. All we have to do is open our eyes.

No human being has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change constantly. As they learn new things, they change their conclusions. As a matter of fact, as they change they are moving away from Darwin's theory of evolution to an Intelligent Design theory stopping short of naming this designer God. Once DNA came on the scene I believe alot of things changed. Life was a bit more complex than any dreamed of.

Draginol

on Jun 23, 2006

Once DNA came on the scene I believe alot of things changed. Life was a bit more complex than any dreamed of.

No. DNA too was once a theory. It required...faith if you will to believe in its existence. But it was long theorized that somewhere in our cells was some sort of complex blue print. In fact, DNA was an off-shoot of Darwinism which stipulated that something like DNA would need to exist in order for evolution to make sense.

bakerstreet

on Jun 23, 2006

"Com'on Baker you can't even really compare the two. We have tons of stuff...eyewittness accounts and many things in his own handwriting, chairs he sat in, cups he drank from. Many differrent sources to get our info from that don't conflict. In contrast we have nothing of the sort to go back to the beginning of time. Nothing."

Wait, wait, there. You have eyewitess accounts of alien abductions, too. How many people thought the Blair Witch Project was really a tape someone found after people went missing? You have accounts of dragons on almost every continent and every major culture. Do you believe that proves the existence of dragons?

So, in the end, how do you differentiate between the eyewitness accounts of George Washington and eyewitness of St. George slaying the dragon or the Roswell crash? In exactly the same way science judges the validity of geological evidence by weighing how dubious or convincing it is. The difference is in real, hard science, the existence of George Washington would always be open to refutation in the face of new data.

In the same way, scientists who think evolution makes the existence of God absurd are no more scientific than you are about the existence of George Washinton, and hard-line creationists are no more scientific than either of them, because they allow for no other possibility.

"We cannot say we have a witness for creation (outside the HS) or for any evolutionary process. Both have to be taken at Faith value. "

But the difference is evolutionary belief doesn't effect my life outside evolutionary belief. If you teach children in science class that God made the earth in 6 days, then you have to admit you are causing them to accept a LOT more than just the physical processes that created the earth.

In order for evolution to be religion it would have to have greater consequences than just describing what it does. Those imagined consequences aren't science, they are philosophy. In order for evolution to effect your belief in God you have to construe that it is somehow refuting your beliefs. Given that science always ends its statements with a question mark, leaving everything open for re-evaluation when more data is avialable, you can't really say it refutes anything.

So, you can't say that teaching evolution and teaching creationism has the same weight on the student. One teaches what might have been with no other consequences. The other reinforces the reality of a religion that goes far, far beyond any single scientific theory.

SanChonino

on Jun 24, 2006

It basically says that God used evolution to create the universe over a billion years or so. I have to (as a Christian) believe in his word that he did create the world in a literal six days for a variety of reason one of which He said so.

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I really don't believe that the six "creative periods", we'll call them, were six literal days. that doesn't make me any less christian than you, however. As I mentioned, I see this as a method he could use to explain to those early believers who heard and read these words a bit more about the creation.

It's just like I don't believe when in Revelation John is talking about the "locusts with the face of men and the teeth of lions" and all that jazz that he wasn't seeing jet fighters. (Rev. 9:3-10, for those of you following at home

) If I were to believe it straight across I'm going to see some scary-ass bugs during the time before the second coming of Christ. But, using my common sense and the mind God himself gave me, I figure it out - "Oh, Johnny boy here is talking about jets. I get it."

For me, it's the same way with evolution. Until God speaks again through his chosen prophet that evolution is incorrect, it can jive just fine with my faith in His creation.

Ionolast

on Jun 24, 2006

How was a day measured before he created the sun?

cactoblasta

on Jun 24, 2006

How was a day measured before he created the sun?

Presumably he based the time it took for the earth to rotate and provide an Earth day on the celestial days he used before the sun existed. It just makes sense that it would work like that if you accept the 7-day theory.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 24, 2006

I really don't believe that the six "creative periods", we'll call them, were six literal days

Why not? Do you think that God could not do so? Or is something else telling you otherwise? Remember he is a God of infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite wisdom.

Think about this:

The word for day in Genesis is "YOM" It can mean either a day (24 hour period), or the daylight portion of day. This word "yom" never means indefinite period of time. The word which means long period of time is "olam" Yom was the word used in Genesis 1. Furthermore look at the 10 commandments given much later to Moses inscribed by the finger of God, Gen 31:18. But notice what it said for the 4th commandment 20:9.....we are to work for six days and rest for one. V11 says: For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

To be consistent we must use it the same way. God set up a pattern which we still have today in our 7 day work week. If not, it makes no sense at all. You would be saying it was six indefinite periods of time and resting a seventh indefinite time. Makes no sense to me. Scripture always interprets itself.

Here's another thought as to why it seems inconsistent in saying a day is a long perid of time. Adam was created on the 6th day right? Well it says later that he died at 930 years of age, Gen 5:5 right? How old was Adam really if you're using a thousand or a million years in calculating a day? Again it makes no sense.

yes the day stayed the same, it just had another light source. We see before the sun, there was a light source. We're not told what this source is but since Jesus said he was the light of the world...I'm going in that direction. Also many believe that by God creating the sun on the 4th day it was to discourage what he knew would happen down thru the ages. Many cultures did indeed worship the sun as the source of life. The sun was to rule the day that already existed. God is showing us that he made the earth to begin with and the sun later.

What's interesting also in Revelation it says there will be no need for sun or moon. That the light of God's glory is all that will be needed. This ending fits in nicely with the beginning from my POV.

bakerstreet

on Jun 24, 2006

To me this is all semantics. You can't, for one second, rely scientifically on a work wherein you have no idea who the author was, and even if you did you'd have to admit that the person who wrote it wasn't there to witness the events recorded. When you find yourself talking to a burning bush, it takes a level of unscientific trust to believe it when it tells you it is God.

How long God's day is is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You teach a child evolution, you teach them a theory that science accepts may or may not be true, and that doesn't effect anyone religiously either way. On the other hand teaching creationism doesn't just teach about science.

Once you admit in class that the biblical creation is true, you've basically signed off on heaven, hell, and whatever else you find in the book. If the theory ends up being wrong, the total moral world of the student is wrong. Is science class the place for that? Nope, no more than philosophy class is the place for the study of DNA.

If there is anything that deserves parental oversight it is religion, and there's NO way I am leaving it up to inept, underpaid public servants who may or may not share my religion to teach religion. I KNOW the kind of idiocy my local school board is capable of... no thanks. Let them teach theories, at least kids can take those with a grain of salt.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 24, 2006

In fact, DNA was an off-shoot of Darwinism which stipulated that something like DNA would need to exist in order for evolution to make sense.

I've never heard this before. Where do you get your source for this statement? I'd be interested in checking this out.

Wait, wait, there. You have eyewitess accounts of alien abductions, too

ya, you're right. But from what I understand, none credible enough for this to be considered a fact. That's still not the same with George Washington with so much credible evidence out there. Besides Baker, I've said many times before.....I'm the biggest skeptic there is. I am so much like doubting Thomas it isn't funny. I've got to see it to believe it (that should open up a can of worms....hahahaha).

How many people thought the Blair Witch Project was really a tape someone found after people went missing?

I go by this principle......"if it makes sense....seek no other sense." Sensationalism sells.

The difference is in real, hard science, the existence of George Washington would always be open to refutation in the face of new data.

well last I knew there was no "new data" concerning George. I believe that's because there's nothing to refute. Any new news would have to be the news questioned at this point wouldn't you say?

First of all, I'm a believer in education, not indoctrination. I think both should be taught. Why are the evolutionists so worried? There are some nasty things going on all across the country regarding this issue. Some very heated debates. Why?

Think about this. The school system has had 100% of the kids' attention regarding evolution for how many years?. But yet if you did a survey you'd find that not even close to 100% believe it to be true and that quite a few believe either in the literal six days of creation or some form of Theistic evolution meaning God had a hand in it. So try as they might, it's a tough sell. And I do believe they are trying to indoctrinate, and while it's somewhat successful it's not close to being totally so.

I like what David said about self esteem in his letter. If they know they were created by a loving God who loved them so much he was willing to die for them, wouldn't that make them feel they had a purpose? I believe we were all put here for a reason. I believe that reason is to find God and glorify him once we do. But it's not easy. There's lot's of obstacles in our way and I believe that teaching of evolution is just one of them.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 24, 2006

If there is anything that deserves parental oversight it is religion, and there's NO way I am leaving it up to inept, underpaid public servants who may or may not share my religion to teach religion. I KNOW the kind of idiocy my local school board is capable of... no thanks. Let them teach theories, at least kids can take those with a grain of salt.

I actually agree with you Baker. Don't get me wrong. I don't want these liberal teachers going near my kids either. But I do think they can use just the creation story in Gen 1 and give the other side without going ideep nto theology. Let the kids use their minds and know there is another side to this debate. So we agree here.

Moderateman

on Jun 24, 2006

just an odd thought, when I concede that the big bang theory has merit { see I am setting them up} I ask with a most innocent voice, where did the material come from that made the cosmic stew from whence life was created?

I am a combination of both, I believe God made all. Then he refined all by causing it to evolve. WE see the proof of evolution daily. Life goes extinct, new life springs forth. {the insect world is perfect for this} We are bigger, faster stronger than our ancestors {more evolution at work}

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 24, 2006

yes Modman....that's micro evolution. I believe in that. I just don't buy the macro evolution stuff. There's no evidence of it yet it still is in the textbooks. Check out Kent Hovind from Pensacola, FL sometime. He's a science teacher who collects science books being used in today's classroom. He has video lectures out that are pretty interesting. He uses scientific facts of today and holds up textbooks that are still being taught even tho the info in them is wrong. He does this all with a dry sense of humor. He makes science very interesting to boot. I've got a bunch of his videos.

Another thought is that the biblical account shows that the species stay within their "own kind" We can see still today this is true. It's not proven otherwise, but the evolutionists try to say different.

Moderateman

on Jun 24, 2006

#28 by KFC (Kickin For Christ)
Sat, June 24, 2006 11:45 AM

yes Modman....that's micro evolution. I believe in that. I just don't buy the macro evolution stuff.

neither do I KFC. I much prefer to believe I was created intentionally than was just some kind of cosmic boo-boo.

Ionolast

on Jun 24, 2006

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!