Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Sam]

It is my opinion that teaching evolution in public schools is the teaching of a specific religious belief the same as teaching creation in 6 literal 24 hour days would be.

[Praxeas]

Evolution is not a religion

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Evolution is not a religion

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Skeptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

http://www.creationists.org/evolutio...-religion.html

Yes the Darwinists claim their documents are authoritative and the Christians documents are not.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

http://www.creationists.org/evolutio...-religion.html

Yes the Darwinists claim their documents are authoritative and the Christians documents are not.

Stop reading creationists propaganda. Evolution is not a religion. Anyone that says so is being intellectually dishonest about what a religion is.

Creationists do the biggest discredit to themselves when then behave this way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.


The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860, and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.


While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory.For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Stop reading creationists propaganda. Evolution is not a religion. Anyone that says so is being intellectually dishonest about what a religion is.

Creationists do the biggest discredit to themselves when then behave this way

.

That is exactly why Evolution is presented as a religion.

Teleology
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

Both the religions of Christianity and naturalism/darwinism offer answers.
How did we come about being here? what is our Purpose and where are we going. Religion discusses teleology.

I have been called intellectually dishonest. Yes I know what i am talking about. I also am not naive regarding the agenda of the evolutionists.

It woulld be dishonest to act like we don't know what is going on.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/creationism-law

The goals of Eugenie Scott are to get people fired that mention religion and creation in the classroom. Religion is a threat to the false religion of evolutionism. She names the court cases. It will not get a biiology teacher fired if they attack Religion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

That is exactly why Evolution is presented as a religion.

Teleology
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

Both the religions of Christianity and naturalism/darwinism offer answers.
How did we come about being here? what is our Purpose and where are we going. Religion discusses teleology.

I have been called intellectually dishonest. Yes I know what i am talking about. I also am not naive regarding the agenda of the evolutionists.

It woulld be dishonest to act like we don't know what is going on.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/creationism-law

The goals of Eugenie Scott are to get people fired that mention religion and creation in the classroom. Religion is a threat to the false religion of evolutionism. She names the court cases. It will not get a biiology teacher fired if they attack Religion.

Biological evolution doesn't even propose to try and answer the ultimate "why?" questions about the appearance of design. It simply records observations of nature and helps to organize the facts into a cohesive paradigm.

For example, "Why" and "how" do birds fly? They fly, in part, to escape predators on the ground. They fly to reach different feeding areas as the seasons change. For all we know, they may also fly just for the fun of it. Ever notice the birds that dive in front of your car at times?

Biological evolution can explain the development of feathers, the ancestry of feathered dinosaurs from the Cretaceous era and the development of characteristics needed for flight. It cannot answer and never proposes to answer the question of, "Why do birds and their ground based ancestors even exist at all?"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Biological evolution doesn't even propose to try and answer the ultimate "why?" questions about the appearance of design. It simply records observations of nature and helps to organize the facts into a cohesive paradigm.

For example, "Why" and "how" do birds fly? They fly, in part, to escape predators on the ground. They fly to reach different feeding areas as the seasons change. For all we know, they may also fly just for the fun of it. Ever notice the birds that dive in front of your car at times?

Biological evolution can explain the development of feathers, the ancestry of feathered dinosaurs from the Cretaceous era and the development of characteristics needed for flight. It cannot answer and never proposes to answer the question of, "Why do birds and their ground based ancestors even exist at all?"

I like the feather example. It is with faith we accept that DNA changes were made and created the very first feathers.

If so, it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this ...

Ooops. New structures, new DNA and new proteins. Feathers are very complex structures under a microscope.

Adaption requires a lot of faith.

According to an ABC News article1 reporting on the July 14th issue of Science magazine,2 the beaks of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands have “evolved” yet again. Peter and Rosemary Grant, who have done extensive research on the birds for many years, have found that the medium ground finch now has a smaller beak. They observed that this occurred in a very short timeframe.

short time frame? 30 minutes?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my opinion that teaching evolution in public schools is the teaching of a specific religious belief the same as teaching creation in 6 literal 24 hour days would be.

Richard Dawkins: “In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”
[The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 133.]

Dawkins is the current leader/spokesman for atheism/evolutionism.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by coadie

Dawkins is the current leader/spokesman for atheism/evolutionism.

All true scientists now know that life did not start by itself from nothing. Even Dawkins knows this, though he still does not attribute God as its source, he prefers to attribute it to space aliens.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by crakjak

All true scientists now know that life did not start by itself from nothing. Even Dawkins knows this, though he still does not attribute God as its source, he prefers to attribute it to space aliens.

Dawkins is offering panspermia. Life forming in space just moves the problem to another planet.
Same way with old earth arguments. It didn't evolve from non life but if given enough time, it could have. Now with strong math probability tests, they need trillions of years.
Can you explain thy the flat earth evolutionists were putting the Miller urey experiment in childrens science text that did claim it was proven life came from non life?


1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

First published:
TJ (now Journal of Creation) 18(2):28–36
August 2004

by Jerry Bergman

Summary
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.

The religion of evolution is packed and loaded top to bottom with wishfull thinking. So much goes into the classroom and they use the courts to interfere with people that suggest questioning the brainwashing.


Good students today know biochemistry is much too complex for life to come from nuttin. Miller Urey didn't know that. Pelthais doesn't grasp it.