Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
Milk-Drops
Member
The speaker is making a big mistake. He has been sadly informed about a false problem.
Its made clear when he is talking about the religion of Evolution. There is no Religion of Evolution. The so called religion was invented by speakers, its a made up group. The speakers make up the tenements, assume that people who hold one concept to be full believes in the made up religion, and then claim that the religion is organized enough to then attack them. The problem is there is no religion. There is not such thing as Darwinism, or Evolutionism, or the Religion of Evolution, as the speaker puts forward.
There are scientists that use the actual theory to do work and research. There are scientists that accept the mechanics and the evidence. However, this is not the basis for a philosophy or religion. That is the problem.
The bottom line is, if you just accept something without doing research into it, then someone can say you have faith in it. However, the speaker doesn't address this, he's just paints everyone who accepts the theory as religious, when the reality is that most who accept it, have actually studied it.
The speaker doesn't go into detail about his education on the matter of the theory of Evolution. He only states that he once believed in it. The theory of evolution is a very complex field of biology. Its takes a lot of study to fully understand the mechanics behind it. We don't know how much the speaker knows about the theory, until he starts making broad claims about what the theory says.
For instance, the theory has nothing to do with ethics, philosophy, etc. Its only meant to be used as a model to explain how organisms adapt to their surroundings. Just like how the theory of gravity is only meant to explain how the force we know as gravity works. Both are just models explaining how forces work. The theory of Gravity explains how the Law of Gravity works, and the theory of Evolution explains how specialization works.
That isn't a religion.
Its made clear when he is talking about the religion of Evolution. There is no Religion of Evolution. The so called religion was invented by speakers, its a made up group. The speakers make up the tenements, assume that people who hold one concept to be full believes in the made up religion, and then claim that the religion is organized enough to then attack them. The problem is there is no religion. There is not such thing as Darwinism, or Evolutionism, or the Religion of Evolution, as the speaker puts forward.
There are scientists that use the actual theory to do work and research. There are scientists that accept the mechanics and the evidence. However, this is not the basis for a philosophy or religion. That is the problem.
The bottom line is, if you just accept something without doing research into it, then someone can say you have faith in it. However, the speaker doesn't address this, he's just paints everyone who accepts the theory as religious, when the reality is that most who accept it, have actually studied it.
The speaker doesn't go into detail about his education on the matter of the theory of Evolution. He only states that he once believed in it. The theory of evolution is a very complex field of biology. Its takes a lot of study to fully understand the mechanics behind it. We don't know how much the speaker knows about the theory, until he starts making broad claims about what the theory says.
For instance, the theory has nothing to do with ethics, philosophy, etc. Its only meant to be used as a model to explain how organisms adapt to their surroundings. Just like how the theory of gravity is only meant to explain how the force we know as gravity works. Both are just models explaining how forces work. The theory of Gravity explains how the Law of Gravity works, and the theory of Evolution explains how specialization works.
That isn't a religion.
turnorburn
Member
Oh its religion alright..
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
tob
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
tob
TOG
Member
Whether evolution is a religion depends on what your definition of "religion" is. According to dictionary.reference.com there are a number of different definitions, some of which involve God and some of which don't. Among the definitions listed are these two:
- belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
The TOG
Milk-Drops
Member
TOG
Member
And living organisms aren't part of the universe?
So, mutations aren't random? Here's what Berkley University has to say about that.
The TOG
Barbarian
Member
It always astonishes me that there are people who claim to have faith in God, but have so little regard for faith that the worst thing they can say about science is "It's a religion."
Milk-Drops said: ↑
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the nature of the universe. The theory of Evolution only applies to living organisms.
TOG said:
And living organisms aren't part of the universe?
You're putting way more stuff in your imaginary version of evolution than there is in reality. Come and learn what it's about.
"People are down on what they aren't up on."
Everett Dirkson
Milk-Drops said: ↑
So, mutations aren't random?
Above the quantum level, nothing is really random. We just don't know the cause sometimes. But natural selection isn't random at all; it's very predictable, and often will produce the same result from very different organisms.
There are random processes, like genetic drift, but they could not produce the sort of things we see evolving today. Whenever there's an adaptive change in a population, we see natural selection doing it.
And TOG, have some faith in faith. A Christian should never be ashamed of having faith.
Milk-Drops said: ↑
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the nature of the universe. The theory of Evolution only applies to living organisms.
TOG said:
And living organisms aren't part of the universe?
You're putting way more stuff in your imaginary version of evolution than there is in reality. Come and learn what it's about.
"People are down on what they aren't up on."
Everett Dirkson
Milk-Drops said: ↑
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with random events.
TOG said:
So, mutations aren't random?
Above the quantum level, nothing is really random. We just don't know the cause sometimes. But natural selection isn't random at all; it's very predictable, and often will produce the same result from very different organisms.
There are random processes, like genetic drift, but they could not produce the sort of things we see evolving today. Whenever there's an adaptive change in a population, we see natural selection doing it.
And TOG, have some faith in faith. A Christian should never be ashamed of having faith.
Milk-Drops
Member
Of course organism are part of the universe. However the train of logic used to link living organisms > mutations> randomness> religion is faulty. Mainly because it would turn every aspect of life into religion, making the term useless. That definition is way to simplified and the logic train is way to convoluted.
Mutations are random in the sense that the exact amount and how varied is not always known. That, however, doesn't mean evolution is random.
Also, as mentioned, whatever infered about the theory, but not actually part of it, dose not prove the existence of a made up religion.
TOG
Member
I haven't watched the video, but I dont' think anybody but you is actually using that train of logic. At least I'm not. My train of logic goes like this:
- Religion is a set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
- Evolution is a set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
- Therefore, evolution is a religion.
The way I see it, evolution is just part of a much bigger whole, which applies not only to life, but also to the non-living parts of the universe. Saying that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the nature of the universe is like saying that the stories of Jesus in the Bible have nothing to do with the Old Testament. The two are inseperable, even though they can be looked at separately. Jesus could not have claimed to be the promised Messiah if a Messiah hadn't been prophesied. Without the Old Testament, there would be no New Testament. Likewise, the theory of evolution depends on other theories to work. Life could not have evolved over millions of years if God only created the world 6000 years ago. For evolution to work, the earth has to be very old. Although some have devised theories to reconcile evolution and creation, such as theistic evolution or the gap theory, none of those theories really work, either theologically or scientifically. Without the big bang theory or some other theory to explain the origin of the universe billions of years ago, evolution could not possibly work. The two theories are inseperable, even though they can be looked at separately. It would probably be more accurate to say that evolution is part of a religion than to say that it actually is one.
The TOG
Barbarian
Member
TOG writes:
Merriam-Webster
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Nope.
Dictionary.com:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Nope. So the problem is, you have a personal view of "religion" that doesn't fit the English language. I notice that many of the same people who claim that ID (which has the stated purpose of promoting a god) is not a religion, also claim that science, which has no claims at all about the supernatural, is a religion. Deeply illogical, unless English is not your language.
No. Evolution is not at all about the origin of the universe, or what it is for. It's only about the way populations of living things change over time. This one is merely a misconception.
See above. Not in the least credible.
Then you're arguing with yourself. You've just invented a belief, and demand that scientist must also believe it.
That's pretty silly. In science, a theory is responsible for the claims it makes. You might as well claim chemistry is a religion, because it doesn't make any claims about how atoms began, or what they were made for.
True. If evolution is wrong, chemistry is wrong, physics is wrong, geology is wrong, etc. But as you probably realize, all of these science are very well documented, and they have given us many discoveries that explain the universe in which we live. To be blunt, they work. Being equally blunt, creationism does not work.
And if there was no air above the ground, birds couldn't fly. But we have abundant evidence for air. And the same for long ages. Which is why geologists know the Earth is very old.
No, that's wrong. Suppose, instead of using nature, as the Bible says, God did it the creationist way, and just poofed the first organisms into being. That would present no conflict with evolutionary theory, although it would contradict the word of God. Your problem is not understanding the difference between science and evolution. Someone observed that Marxists think everything is about politics. Perhaps creationists think everything (except ID, of course) is about religion.
Merriam-Webster
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Nope.
Dictionary.com:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Nope. So the problem is, you have a personal view of "religion" that doesn't fit the English language. I notice that many of the same people who claim that ID (which has the stated purpose of promoting a god) is not a religion, also claim that science, which has no claims at all about the supernatural, is a religion. Deeply illogical, unless English is not your language.
No. Evolution is not at all about the origin of the universe, or what it is for. It's only about the way populations of living things change over time. This one is merely a misconception.
See above. Not in the least credible.
Then you're arguing with yourself. You've just invented a belief, and demand that scientist must also believe it.
That's pretty silly. In science, a theory is responsible for the claims it makes. You might as well claim chemistry is a religion, because it doesn't make any claims about how atoms began, or what they were made for.
True. If evolution is wrong, chemistry is wrong, physics is wrong, geology is wrong, etc. But as you probably realize, all of these science are very well documented, and they have given us many discoveries that explain the universe in which we live. To be blunt, they work. Being equally blunt, creationism does not work.
And if there was no air above the ground, birds couldn't fly. But we have abundant evidence for air. And the same for long ages. Which is why geologists know the Earth is very old.
No, that's wrong. Suppose, instead of using nature, as the Bible says, God did it the creationist way, and just poofed the first organisms into being. That would present no conflict with evolutionary theory, although it would contradict the word of God. Your problem is not understanding the difference between science and evolution. Someone observed that Marxists think everything is about politics. Perhaps creationists think everything (except ID, of course) is about religion.
Vaccine
Member
When Darwin wrote about the origin of the species he knew full well the impact his materialistic ideas would have on other disciplines of science, psychology and philosophy in particular.
In the interview with Dr Meyer he mentioned Darrow was the first to use the "millions of years of evolution" made him do it defense.
If the materialistic scientists have their way everything from belief in god to rape can be explained by the natural processes. The difference between a murderer and mother Theresa would be she has just the right mixture of nitrogen, phosphorous, and carbon that causes her to love. Atoms arraigned another way cause people to murder, nothing above the quantum level is random right? I suppose my belief in Jesus is the result of the atoms just-so bouncing in my head, not faith.
I dont understand how people cant see the implications evolution has when it's followed through to its logical conclusions.
I see ToG cites Berkley as his source natural selection is a random process. Barbarian do you have a source backing your claim it isn't?
In the interview with Dr Meyer he mentioned Darrow was the first to use the "millions of years of evolution" made him do it defense.
If the materialistic scientists have their way everything from belief in god to rape can be explained by the natural processes. The difference between a murderer and mother Theresa would be she has just the right mixture of nitrogen, phosphorous, and carbon that causes her to love. Atoms arraigned another way cause people to murder, nothing above the quantum level is random right? I suppose my belief in Jesus is the result of the atoms just-so bouncing in my head, not faith.
I dont understand how people cant see the implications evolution has when it's followed through to its logical conclusions.
I see ToG cites Berkley as his source natural selection is a random process. Barbarian do you have a source backing your claim it isn't?
Milk-Drops
Member
- The theory of living organisms and how they adapt to suroundings. It has nothing to do with nature or state of the universe. The nature of something is phylisophical, socialogical, or psychological. The actual theory of evolution has nothing to do with any of that. Its about about Allele frequencies.
Well in science, there are seperate theories for didn't mechanics and forces. The theory of Evolution covers decent with modification and natural selection.
No, The story of Jesus is the continuing narrative from the Old testament. natural sciences are separated into categories depending on their field of study. The theory of Evoltuion is biology, the study of life, where is the "nature" or mechanics of the Universe would be Physics and Astrology.
You are really stretching. The theory of Evolution, does not depend on the Big Bang for example. How to measure gene frequencies doesn't depend on when the universe started. Science does not have prophecy, nor is it a single narrative.
Milk-Drops
Member
Really? Do you have it in his own words?
Made him do what? Also, unless it means made me exist, Its really not a defense for anything.
It doesn't mean its ethical. I'm surprised this is even an argument. Science doesn't make peopel do anything. People will make up excuses for anything. Before science, there was murder, rape, war, etc.
Wow, its almost like you are ignoring an entire field of study called psychology that states that our brains typically don't run like. Its almost like there is something called empathy that prevents humans from acting like that on a wide scale.
Probably because most people realize that us humans aren't purely logical being and rely on a whole slew of emotions and instincts like Love, empathy, happiness, joy, loneliness, depression, etc. We aren't robots.
Lewis
Member
Is Evolution a Religion?
Please read this Babarian and anybody else.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion
Please read this Babarian and anybody else.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion
TOG
Member
You seem to understand what I'm trying to say, but you don't seem to be able to apply it. Like you yourself said, "The story of Jesus is the continuing narrative from the Old Testament". In a few days it will be Christmas. People will be going to church and hearing their pastors read from the Bible. But the pastors won't start on page one. They start with the conception and birth of Jesus. But we all know that that wasn't the beginning. Many things had to happen first, including the stories of Abraham, Moses, King David and the prophecies of Isaiah and many others. Without those things happening first, Jesus could not have claimed to be who he claimed to be. It's all part of a much bigger story than just what happened one night in Bethlehem.
When people talk about evolution, they talk about the common ancestors of humans and apes or the common ancestor of all mammals or maybe even the common ancestor of all life - the single cell that started it all. But we all know that that's not really the beginning. many things had to happen before that first cell could start the process of evolution. Those things include the existence of a planet with all the right chemicals in the right ratios and with the right conditions for the cell to form. For that to happen there had to be a star and for the star to form there had to be a cloud of gas and so on, all the way back to the big bang. The big bang isn't part of the theory of evolution in the same way as the story of Abraham isn't part of the story of Jesus. But just as the story of Jesus is dependent on and a continuation of the story of Abraham, the theory of evolution is dependent on and a continuation of the big bang theory. The latter could not happen without the former. And while there is certain evidence that can be interpreted to support the big bang theory and the theory of evolution, neither can actually be proved, just as there is certain evidence that can be interpreted to support creation, but it can't be proved. Belief in something that can't be proved is called faith. Saying that the universe and life came into being through naturalistic processes is just as much a statement of faith as saying that God created it all. That's what people mean when they say evolution is a religion.
The TOG
Last edited:
Lewis
Member
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-evolution-a-religion
What is so obvious in our world that Mayr can call goo-to-you evolution “a simple fact,” which according to him no educated person would question? There are many supposed evidences for evolution. We will now consider two of these supposed evidences here and will examine them in the light of observational, rather than historical, science.
Evolutionists often claim that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They argue that evolution only deals with issues of the changes in organisms over time. They contend that life has progressed through purely naturalistic means, without any supernatural intervention. However, if they argue that life progresses by purely naturalistic mechanisms, then they must also delineate a natural process by which life came into being.
One supposed evidence for evolution is that life began spontaneously in the earth’s vast oceans approximately three billion years ago.3 Textbooks, magazines, and television documentaries constantly bombard us with this so-called fact. Just what is the evidence for the evolution of life from nonliving molecules? There isn’t any! There is no method to determine what the earth’s “ancient atmosphere” was like or the composition of the oceans at that time.4 No one was there to test or examine that environment. No one can say with certainty what the chemical makeup of the primordial oceans was. So how can it be claimed that simple proteins and nucleic acids arose spontaneously?
Based on our knowledge of these molecules using observational science in the present, it is difficult to imagine these processes happening by naturalistic processes. No scientific observation has ever shown how these complex molecules could arise spontaneously, let alone evolve simultaneously and assemble themselves in such a way as to become alive. One prominent evolutionist, Leslie Orgel, notes, “And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.”5
One of the primary evidences used to support the theory of evolution is the fossil record. Evolutionists have long proposed that the fossilized remains of dead organisms, both plant and animal, found in the rock layers prove that life has evolved on the earth over millions of years. Using observational science, how can this conclusion be reached? There are only the fossils themselves to examine. These fossils only exist in the present. There is no method to determine directly what happened to these creatures; neither to determine how they died, nor how they were buried in the sediment, nor how long it took for them to fossilize. Although it is possible to make up a story to explain the fossil record, this contrived story does not meet the criteria for true scientific investigation. A story about the past cannot be scientifically tested in the present.
The creationist looking at the fossil record reaches a far different conclusion from the evolutionist. To the creationist, the fossils in the rocks represent the result of a global cataclysm with massive sedimentation rapidly burying millions upon millions of creatures. This catastrophic event would account not only for the fossil record but also for the rock layers themselves. (Deposition of sediment in layers would have resulted from sorting in the turbulent Flood and post-Flood waters.) So which viewpoint is correct? Neither the creationist’s nor the evolutionist’s explanation can be tested in the present.
Continued below
What is so obvious in our world that Mayr can call goo-to-you evolution “a simple fact,” which according to him no educated person would question? There are many supposed evidences for evolution. We will now consider two of these supposed evidences here and will examine them in the light of observational, rather than historical, science.
Evolutionists often claim that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They argue that evolution only deals with issues of the changes in organisms over time. They contend that life has progressed through purely naturalistic means, without any supernatural intervention. However, if they argue that life progresses by purely naturalistic mechanisms, then they must also delineate a natural process by which life came into being.
One supposed evidence for evolution is that life began spontaneously in the earth’s vast oceans approximately three billion years ago.3 Textbooks, magazines, and television documentaries constantly bombard us with this so-called fact. Just what is the evidence for the evolution of life from nonliving molecules? There isn’t any! There is no method to determine what the earth’s “ancient atmosphere” was like or the composition of the oceans at that time.4 No one was there to test or examine that environment. No one can say with certainty what the chemical makeup of the primordial oceans was. So how can it be claimed that simple proteins and nucleic acids arose spontaneously?
Based on our knowledge of these molecules using observational science in the present, it is difficult to imagine these processes happening by naturalistic processes. No scientific observation has ever shown how these complex molecules could arise spontaneously, let alone evolve simultaneously and assemble themselves in such a way as to become alive. One prominent evolutionist, Leslie Orgel, notes, “And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.”5
One of the primary evidences used to support the theory of evolution is the fossil record. Evolutionists have long proposed that the fossilized remains of dead organisms, both plant and animal, found in the rock layers prove that life has evolved on the earth over millions of years. Using observational science, how can this conclusion be reached? There are only the fossils themselves to examine. These fossils only exist in the present. There is no method to determine directly what happened to these creatures; neither to determine how they died, nor how they were buried in the sediment, nor how long it took for them to fossilize. Although it is possible to make up a story to explain the fossil record, this contrived story does not meet the criteria for true scientific investigation. A story about the past cannot be scientifically tested in the present.
The creationist looking at the fossil record reaches a far different conclusion from the evolutionist. To the creationist, the fossils in the rocks represent the result of a global cataclysm with massive sedimentation rapidly burying millions upon millions of creatures. This catastrophic event would account not only for the fossil record but also for the rock layers themselves. (Deposition of sediment in layers would have resulted from sorting in the turbulent Flood and post-Flood waters.) So which viewpoint is correct? Neither the creationist’s nor the evolutionist’s explanation can be tested in the present.
Continued below
Lewis
Member
continued
But in this regard the creationist does have evidence. Evidence is found in a book called the Bible. The Bible claims to be the Word of God. It is a record of what God did and when He did it. In the Bible we learn how life began—God created it. The Bible helps us understand the fossil record—much of it is the result of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8. Like the historical documents that establish George Washington existed, we have a reliable historical document called the Bible to give us answers about our origin and about our world.
An evolutionist has no historical documentation for his viewpoint. He relies on the assumptions of historical science for support. Herein lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and potential of science. Scientific inquiry properly involves the investigation of processes that are observable, testable, and repeatable. The origin and development of life on earth cannot be observed, tested, or repeated because it happened in the past.
So, is evolution observable science? No, evolution falls under the realm of historical science; it is a belief system about the past. How can an evolutionist believe these things without rigorous scientific proof? The answer is that he wants to. Evolutionists are quite sincere in their beliefs, but ultimately these beliefs are based on their view that the world originated by itself through totally naturalistic processes. There is a term for this type of belief system—that term is religion. Religion is “a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”6 It should be pointed out that religion does not necessarily involve the concept of God.
Perhaps a few observations from some of the world’s leading evolutionists will now put the question posed in the title of this chapter into perspective.
Evolution as a Religion
Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:7
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
This is an incredible admission: the study of the origin and development of life-forms on earth is not “mere science,” but “a secular religion.”
However, this is also the view of William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Writing in Origins Research, he tells us, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.”8 Now you would expect this leading professor of biology to say that modern evolutionary biology tells us something about the origin of life or something about natural selection or something about the origin of species or something about genetics. But, no! According to this leading evolutionary biologist, modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear that:
There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.8
It is obvious that these two influential biologists believe that evolution is a religion—a religion of atheism where there are no end products and where evolution reigns supreme.
Religion of Atheism
Writing a superb article about the rise of the Darwinian fundamentalism in The Spectator, the journalist Paul Johnson sums up the belief system of atheistic evolutionists with great insightfulness.
But in this regard the creationist does have evidence. Evidence is found in a book called the Bible. The Bible claims to be the Word of God. It is a record of what God did and when He did it. In the Bible we learn how life began—God created it. The Bible helps us understand the fossil record—much of it is the result of a worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8. Like the historical documents that establish George Washington existed, we have a reliable historical document called the Bible to give us answers about our origin and about our world.
An evolutionist has no historical documentation for his viewpoint. He relies on the assumptions of historical science for support. Herein lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and potential of science. Scientific inquiry properly involves the investigation of processes that are observable, testable, and repeatable. The origin and development of life on earth cannot be observed, tested, or repeated because it happened in the past.
So, is evolution observable science? No, evolution falls under the realm of historical science; it is a belief system about the past. How can an evolutionist believe these things without rigorous scientific proof? The answer is that he wants to. Evolutionists are quite sincere in their beliefs, but ultimately these beliefs are based on their view that the world originated by itself through totally naturalistic processes. There is a term for this type of belief system—that term is religion. Religion is “a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”6 It should be pointed out that religion does not necessarily involve the concept of God.
Perhaps a few observations from some of the world’s leading evolutionists will now put the question posed in the title of this chapter into perspective.
Evolution as a Religion
Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:7
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
This is an incredible admission: the study of the origin and development of life-forms on earth is not “mere science,” but “a secular religion.”
However, this is also the view of William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. Writing in Origins Research, he tells us, “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.”8 Now you would expect this leading professor of biology to say that modern evolutionary biology tells us something about the origin of life or something about natural selection or something about the origin of species or something about genetics. But, no! According to this leading evolutionary biologist, modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear that:
There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.8
It is obvious that these two influential biologists believe that evolution is a religion—a religion of atheism where there are no end products and where evolution reigns supreme.
Religion of Atheism
Writing a superb article about the rise of the Darwinian fundamentalism in The Spectator, the journalist Paul Johnson sums up the belief system of atheistic evolutionists with great insightfulness.
Nature does not distinguish between a range of mountains, like the Alps, or a stone or a clever scientist like Professor Dawkins, because it is sightless, senseless and mindless, being a mere process operating according to rules which have not been designed but simply are.9
Although Paul Johnson uses the word nature, he actually is referring to evolution. By this he means chance random processes honed by natural selection over eons of time. This is the process by which everything has been created, according to the evolutionists. The everything can be an inanimate object like a range of mountains, or it can be incredibly complex creatures like you and the authors of this book.
This belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”10
Although Paul Johnson uses the word nature, he actually is referring to evolution. By this he means chance random processes honed by natural selection over eons of time. This is the process by which everything has been created, according to the evolutionists. The everything can be an inanimate object like a range of mountains, or it can be incredibly complex creatures like you and the authors of this book.
This belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”10
Lewis
Member
Evolution Contrasted with Christianity
The only true real religion is Christianity, and this can be used as the template to explain what a religion is. A religion will therefore give an explanation for
At first sight, believing in evolution may not seem an attractive proposition. However, what makes it attractive is that there is no God to whom you have to give an account of your actions. This is borne out by the following quote from an atheist:
The only true real religion is Christianity, and this can be used as the template to explain what a religion is. A religion will therefore give an explanation for
- A holy book—Christianity teaches that the Bible is the Word of God and that this book teaches us what to believe concerning God and what God requires of us. The holy book of the evolutionists is Darwin’s Origin of Species. The evolutionists believe that this book gives an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth11 without the need of any God or supernatural agent.
- The origin of everything—Christianity teaches that in the beginning God created everything (that is, the entire universe with all its stars and planets, all plant life and all animal and human life) out of nothing over a period of six literal days. In comparison, evolution teaches that in the beginning nothing exploded and gradually evolved over billions of years into the universe that we see today.
- The origin of death and suffering—Christianity teaches that when God created everything, it was perfect. As a result of the sin of the first man, Adam, death, disease, and suffering entered the scene. Evolution does not recognize the word sin but teaches that fish-to-philosopher evolution can only proceed via death. Hence, death, disease, and suffering are the necessary driving forces of evolution; from this concept, we get the phrase survival of the fittest.
- The reason why humans are here—Christianity teaches that humans are the pinnacle of God’s creation and that they were made in God’s image and likeness. In contrast, amoeba-to-architect evolution teaches that humans have evolved from some apelike ancestor, which in turn evolved from another sort of animal.
- The future of humans—Christianity teaches that one day the Lord Jesus Christ will return to this earth and that He will create a new heavens and earth where those people who trusted Him as their Lord and Savior in this life will live with God forever. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that humans are not the end product of evolution; evolution will continue and humans will either become extinct or evolve into some other species of creature that will definitely not be human.
- The future of the universe—Christianity teaches that the present universe will be burned up by God, and He will then create a new heavens and earth. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches that one day the universe will reach what is called a heat death, although it is in effect a cold death, for the temperature of the universe will be just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. This will happen when all the energy that is available to do work will have been used up, and then nothing will happen—the universe will just “be.” The time period for the universe to reach this state is almost unimaginable. It is thought that it will take about a thousand billion years for all the stars to use up all their fuel and fizzle out. By then, of course, there will be no life in the universe; every single life-form, including humans, will have become extinct billions of years previously. There will still be, however, occasional flashes of starlight in the dark universe as very large stars collapse in on themselves to form black holes. For the next 10122 (that is the figure 1 followed by 122 zeros!) years, this so-called Hawking radiation will be the only thing happening in the universe. Then, when all the black holes have evaporated, there will be darkness for 1026 years, during which time the universe will simply “be” and nothing will happen.
At first sight, believing in evolution may not seem an attractive proposition. However, what makes it attractive is that there is no God to whom you have to give an account of your actions. This is borne out by the following quote from an atheist:
We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.12
Evolution therefore leads to the teaching that you can do as you please. You can live your life just to please yourself. Many people today live such a life. They have abandoned the faith of their forefathers and have embraced the doctrines of evolution with its atheism. No wonder we are living in a “me, me, me” hedonistic society where everything that you do is to try to please and bring pleasure to yourself. This is more than “selfish ambition”; it is totally decadent and is in total contrast to what Christianity teaches about what our ambition should be—our chief end is to glorify God (not oneself ) and to enjoy Him (not oneself ) forever.
Evolution therefore leads to the teaching that you can do as you please. You can live your life just to please yourself. Many people today live such a life. They have abandoned the faith of their forefathers and have embraced the doctrines of evolution with its atheism. No wonder we are living in a “me, me, me” hedonistic society where everything that you do is to try to please and bring pleasure to yourself. This is more than “selfish ambition”; it is totally decadent and is in total contrast to what Christianity teaches about what our ambition should be—our chief end is to glorify God (not oneself ) and to enjoy Him (not oneself ) forever.
Barbarian
Member
Sorry, but since "Answers in Genesis" got caught altering the statement of two scientists to make it appear that they believed the opposite of what they actually said, those people have no credibility. (documentation on request)
If they'll knowingly misrepresent things once, they'll do it again.
Barbarian
Member
True, but of course, evolution only makes claims about the way living populations change. So, unless you've been assailing chemistry for not saying where atoms come from, this appears to be an evasion on your part.
Nope. If God has chosen to just poof it all into existence and make the first living things by magic instead of using nature, as He says in Genesis, it would all be the same to evolutionary theory. You've been badly misled about that.
Since God tells us in Genesis that He used nature to produce life, I don't think it takes much to believe Him. But of course, no science, including evolutionary theory says that the ultimate source of the universe is a naturalistic process. Again, you've been led to believe a lot of weird things that aren't part of science.
And of course, that's why no one with any sense believes them. If their claims are based on ignorance and/or dishonesty, why should anyone believe them?
Simply created. God, being God, "designs" nothing. He has no need to figure things out.
That's a misconception, by which the professional creationists seek to keep you on the plantation. Evolutionary theory is about the way populations of living things change over time. The rest is someone's imagination confabulating a story to cover ignorance.
Isn't part of evolutionary theory, either. It has nothing to say about the origin of life. If you want to believe, as Darwin did, that God just created the first living things, that's fine with evolutionary theory.
This is a key point, and well worth discussing. The most dangerous feature of creationism, is that it's a highly-effective atheist maker. Many people, having been indoctrinated to believe that creationism is a doctrine of Christian belief, lose their faith when they learn that it can't possibly be true. Here's the testimony from a former creationist, who almost lost his faith over the false doctrines of YE creationism:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
Creationism will have much to answer for, at Judgement.
Last edited: