creation vs. evolutionism(a religion)

[stephan11]

fact: evolutionism is a religion. if you don't believe it just check out this site. go to: http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
very informative.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

 

[Devekut]

Evolution is not a religion.

It is the best and most supported natural explaination that we have for the development, but not the ultimate origin, of biological life.

Personally, reason, intellect and evidence compel me, as a Christian, to accept evolution as fact.

Yet this has had really no influence on my faith or theology.

 

[stephan11]

take a good look first at the videos if you haven't already done so. i would really like your input (as a friend). its a real eye opener. also with all due respect you're right that it is the most supported explanation......but does that make it right? (the masses can be generally screwed up anyway) and is it right that as students in school we have no other choice other than to be forced to believe in evolution. if you watch the discussion off of the link i gave you it explains in great detail an alternative theory-creationism as opposed to evolutionism. it most certainly is a religion. if you look at the definition of theory with an open mind you will discover that theory is:A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. take note of the word belief.

 

[Christopher]

fact: evolutionism is a religion. if you don't believe it just check out this site. go to: http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
very informative.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Hello, staphan11. I was wondering if you could elaborate on why you think "evolutionism" is a religion, and perhaps you can also describe what evolutionism, as opposed to evolution, is. All you have is a link to a bunch of movies, and that's a very vague thing to base a discussion on.

Perhaps we can discuss these related questions:

If we were to hypothetically agree that evolutionism, however defined, is a religion, can you please tell me why that is a bad thing?

Seeing as that evolution is a completely natural, as opposed to supernatural, description of the diversity of life on Earth, and that religions have supernatural components to them, are you not stretching the usage of "religion" too far?

 

[stephan11]

hi christopher, thank you for your reply. the first thing is that where ever you go you see " creationism vs. evolution" not evolutionism. evolutionism refers to the fact that it is a religion and a play on words more intended to be a pun. its just flipped around. but in all seriousness the link i left is an offering, not a bunch of movies. its an incredibly detailed, informative lecture put together by a science teacher who knows science. after teaching for 15 yrs. he recognized the contradictions that the evolution "theory" has to the scriptures in the bible. his name is kent hovind, an incredibly good speaker and he's no dummy. if a person really is interested in looking at something that we're not taught in school, as excepted mainstream thinking, then i think it's a least something that should be looked at before deciding. how can anyone make a comparison on anything by only looking at one thing. it takes two things to make a comparison. i really, really recommend that you take the time to download, view and consider what he's saying. this isn't for me, it's for anyone out there that wants to get informed. the most important thing that you'll discover is that evolution is completely contradictory to creation and creation to evolution. in the bible it is written that there was a flood and the flood changed everything. if a person takes the time to watch the lecture, and it does take time, you will see that evolution is the exact opposite of creation. you will begin to see that as children, we've been brainwashed into believing an idea that escapes creation. before you invite a debate, find out what it is that your debating. also the fact that anyone may think that by saying evolution is a religion is taking things too far really lends to what i'm saying, that it behooves you to get informed instead of walking around with blinders!
EDIT: now in terms of debating, debating and more debating thats not my goal. in the end we get nowhere in debating. i'm not trying to shove my ideology down anyones throat. So instead of instantly going on the defensive about evolution, why not take a second and think, "where's he getting his stuff to think that this is a religion?" In other words, be slightly more open minded. So then its completely up to you to gather all the information to make a rounded decision. By debating, we are not giving each other a chance to gather any information, all that would do is try to fight each other's points.

 

[Christopher]

steffan11,

I'm not here for debate either, but discussion. You did post this in a section called "Christian Discussion" did you not?

If you read my questions carefully, none of them were about evolution per se. I don't want to discuss evolution vs. creation. I want to discuss why you think evolution is a religion. When you state, "fact: evolutionism is a religion.", in a discussion forum, I'm interested in why you believe it is a religion.

Despite what you assumed about me, I'm well aware of what creationist say, and I'm well aware the evolutionary theory conflicts with literal readings of Genesis, so I have little desire to spend several hours downloading and watching Hovind's films. What I am interested in is why you say, "fact: evolutionism is a religion." I'm also interested in answers to my other questions, and I doubt Hovind will answer them in his videos.

So, how about my questions?

 

[handy]

I know your questions were directed at Stephan but I have a few thoughts as to why I think that it can be appropriate to refer to "Evolutionism" as a religion.

Simply defined religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Another key element in what makes something a religion is the faithful acceptence that the beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe constitutes truth. A religious person can be defined as someone who believes in and follows devotedly these beliefs. When enough people devotely follow a certain set of beliefs in a systematic way, then that set of beliefs become a religion.

Given this criteria, both evolution and atheism have developed into enough of a system of belief with devoted followers to meet the definition of being religions.

Evolutionism has at its heart the belief that the cause, nature and purpose of the universe was spontaneous, and that elements generated by the spontaneous cause gradually changed over time until we get what we have here on earth. The evolutionist looks at the fossil record and bases his belief upon both what he sees, and what he thinks logically that he would see, if the fossil record was intact, which it isn't. There are facts that we can look at scientifically to draw conclusions, but our conclusions must necessarily be in good faith, as there are no hard facts that point to the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.

Now, I will say that I don't believe that all who think of evolution as a good explanation for the cause, nature and purpose of the universe are participants in a religion called "evolutionism", just as I don't think that all who believe that Genesis 1 contains the truth of the matter must be either Jew, Muslim or Christian. But, when evolutionists actively surpress any other presentations of the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, when they vilify and harass anyone who dares to go against their interpretation of the facts that we all have to consider, then yes, that one can be called "religious" in their beliefs.

It's a kind of sad commentary on religion, but nonetheless true, that when enough adherents of a certain religion gain societal power, then the active supression of other beliefs is often the result. If one were to walk upon just about any secular University in this country and explain why one doesn't adhere to evolution as the cause, nature and purpose of this universe, then one would immediately be targeted for supression either covertly ("Check out the nut") or overtly ("If anyone doesn't believe in evolution, you may leave this class now". I use this example because it was exactly what my biology professor said in her first lecture to our class.) When evolutionists act like that, they are indeed acting 'religious'.

 

[stephan11]

hi christopher, i'm not capable of answering your questions just in simple terms. if i could i would but it's just too big for me. too scientific,too much evolutionary theory and comparison, too much scripture involved and too much reasoning. but if your really interested and can get beyond normal thinking, it's beyond what the masses have assimilated in the past few decades. it's good stuff, give it a look, it might make your brain hurt. take care and thank you. by the way to handy, i couldn't have said it any better. the point that hovind is making isn't whether it's right or it's wrong. the point is that evolution is being shoved down our childrens throat with no other choice available. how is a student able to answer a question, pass or fail a test,(or a class for that matter) when the question posed is based on a theory or belief in regard to evolution and they're only looking for one answer, they're answer!
now in regard to what's bad about evolution, or maybe good(depending on your position) is that it keeps us from being accountable for anything we do. think about it.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

the cause, nature and purpose of the universe was spontaneous,

Hey,
I do not really have much to add to this discussion, but I will just say that evolution never addresses the cause. That is abiogenesis. Evolutionary law has no universally accepted theory on how life started, it just deals with the laws governing the progression after you get the early life forms.

Its like big bang. Big bang never attempts to postulate anything before the first planck segment of time after the universe starts. Just everything after.

Hope that helps to clarify that one issue.

Thanks.

 

[handy]

the cause, nature and purpose of the universe was spontaneous,

Hey,
I do not really have much to add to this discussion, but I will just say that evolution never addresses the cause. That is abiogenesis. Evolutionary law has no universally accepted theory on how life started, it just deals with the laws governing the progression after you get the early life forms.

Its like big bang. Big bang never attempts to postulate anything before the first planck segment of time after the universe starts. Just everything after.

Hope that helps to clarify that one issue.

Thanks.

Vault, I agree that straight evolution never addressed the cause of the universe. But, I agree with Stephan that there is a new religion out there that can be referred to as evolutionism.

I refer back to what I said before: "But, when evolutionists actively supress any other presentations of the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, when they vilify and harass anyone who dares to go against their interpretation of the facts that we all have to consider, then yes, that one can be called "religious" in their beliefs."

If you don't think there is a body of evolutionists who actively supress any other presentations of the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, then I challenge you to walk into almost any university in this Nation and challenge the professor that and Intelligent Designer brought about the creation of the universe.

No, evolution doesn't address the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a body of evolutionists who are quite successful at supressing any other "doctrine" regarding these things but their own.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The main criticism of ID in the scientific community has been in regards that ID has not put up any pro ID theories. Only neg-evolution. In other words, ID has focused more on poking holes in evo law, rather than building up a ID theory supported by observational evidence.

What particular theories that ID has put out that supports its version (rather than a negative to evolution)? I am unaware of any and would be highly interested in seeing any theories that are supported by hard facts that the ID institute has come out with to explain natural phenomena.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry about dropping out of this thread for a week. I bought a game from my XBOX 360 that has greatly diminished my productivity.

Simply defined religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Another key element in what makes something a religion is the faithful acceptence that the beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe constitutes truth. A religious person can be defined as someone who believes in and follows devotedly these beliefs. When enough people devotely follow a certain set of beliefs in a systematic way, then that set of beliefs become a religion.

Good, I was hoping for some definition of religion to come out. I personally think the definition is much too broad, but one can argue about what a religion is all day and get nowhere. So, this is definition is good enough, IMHO.

Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not give the cause, nature, nor purpose of the universe. It is solely an explanation of how species (not life!) come about. So I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a religion according to the given definition.

Moreover, no scientific theory would be a religion. Science strictly deals with the nature of the universe, and perhaps someday it can talk about the universe's cause or origin without being completely speculative. For purpose, one needs more than just science, some form of religion or philosophy.

If one were to walk upon just about any secular University in this country and explain why one doesn't adhere to evolution as the cause, nature and purpose of this universe, then one would immediately be targeted for supression either covertly ("Check out the nut") or overtly ("If anyone doesn't believe in evolution, you may leave this class now". I use this example because it was exactly what my biology professor said in her first lecture to our class.) When evolutionists act like that, they are indeed acting 'religious'.

What seems to be the real objection is that you think people hold to evolutionary theory dogmatically. This hardly seems like a criticism, because most creationist dogmatically hold to a literally Genesis 1-2.

I suggest that you, i.e. creationists, are looking at this issue the wrong way. People who accept evolutionary theory, for the most part, aren't holding to it dogmatically. They simply don't accept creationism as science, and they want to keep it out of science classes. I see nothing wrong with sticking completely to science in a science class.

Of course there are those who mock, but this happens on all sides. It's a shame that it gets so personal and nasty.

 

[handy]

Sorry about dropping out of this thread for a week. I bought a game from my XBOX 360 that has greatly diminished my productivity.

: Yeah, I know how that goes. I don't have an XBOX, but I can get more than a little caught up in Lara Croft.

Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not give the cause, nature, nor purpose of the universe. It is solely an explanation of how species (not life!) come about. So I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a religion according to the given definition.

I think we're probably all on the same page regarding evolutionary theory. But, I've met more than a few evolutionists (albeit not all!) who do become so dogmatic regarding evolutionary theory that they become quite religious.

Christopher, you had asked in your earlier thread that, if for the sake of this discussion, we all were to agree that "evolutionism" is a religion, would that be a "bad" thing.

Not really, IMO. There are plenty of religions, and it seems as though new religions are being manufactured lately. One more in the mix isn't going to be a "bad" thing.

Christopher you also said: Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not give the cause, nature, nor purpose of the universe. It is solely an explanation of how species (not life!) come about. So I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a religion according to the given definition.

Again, I don't agree that evolutionary theory in of itself is a religion. But, I do see more and more religious attributes arising in committed Evolutionists. An Evolutionist will take, on faith, certain beliefs. A common criticisim against the Creationist is that they throw God in the gaps: Whatever is not understood is attributed to God. The Evolutionist doesn't throw God in the gaps, but will allow unproven hypothesis to be thrown in the gaps instead. Just as the Creationist has faith in God, the Evolutionist has faith in the unproven hypothesis, including the unproven hypothesis of the origin of species.

Take for example these two paragraphs from good old Wikipedia regarding the origin of species:

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

Isaak, Mark (2005). Claim CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.

Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Trevors JT, Abel DL (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. PMID 15563395. Forterre P, Benachenhou-Lahfa N, Confalonieri F, Duguet M, Elie C, Labedan B (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1–3): 15–32. PMID 1337989

Then take this statement that heads the very next topic:

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Penny D, Poole A (1999). "The nature of the last universal common ancestor". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9 (6): 672–77. PMID 10607605

So, we see that on the one hand, there are Evolutionists who are willing to admit that there is no certainty regarding a common ancestor, and even will state that there is really no need to understand that which they cannot explain.

But, then there are the Evolutionists who will make the jump to state, as fact, that "all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestral gene pool.

It is jumps like these, which are basically leaps of faith in unproven hypothesis, that start to blur a hard scientist into a believer in "Evolutionism".

In response to both Vault and Christopher regarding ID: I'm not in anyway promoting ID, just using it as an example of how one could "test the waters" of whether one is dealing with someone who isn't dogmatic about evolution and someone who is.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I am certainly no expert or even an intermediate on evolution. I never learned of it in HS (went to private), and never had an college on it. Whatever I know has just come from personal reading.

So, if I say something blatantly stupid, let me know .

I do not think saying a common ancestor would be a leap of faith. Sure, they do no know how the ancestor got started, (ocean foam, in the volcano vents in the ocean, lighting and simple proteins,), but they do have a trend of branches leading to a single source. They just do not know what that single source was.

So, IMO, what they are doing is extrapolatiing a bit from the data at hand. It is the same for the age of the universe, they cannot say for sure how old it is because no one was there to measure it, but from studying stars, they can come up with a good approximation.

 

[handy]

: I have to admit that I'm not all that knowledgable myself. Most of my knowledge comes from being married to a Biology Major. And, I although I aggravate him regarding my rejection of certain parts of evolution, I have to admit I've learned a lot from him regarding evolutionary change that isn't necessarily un-Biblical. Frankly, I don't have that much of a problem with evolution as a theory of how species have changed over the years. It's when it is presented that the Theory of Evolution as the ONE and ONLY explanation of life that I get my Irish up!

I agree that they are extrapolating data. And, extrapolating data isn't necessarily a bad thing, but ONLY if the data is constant or consistant in nature. Extrapolating DNA, for instance, is no problem because DNA is very constant.

But, if there is one thing we can say about life on this planet, it is NOT constant or consistant. Life is a jumbled mess. As a matter of fact, I think it's odd of evolutionists to extrapolate data from the fossil records and such, when they are the one's promoting the record as proof of how much life has changed and leapt around. And, it's very true that there are so many "missing links" that they throw those extrapolations into the gaps, just as a creationist will throw God into the gaps.

 

[Christopher]

So, we see that on the one hand, there are Evolutionists who are willing to admit that there is no certainty regarding a common ancestor, and even will state that there is really no need to understand that which they cannot explain.

But, then there are the Evolutionists who will make the jump to state, as fact, that "all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestral gene pool.

It is jumps like these, which are basically leaps of faith in unproven hypothesis, that start to blur a hard scientist into a believer in "Evolutionism".

Any statement a scientist makes, even if they say it as a matter of fact, is a tentative statement. So, I wouldn't read to much into it. Yes, there are those who do take things dogmatically, e.g. Social Darwinists, but I think we'd both agree that that's not the scientific way. Seems like we're basically on the same page here.

 

[handy]

I was thinking about this thread a little earlier, and I think what I'm getting at is not really religion, but fundamentalism. By fundamentalism, I mean those who are so wrapped up in the "rightness" of their own POV's that they disdain any other. We see it in religion of course, but it's also in politics and our universities among other things.

And, the thing about these kinds of fundamentalists is that they don't really concern themselves with facts or even any tenents of their chosen belief system that they don't embrace. No true scientist is going to ignore other plausible explanations for things such as the rise and diversity of species or even global warming for that matter. But, a "fundamentalist" mind-set can creep into sub-groups and then you can get the type of "evolutionism" that is as offensive to a true scientist as Islamic facsists are to your typical Muslim or Jack Chick to your typical Christian or even Richard Dawkins to your typical atheist.

 

[DD_8630]

fact: evolutionism is a religion. if you don't believe it just check out this site. go to: http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
very informative.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Dr. Dino believes that peaches cure cancer. Call me daft, but I'll take medicinal science over the assertions of a criminal any day.

 

[Rick W]

Mary bore the man of Christ. David is also in Jesus Christ's bloodline.
So is "ape" in Christ's bloodline? Could one say our Lord and Savior was begotten from a line of chimps?


And who is Adam's father?
Why isn't Adam's father the biblical "first man" or his grandfather for that matter? What set Adam apart from his ancestors?
If Adam is mythical then was Abraham real? Was Cain and Abel real? Where is the dividing line between reality and myth? Who was the real person whose father was just a story or myth?
Do we make up explanations contrary to biblical text as we go along? What parts of the bible do we change to myth once believed to be real? How far are we willing to go to make scripture fit evolution? And who would it please the most to do so?
Seems to me the best thing to do is start is over, get rid of Genesis and write our own ideas and beliefs about beginnings. Call it "Origins" or something along those lines. That way it'll fit exactly as we want without so darn many questions and doubts. Let the scientific community write the first draft and we'll see how that goes. A little nip here and a tuck there we just might have something a bit more comfortable for everyone.

 

[Rick W]

Once we get the hang of rewritting scripture it really shouldn't be too difficult the next time around. After all, if Genesis, as God would have us believe, isn't exactly up to snuff then whose to say any other part of the bible is? We could clear up quite a few things. Just a little at a time though to make sure we get it right. If everyone, or most everyone anyway, is satisfied then we can move on to the other problematic areas and get those fixed too.