Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Religion?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 October 2008 - 07:39 PM

This subject gets discussed and is denied by all evolutionists. But let's look at what is done for the theory of evolution that is just like a religion.

So let's look at the definition of religion first:

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Now let's compare this to evolution. If you take away supernatural, and just use natural. Let's see if it fits:

Evolution: a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny.

The natural powers that evolutionists will claim makes Evolution work are:
1) Natural selection.
2) Survival of the fittest.

And because Evolution is a claimed progression of life through the evolution process, it is also a theory that is supposed to control a natural human destiny. The next step of proving Evolution as a religion is proving that it takes faith to believe it. So let's look at faith.

Supernatural faith: religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power.

Natural faith: complete confidence in a person or plan. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person.

The person the evolutionists have natural faith in, is Darwin. The plan is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Loyalty or allegiance to the cause, or the person, can be tested during a debate. Because if you make Darwin, or his theory, look bad. You will witness their loyalty and allegiance as they will feel insulted. And they will lash out at you because like Christians, they take their faith and belief personally. There is nothing scientific about taking a theory personally. Nor is it scientific to take an allegiance to it in order to defend it. This is because the evidence is supposed to prove theory and convince people. So personal human intervention, or taking a personal stance goes beyond science and strays into the realm of religion. The other part of being a religion is the need to evangelize. So let's look at what evangelizing is.

Supernatural evangelizing: To preach the gospel . Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to both Christians and non-Christians. The intention of most evangelism is to effect conversion to Christianity or to adopt the belief.

Natural evangelizing: To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them. To share news of something in order to convince someone to join or otherwise accept it . If they have to give up faith and believe in another idea, then it is a conversion just like converting through salvation.

Christians look for non-believers, or those who have strayed from the belief, to convert them.

Evolutionists often search out Christians on the web, at work, or in casual conversation, to convert them to their way of thinking. Both types of conversions (Natural and supernatural) require the rejection of one belief in order to accept the other. And for both, it is a gradual process of losing faith in one so that faith can be applied to the other.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to merge the two, but when opposites are believed. A choice on which to reject has to be made. And in the case of theistic evolution, it is always any part of the Bible that conflicts with science on the subject of origins and age.

Why does one faith have to be given up to believe another? Faith is a total commitment to a belief in something that cannot be proven to an absolute. Faith also is a way of thinking that requires a certain amount of control over your life. Example: If you have faith in God, you would try to adhere to the teachings that is claimed to change your life. If you adhere to evolution and no belief in God. Then you would adhere to what ever that theory taught you about life. You cannot have faith in opposites at the same time. This is because your faith would be in conflict due to the oxymoron foundation of both beliefs.

A part of the evangelizing process is testifying for your faith and belief:

Christians: Will often give life testimonies of how the conversion has helped them change their life.

Evolutionists: Will often give life testimonies of how losing their faith in God helped them change their life.

Example: http://exchristian.net/testimonies/

Another part of the evangelizing process is to congregate and discuss how to improve the methods of how this is done. Both Christians and evolutionists do this. You can go to either type forum or blogs and see both sides ask the question: How do I debate them, reach them, or just the simple question of: help me with this person.

Another part of the evangelizing process is the use of scare tactics or threats:

Christians: Use the threat or scare tactic of Hell, and going to it if you do not believe as they do. This is a future threat because it can only happen after you die.

Evolutionists: Use the threat or scare tactic of ones credibility being destroyed if you do not believe as they do. This is a here and now threat as it can be carried out while you are still alive. And is done on a daily bases as each Christian-creationist gets stereotyped as an uneducated moron, among other things.

Another part of religion is indoctrination. And to also have an established place to accomplish this. A place where no other idea or doctrine can be taught that is against or the opposite of the current doctrine.. And the one being taught cannot be questioned because it is a learned way of thinking. So let's look at what indoctrination is:

Indoctrination: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments. The foundation of teachings that is fundamental to a higher level of understanding and participation. Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically. Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

And this applies to both sides of this issue. Neither side can deny this.

What's in the future, prediction vs prophecy:

Prophecy (religion): knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source).

Prediction (evolution): A statement foretelling the possible outcome(s) of an event, process, or experiment (usually from a natural source).

Indoctrination, and the established places to achieve this:

Christians: Use churches or other gathering places including the web. In these places you have only one type of belief being taught, and usually one or more people who are experts in that subject to teach it. Anything that is the opposite, or challenges it is usually rejected. The belief is taught in a step by step process starting with easier things to lay the foundation, then the harder things to build upon that foundation.

Evolutionists: Use schools and Universities. Or other gathering places including the web. In these places only one type of belief is allowed to be taught, and usually one or more people who are experts in that subject teach it. The easiest parts of the theory is taught first to lay the foundation of faith. Then once understood and accepted as the process of life, the higher learning parts of the theory are taught. This is to build upon that foundation already laid.

And like with both beliefs, the easier foundational part has to be accepted before the rest can be taught and understood. A person who rejects either belief will not accept the higher areas of learning concerning that belief.

Each established place to indoctrinate have rules of what can and cannot be taught. Schools you cannot teach creation, churches you cannot teach evolution. Even to the point of rejection by the establishment for not taking the ideas that are indoctrinated without question. Rejection can be a form of banishment (suspension or expelled or just being rejected and thrown out), failing grades, denied degrees, lost jobs, credibility destroyed, etc... Another sign of a religion is the ability to get a non-profit status to operate and teach what is believed instead of government grants. Non-profit status used to be Charities and churches only thing. Now more and more atheist-evolutionist organization are filing and getting non-profit status as a 501c3.

Example:
Infidels
Infidels tax exempt status.

A set aside day to worship:

Christian religion usually worships on sunday. They congregate, sing praise, and the pastor preaches and teaches.

Evolutionist religion are also setting aside a day to worship the god Darwin. It's called Evolution Sunday (link).

Not having a problem with what is claimed as science being mixed with religion:

Evolutionist-atheist often complain that creation is not science. But is evolution, the biggest part of science, a religion? There are thousands of theories that exist. Not one of them compete with creation like evolution does. Theory of electricity does not compete with creation. Theory of gravity does not compete with creation. But evolution does. And what is even more strange is that most supporters of evolution have no problem mixing evolution with religion as long as evolution is in full control over origins. And that every aspect remains. Except they will allow a variance as long as God becomes a being who "had" to use evolution in order to create.

Evolutioists allowing such mixing shows just how easy evolution really is as a shoe in for a religion, or just a total replacement of religion. As shown above, it has all the ear marks of being a self sustaining religion which makes it the main choice if the main religion happens to be removed from the public. And if evolutionists really have that goal, then there should be evidence of them trying to remove God from everything, right? You cannot go a week looking at the news without hearing about some atheist orginization having something removed just because God is on it. They even want "In God We Trust" removed from our money.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 October 2008 - 07:50 PM

To be a religion, evolution would also have to have god did it type answers:

What exactly makes a scientific god did it answer?

Example: The Big Bang theory. There are several questions that can be asked about this theory that are not answerable in a way that would be considered a flow chart, like a flowing theory where what exists supports what is claimed. Instead, the questions actually show how impossible such a theory actually is. What are these question?

The questions that invoke god did it like answers:

1) Where did the matter come from for the big bang?
2) Where did the energy come from if energy cannot be created or destroyed?
3) How do you break all the laws of physics to compress all matter of the universe into a dot?

The god did it like answers for the questions above:

1) A rip in the fabric of space and time.
2) Because energy always existed.
3) There were no laws when the dot existed.

Answer #1 invokes an unobserved, untestable event. One of such un-comprehensible magnitude, that it becomes un-questionable by default. Because how do you question a rip in the fabric of space and time? How would you prove or disprove it?

Answer #2 is just a cop out answer that cannot be proven or disproven.

Answer #3 goes a little further into what a god did it answer is all about. This answer that no laws existed is the perfect example of how science will bend laws to make a theory work. What makes it a god like answer is this: If a evolutionist ask me (a creationist) a question I could not answer, and I reply: God did it. How would you question a being that His very existence defies all natural laws? Laws He can work around because of His power. Taking away the laws that exist is invoking a situation where anything can happen naturally, and god like (invoking god like powers). Because if laws don't exist, then anything I say can exist, and anything I claim can happen. Is that scientific? No, because science is about explaining things that happen naturally, without invoking the supernatural which is deemed as intellectually cheating.

So god did it type answers are basically:

1) One that cannot be proven or disproven (just like God).
2) One that invokes a situation where god like powers can take place naturally (powers like God).
3) One that basically cannot be questioned because it is uncomprehendable (just like God is).

Or in more scientific terms, the answer is scientifically unfalsifiable. Which when added to a theory makes the theory unfalsifiable as well. Even Talkorigins, a well known evolutionist site that is against God and creation agrees with #1.

Q 4. First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him.
http://www.talkorigi...qs/faq-god.html

So you see, if your answer for a theory invokes a god did it type answer that cannot be proven or disproven. Then you just proved evolution as a religion by default. To keep this from happening, Scientists and Darwinists should stay away from answers that invoke the three things listed above.

When a theory is in question. look for an alternative:

For evolution to be a religion, you also have to have answers to explain away intelligence, or answers to explain away the unexplainable. Now because the abiogenesis theory has had several holes shot into it. And Miller did not help any with his experiment. This was because cheats were used, and unreal world conditions as well. This is why no other scientist has repeated what Miller did. To do so is to admit to what he did to get his results. Evolutionists have thought up a way around this. This is even one that Dawkins believes in. So take notice.

Dawkins quote from the movie expelled: Life indeed may have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not God.


Directed panspermia theory: This is a belief that life was planted here from another planet. Through seeding from a rock from another planet, or intelligent evolved life that passed by and left life here to form and evolve. What makes this a religious type theory is:

1) Life has not been found on any other planet. 2) So there is really no evidence to support this claim. 3) So it takes total faith to even believe this. 4) It happens to include and evolved intelligent being that according to the belief, has the ability to make life on lifeless planets (god like).

But, the evolutionists want to prove their intelligent deity type belief by going to another planet (Mars) to meet any living thing they can find or claim to find. They have already spent 100s of millions of dollars making up ideas on what kind of life they should be able to find. Animations to make the public believe in their cause so that no one will reject or question their quest when they ask for money (tithes and offerings) from governments around the world, and people in the private sectors who have such money to give.

And if they find their life there, they will claim absolute proof that their deity life that exists on Mars disproves all religious deities on earth. And in effect their belief will become the number one belief through faith. Why would it be faith? One group has total control over the evidence, one group has total control over the information that comes from this evidence. And because no one else will be able to go to Mars to check it out. It becomes faith based because everyone else here on earth has to take a group of Astronauts word for it for what they found. So like a Christian God that cannot be produced at will, the planet Mars life god will become religion that only a few men supposedly saw, and wrote a book or paper about. Just like the Christian religion has a Bible, the Astronauts will write a book that will be considered the Bible of Mars origin of life.

Evolving in concert (together) theory: This is where a creationist will point out that certain organs, or systems, cannot work or even exist unless a dependant organ or system is already in place and functioning. Their answer will be that they evolved together. No two organs or systems, in the human body, have the same exact complexity. And therefore would not take the same number of mutations. Different mutations equal different lengths of time required to evolve. Example question: Which came first: The eye, or the vision center of the brain? For you cannot see if both do not exist at the same time, and are fully evolved.

Indefinite time period theory: This is where time itself becomes the answer. Example: Why cannot the process for millions of years of evolution be shown, tested, and retested to confirm? It takes to much time. And because we cannot comprehend a million years, this answer becomes an unfalsifiable theory. Which makes it religious because a unfalsifiable theory is not even a theory. How do you falsify millions of years? You cannot falsify what you cannot comprehend. And this works very well for the evolutionists. Example: "Given enough time anything can happen". That is the evolutionist motto. If you don't believe me, take a look at the video below. Note: Video below is not a promotion of Kent H*vind. It just happens to have an example of a evolutionist using the time excuse at the very beginning of the video. So if you don't want to watch H*vind, just click if off after the first guy speaks.

GBwXFBBXcS0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1

No probability needed theory: This is where evolutionists no longer want to deal with issues concerning the odds against their claims. They will use the excuse that numbers can be fudged. Well using that logic it can also be said that evidence can be fudged. And by the way, that has already happened on more than one occasion concerning evolution. So using that logic, maybe we should also disregard the supposed evidence too? Example:

The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10
to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000


If you would have brought this up during a debate, you would be laughed at because odds prove evolution wrong. So odds are no longer part of the theory and they will make an excuse for this.

Total control over information concerning the evidence: this is when the evidence can only be confirmed by a said person who makes the claim. And all information concerning said evidence is controlled by the group said person belongs to. This type of control makes everyone else have to accept another person's word. Example: The Oort cloud theory. No one has seen it. But some how they already know how it functions, and that it exists. But yet no one outside of the tight nit group of those making the claim, can confirm the claim. So the theory goes unchallenged, therefore becomes unfalsifiable. And becomes religious because it has to be taken by faith.

Like the Bible. How many people wrote it? Are we not taking their word for what happened? Is that not called faith in what a person says or claims? So by faith people take what scientist claim and accept it even though it can never be tested. Like the millions of year of claimed evolution. Do evolutionists have a Bible? Yes, it's called the Origin of Species. And like the Bible that Christians take personally, attack the credibility of this Darwinian Bible and see what happens.

Vestigial organ theory: This is when there are no explanations for organs that exist but seem have no function. Natural selection should weed such things out, but it does not. It was claimed for a long time that the human appendix had no function. It was later discovered that it was a part of our immune system. So just because there is no answer for certain current questions does not mean they always need to have one. So this proves that this theory was only thought up to cover for the things that are unanswerable about the evolution theory.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 October 2008 - 07:55 PM

Another sign of being a religion, is the need for the belief to exalt something. So what does evolution and science exalt? First let's look at what exalt means.

Exalt: To honor; to hold in high esteem; To raise in rank, status etc., to elevate; Exalted. (Verification for this usage is being sought). glorify or put much higher, as in: In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was exalted over his subjects.

Today in almost every futuristic movie, science gets exalted as the hero of the problem or crime, that is dooming man kind, or the earth itself. Even T.V. series like CSI do this. So who is it that is really getting exalted? The people who are involved in science. And all those in past history that made the breakthroughs that allowed science to be what it is today. But it also has to be understood who is getting demeaned in these same movies and T.V. series so that science itself, and evolutionists, can look superior in all areas. And that is the Christian religion. Faith is always made to look weak and worthless, and God made powerless, hateful, vengeful, and a murderer. In one Star Trek episode, the borg queen quoted several verses from the Bible as she was determined to destroy man kind.

But even with that, the question arises that if evolution does not make science into a religion, then why does science see the need to compete with religion on every level possible using that very theory? Example: Does the theory of gravity compete with religion? Nope. Does the theory of electricity compete with religion? Nope. And they are theories, right? So what makes evolution a theory that can do this, while the others don't? In fact, evolution competes and disagrees with religion just like different faiths compete within different religious beliefs because they disagree with one another. Like Baptists disagreeing with the Mormons. How does evolution do this, and not have a foundation of faith?

Individual exaltation:

While debating a atheist-evolutionist, ever notice that the debate cannot get to far without them demeaning the Christian to make their status higher in the debate than their opponent? They will even go as far as to say: "You are an uneducated moron" to someone they have never met, and know nothing about. And if what the Christian is debating is making a good point against the atheist-evolutionist. Then they will say something like this: That computer you are typing on exists because science made it.

That is the perfect example of exaltation because what scientific question did that answer anyway concerning creation vs evolution? Nothing. And because the debating person supports science, they in turn exalt themselves as well. Basically, evolution is a promotion of ones self, if they believe in it. Which also means it promotes Humanism. Which is a form of religion that deems man as god or gods (like man being top of the food chain).

Exalting Darwin, a need to exalt the creator of evolution:

Darwin was the creator of the theory of evolution. Just as God is deemed the Creator of the inspired word of God and therefore all of creation. Any religion will see the need to take the person or being who started it all and exalt them to a status they deem that this person belongs or is worthy of. So like God is a status above what Darwin is, Darwin would have to be raised to the same status to compete. Or God lowered to Darwin's status as a human with no power. And this competition would be talked about if this were what the atheist-evolutionist wanted. So here is the example as I did a Google search to see if anyone was doing the comparison: Dariwn vs God (link). And then to prove Darwin's theory is also god like, you would have to exalt the theory high enough to compete with God.

There is even individuals who take it upon themselves, as their sole purpose in life, to lower the status of the Christian God so that the Darwinian god can compete. To allow the Christian God to have God status is to always admit to something being better than what they believe. So they spend their days spewing their hatred for God while calling themselves user names like: Invisible sky daddy, as a way to mock God even before they debate.

Theory exaltation:

The different stages of exaltation of a theory show that science itself exalts their own ideas. Like religion, they make the rules of how this exaltation will work concerning their ideas. And like religion, they have a panel that will discuss and vote whether an idea gets approved. Just like religion will test a doctrine against the word of God and vote whether it becomes a part of their belief. Science will test their ideas against the theory of evolution to draw a conclusion on whether it should be accepted. And then vote on whether to accept the idea and the conclusions.

Scientific idea exaltation stages are:

1) Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation.
2) Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis.
3) Scientific theory: A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations or experimental results.


Their main theory, evolution, maintains their highest exaltation by graduating from a theory to a scientific theory. And because this theory cannot meet every criteria, in every area that it effects, to be a scientific theory. The rest has to be taken on faith. The theory is full of claimed non-observable processes that are supposed to take place. But because of the time required for the claimed process to work. It will always remain unobservable, and therefore untestable. Time itself becomes the excuse. Believing that unobservable processes actually happened is what makes the theory a religion. It takes faith to believe in process you cannot see or observe, just like it takes faith to believe in a God you cannot see or observe.

#4 Guest_Nemo_Utopia_*

Guest_Nemo_Utopia_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2008 - 05:24 PM

My apologies for not currently reading through the entire thread yet, but I assure you the Theory of Evolution is not a religion any more than the Theory of Gravity is a religion.

Evolution is not defined as "a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny." The Theory of Evolution states that the organisms we see about us today came from an ongoing natural process of slow, gradual changes due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Specifically "Evolution", as defined by Dictionary.com is:

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.re...rowse/Evolution

It does not postulate about 'human destiny'. That is in the realm of philosophy, not biology. Nor is it a 'strong belief'. Scientific theories are based on facts, and the theory attempts to correlate a myriad of facts together under an explanation. This is what a theory is in science. The term 'belief' in religion is that of faith, which is defined again by Dictionary.com as:

"Belief that is not based on proof."
http://dictionary.re.../search?q=Faith

Theories require all assertions to be based on facts, hence 'believing' in a theory is not the same as having 'faith' in it. It is just much easier to say 'I believe in the Theory of Evolution' than to say 'I accept the Theory of Evolution based upon the facts presented before me, and as of yet there has been no logical reason to redefine these set of facts under a new theory.'

So, I hope this helps you understand that the Theory of Evolution is not a religion in any sense of the word. If you try to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a religion, then you must logically claim that every other scientific theory is a religion.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:12 PM

So, I hope this helps you understand that the Theory of Evolution is not a religion in any sense of the word. If you try to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a religion, then you must logically claim that every other scientific theory is a religion.


Gravity does not compete with religion like evolution does. So your example does not apply. And by the way, I addressed this in my post. You probably did not read that part.

#6 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 29 October 2008 - 03:35 AM

My apologies for not currently reading through the entire thread yet, but I assure you the Theory of Evolution is not a religion any more than the Theory of Gravity is a religion.

Evolution is not defined as "a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny." The Theory of Evolution states that the organisms we see about us today came from an ongoing natural process of slow, gradual changes due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Specifically "Evolution", as defined by Dictionary.com is:

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.re...rowse/Evolution

It does not postulate about 'human destiny'. That is in the realm of philosophy, not biology.


You are wrong. Evolutionists believe that our destiny is controlled by our genes. our behaviors, ethics, moral and even our religiosity is result of evolution.

Being human: Religion: Bound to believe?


Nor is it a 'strong belief'. Scientific theories are based on facts, and the theory attempts to correlate a myriad of facts together under an explanation. This is what a theory is in science. The term 'belief' in religion is that of faith, which is defined again by Dictionary.com as:

"Belief that is not based on proof."
http://dictionary.re.../search?q=Faith


Religion does the same thing.Religion tries to explain the facts under an explanation.If you read the Genesis , you´ll see there an explanation about how the universe was created.

Theories require all assertions to be based on facts, hence 'believing' in a theory is not the same as having 'faith' in it. It is just much easier to say 'I believe in the Theory of Evolution' than to say 'I accept the Theory of Evolution based upon the facts presented before me, and as of yet there has been no logical reason to redefine these set of facts under a new theory.'


In this point evolution becomes a religion, because all the evidences are against evolution, but only because of your faith in materialism you keeping saying to yourself it must be true.Evolution is a collection of just-so stories and wishful thinking being changed every day.It´s not about facts, it´s only about opinion.All the argument in favor of evolution is based on homology, if things have some similarity then it must have a common ancestor.Except of course, those cases which can only be explained by convergent evolution, parallel evolution and so on.A theory full of Ad Hocs.If it´s not the religion implication it would have been thrown away long ago.

#7 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 29 October 2008 - 06:53 AM

My apologies for not currently reading through the entire thread yet, but I assure you the Theory of Evolution is not a religion any more than the Theory of Gravity is a religion.

Evolution is not defined as "a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny." The Theory of Evolution states that the organisms we see about us today came from an ongoing natural process of slow, gradual changes due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Specifically "Evolution", as defined by Dictionary.com is:

"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." http://dictionary.re...rowse/Evolution

It does not postulate about 'human destiny'. That is in the realm of philosophy, not biology. Nor is it a 'strong belief'. Scientific theories are based on facts, and the theory attempts to correlate a myriad of facts together under an explanation. This is what a theory is in science. The term 'belief' in religion is that of faith, which is defined again by Dictionary.com as:

"Belief that is not based on proof."
http://dictionary.re.../search?q=Faith

Theories require all assertions to be based on facts, hence 'believing' in a theory is not the same as having 'faith' in it. It is just much easier to say 'I believe in the Theory of Evolution' than to say 'I accept the Theory of Evolution based upon the facts presented before me, and as of yet there has been no logical reason to redefine these set of facts under a new theory.'

So, I hope this helps you understand that the Theory of Evolution is not a religion in any sense of the word. If you try to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a religion, then you must logically claim that every other scientific theory is a religion.

View Post


Nemo_Utopia

Gravity is not a theory it is a law. Check any school,college, or university that teaches the subject and you will find they call it the Law of Gravity.

Evolutionists have reduced it to a theory to give their theory credibility. To say the Law of Gravity is a theory is false and extremely misleading.

Bob Barclay

#8 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:53 AM

Nemo_Utopia

Gravity is not a theory it is a law. Check any school,college, or university that teaches the subject and you will find they call it the Law of Gravity.

Evolutionists have reduced it to  a theory to give their theory credibility.  To say the Law of Gravity is a theory is false and extremely misleading.

Bob Barclay

View Post


A general theory is much broader and more influential than a simple law.

Within the general theory of gravity, there exist a number of laws like Newton's law of gravity.
The general theory includes aspects of general relativity, dark matter, black holes etc.
The "fact" that an object usually falls down when I drop it, is a tiny part of the larger theory.

Within the general theory of evolution, there exist a number of laws like Mendel's Laws
http://library.think...20465/laws.html

Like facts within the theory of gravity, evolutionary theory has quite a number of accepted facts. Creationists usually accept many of these facts (e.g., microevolution). A very large majority of scientists also accept the 'fact' of macroevolution. However, these facts are all part of the larger theory.

The laws are also not unquestionable truths, although most are widely accepted. A number of 'laws' have been shown to be wrong.

In the early 17th century, it was the Copernican theory that upset mainstream Christianity and got Galileo in trouble. The Church believed that a literal interpretation of the bible required that the earth remain still and the sun move around the earth. Otherwise, it was believed that the statement by Joshua (10:13) would not make sense.

“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?”

Most modern day creationists no longer take such a literal view of this biblical passage or prefer another interpretation, but this was quite a battle in the 17th century.

Today, creationists are more likely to take issue with evolutionary theory than with the theory of Gravity or Copernican theory. However, simply because a scientific theory comes in conflict with a religious belief does not make the theory a religion.

james

p.s. Here is a nice summary http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 October 2008 - 09:56 AM

Nor is it a 'strong belief'. Scientific theories are based on facts, and the theory attempts to correlate a myriad of facts together under an explanation. This is what a theory is in science. The term 'belief' in religion is that of faith, which is defined again by Dictionary.com as:

"Belief that is not based on proof."
http://dictionary.re.../search?q=Faith


Well if belief is not based on any proof, then what are you doing taking what is supposetly fact and arguing against a belief?

What this proves is that deep inside you know God exists. And that His ideas are a threat to the ones you "want" to be believe. And you know why I say that? It is because if I were you and soley believed in evolution and did not believe there was a God. I would not waste 2 cents of my money, or 2 seconds of my time fighting what I say does not exist.

What you are actually doing by spending so much time in this fight is "justifying" your "disbelief" in God. Which is a totally different thing than saying God does not exist. Why? How do you fight a thing that you claim is not there?

Your side claims that it is more intelligent, has more reason, and does not believe in such things considered as faries and unicorns, right? Then tell me, with all intelligents and reason, why you fight what you consider along the lines of being faries and unicorms?

That would be like telling a kid that the monster in the closet does not exist. Then going back to your own room and say there is one under your bed. Does that sound reasonable and intelligent?

In fact, here are a few questions for you to ponder:

1) How much time have you spent fighting what you deem along the lines of faries and unicorms so far this year?
2) Is it one of the first things you think of when you surf the internet?
3) What percent of time do you spend on the internet doing this? Why? If you spend 50% of your time on the internet doing this, then you could also say that it costs you 50% of what ever your internet charges you. Which means if you pay 30 bucks a month to access the internet, 15 dollars of that goes to your fight against what you claim does not exist.

So you are spending both time and money fighting some thing that supposetly does not exist. Where is the reason and intelligence in that? Does evolution make you fight imaginary things, or is it the thing that reasonable and intelligent people do today?

What I picture when people say God does not exist, and they spent so much time fighting Him. Is a person holding a weapon in a battle stance, yet he stands alone because by his own admission. His foe does not even exist.

#10 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 03 November 2008 - 02:02 AM

This subject gets discussed and is denied by all evolutionists. But let's look at what is done for the theory of evolution that is just like a religion.

So let's look at the definition of religion first:

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Now let's compare this to evolution. If you take away supernatural, and just use natural. Let's see if it fits:

Evolution: a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny.

The natural powers that evolutionists will claim makes Evolution work are:
1) Natural selection.
2) Survival of the fittest.

*snip*

View Post


And we can really stop here, because you just defeated your own claim. You can't just take away parts of the definition as you please, and then claim that it fits.

Let me demonstrate:

Q: Is a Chevy '56 a horse carriage?

The definition of a horse carriage is a vehicle pulled by horses.
Let's take away the horses.

A: Yes a Chevy '56 is a horse carriage.

A religion is a belief in the existence of a supernatural being, creating and controlling, to some extent, the world we live in.

Naturalism (under which evolution falls) is the claim that physical laws are responsible for creating and governing the world.

Thus, naturalism is the antithesis of religion. This is a basic and logical principle.

That some naturalists may pursue their conviction with religious zest does not change this.

Hans

ETA: In the above, 'religion' is to be taken as theistic religion, of course.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 November 2008 - 12:43 AM

quote;Naturalism (under which evolution falls) is the claim that physical laws are responsible for creating and governing the world.

What if God created and governs physical laws?Would'nt that falsify naturalism?If "God created" cant be falsified then would'nt that make naturalism a untestable science?If naturalism must be taken on faith then that,by definition,makes it a religion.

#12 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:19 AM

This subject gets discussed and is denied by all evolutionists. But let's look at what is done for the theory of evolution that is just like a religion.

So let's look at the definition of religion first:

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Now let's compare this to evolution. If you take away supernatural, and just use natural. Let's see if it fits:


By changing the definition it undermines your case. I mean if it's just a matter of semantics then all religions are the same religion. We'll just change a word here or there. Suddenly Christianity isn't the belief in one god but multiple gods. After all we just changed the wording.

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2009 - 07:29 AM

And we can really stop here, because you just defeated your own claim. You can't just take away parts of the definition as you please, and then claim that it fits.

Let me demonstrate:

Q: Is a Chevy '56 a horse carriage?

The definition of a horse carriage is a vehicle pulled by horses.
Let's take away the horses.

A: Yes a Chevy '56 is a horse carriage.

A religion is a belief in the existence of a supernatural being, creating and controlling, to some extent, the world we live in.

Naturalism (under which evolution falls) is the claim that physical laws are responsible for creating and governing the world.

Thus, naturalism is the antithesis of religion. This is a basic and logical principle.

That some naturalists may pursue their conviction with religious zest does not change this.

Hans

ETA: In the above, 'religion' is to be taken as theistic religion, of course.

View Post


I actually, appreciate your analogy, MRC_Hans, because a car and a carriage do serve the same purpose.

I don't see where Ikester said evolution is Christianity he makes the obvious point that they serve the same purpose. They both satisfy the same metaphysical questions that you and I have. One naturalistic (by brushing the supernatural roadblocks under the rug) and the other is supernatural (where the arrows have been pointing the whole time).

The implications are profound and I have been evangelized actively ever since I joined the debate. It's offensive to evolutionists to have their paradigm questioned with the evidence through reason and logic.

http://dictionary.re...browse/religion

dictionary.com's definition of religion fits perfectly with what evolution is.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 January 2009 - 10:25 AM

quote;Naturalism (under which evolution falls) is the claim that physical laws are responsible for creating and governing the world.

What if God created and governs physical laws?Would'nt that falsify naturalism?If "God created" cant be falsified then would'nt that make naturalism a untestable science?If naturalism must be taken on faith then that,by definition,makes it a religion.

View Post

That is a very well made point. Call me crazy but the major thing I see lurking under all of this, in the intellectual sense anyway, is people's lack of understanding what it means to have presuppositional reasoning permeating their worldview.

John Lennox has stated that it is wrong to believe that the facts come first, then the interpretation, and finally the worldview. He proposes that the evidence shows that the worldview is first and it is evident by the way people defend their interpretations. This is why worldviews must be challenged is lovingly and persistently as possible.

This lines up perfectly with the Word of God that makes it clear that Life, knowledge and wisdom start with trust in the foundation, Jesus Christ.

Adam

#15 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:33 PM

And we can really stop here, because you just defeated your own claim. You can't just take away parts of the definition as you please, and then claim that it fits.

Let me demonstrate:

Q: Is a Chevy '56 a horse carriage?

The definition of a horse carriage is a vehicle pulled by horses.
Let's take away the horses.

A: Yes a Chevy '56 is a horse carriage.

A religion is a belief in the existence of a supernatural being, creating and controlling, to some extent, the world we live in.

Naturalism (under which evolution falls) is the claim that physical laws are responsible for creating and governing the world.

Thus, naturalism is the antithesis of religion. This is a basic and logical principle.

That some naturalists may pursue their conviction with religious zest does not change this.

Hans

ETA: In the above, 'religion' is to be taken as theistic religion, of course.

View Post


I know you don’t want to believe evolutionism is a religion. But I think you’re being unfair to ikester when you attempt to say he’s removing part of the definition to prove his conclusion… So call this “reading dictionary definitions 101:

Whenever you look up a definition in any dictionary, more likely than not, you’ll find more than one definition. What this means is simply that, that the word encompasses more than one meaning! So, you scroll down through the definition notes and see if the word fits what you’re looking for. If it doesn’t, you move on. But, if it does “BINGO” you’ve picked a winner!!!!

So, let’s take a look at two different definitions of religion:

According to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Religion” is:

re•li•gion
• Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
• A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
• Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
• A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
• Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
• A social group bound together by the above.

According to The FreeDictionary - http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/religion


1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


According to the dictionary in my computer (Encarta):

re•li•gion (Noun)

1. Beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life.
2. System: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine.
3. Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.
4. Obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by.


Now, you’ll find that all three definitions are relatively similar. In fact, if you read them closely, aside from the verbiage, they pretty much say the same thing! So, all you have to do is see if ANY of the definitions fit what you are trying to describe!!!

Now, more to the point, I think you were complaining that ikester basically replaced the word Religion with the word evolution. And, although I understand the analogical device he was using (and agree with his analysis), I feel you took offence to it because you didn’t like the inference. So I will look at it from a more definitive aspect:

I think you’ll agree that there are some atheists, skeptics and evolutionists that believe evolution is a fact. When, in fact, it is not… Some of these “atheists, skeptics and evolutionists” will attack with fervor and zeal anyone who has a differing opinion from themselves. They would fit into definition #4 of the “Free Dictionary”. Which states – “ A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” And definitions #3 and#4 of the “Encarta Dictionary” Which states – “Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by” and “Obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by”.

And here are a few quotes to back up my assertions:

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'" - Errol White,

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."- L. Harrison Matthews

"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics

"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists." - Walter James ReMine

Therefore evolution can be considered a religion on many levels. So the atheist attempts to refute this by cherry picking the definition of religion. But, religion is also defined as; an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by. Which, by the way, is a pretty good definition for the actions of say a Richard Dawkins, who, as an atheist, is so obsessed with evolution (which is an unproven model) that he has waged an all out jihad on Christianity and God. But, it can be a good description for the atheist/skeptic humanist that claims the evolution is a proven fact (or what can be termed as the “Fundy atheist evolutionist) with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.


BTW, since Atheism is a worldview that some live by, it fits well into the “Encyclopedia of Philosophy” definition of “Religion” on point #’s 7 & 8, and the Encarta definition #3…

#16 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:35 PM

Just thinking out loud B)

#17 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:10 PM

I actually, appreciate your analogy, MRC_Hans, because a car and a carriage do serve the same purpose.

I don't see where Ikester said evolution is Christianity he makes the obvious point that they serve the same purpose. They both satisfy the same metaphysical questions that you and I have. One naturalistic (by brushing the supernatural roadblocks under the rug) and the other is supernatural (where the arrows have been pointing the whole time).

The implications are profound and I have been evangelized actively ever since I joined the debate. It's offensive to evolutionists to have their paradigm questioned with the evidence through reason and logic.

http://dictionary.re...browse/religion

dictionary.com's definition of religion fits perfectly with what evolution is.

View Post


I take it you are using the following definition:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.


I don't quite know how to put this, so I'll just say it:

You're wrong.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6897 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 January 2009 - 12:55 AM

I don't quite know how to put this, so I'll just say it:

You're wrong.

View Post

Hey Jason,

I was given a documentary to watch today. With Ikester's permission I may consider posting it. It is a rather well done documentary that calls into question Who Wrote the Bible. The presuppositions are subtle and virtually undetectable but the gentleman who is the main character hints at presupposing the naturalists sound refutation of the Bible's creation account. It doesn't even waste time on the topic but just assumes that naturalistic explanations have already done their job, irrefutably and we should basically 'trust by faith' that Genesis is unreliable.

So by using the naturalistic presupposition and presupposing that this 'scientific' explanation is fact, the initial foundational work of questioning the Bible is presumed to already be done without question. The bottom line was, the question of evolution wasn't even covered. It was just assumed that it should already be strongly believed.

There is good reason for forums like these and their, growing number, reveals that more Christians are realizing that evolution isn't a benign scientific theory. It is a canker sore of doubt that festers in the minds of seekers and wanderers, of all who which ask the big synthetic questions of life, like the author of that documentary.

Sorry Jason, but I'm right. Evolution is not science. It is merely the number one religion among scientists. There is a huge difference.

Adam

PS - I hope you consider de_skudd's expansion above because it really doesn't leave any wiggle room for the person who thinks they can work their way out of logically considering the ramifications that evolution is indeed a religion by any normal definition of the word. The evident byproduct of Darwinism competes directly with the metaphysical claims of scripture. So wouldn't it be too convenient to presuppose that evolution is not a religion while it's number one purpose is to compete with the claims of scripture and the supernatural. It is way too convenient to declare a theory benign while it destroys the faith of many.

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:24 AM

Hey Jason,

I was given a documentary to watch today. With Ikester's permission I may consider posting it. It is a rather well done documentary that calls into question Who Wrote the Bible. The presuppositions are subtle and virtually undetectable but the gentleman who is the main character hints at presupposing the naturalists sound refutation of the Bible's creation account. It doesn't even waste time on the topic but just assumes that naturalistic explanations have already done their job, irrefutably and we should basically 'trust by faith' that Genesis is unreliable.

View Post


Constantine wrote the bible in 313 CE didn't he? I thought that it was a matter of historical record?

So by using the naturalistic presupposition and presupposing that this 'scientific' explanation is fact, the initial foundational work of questioning the Bible is presumed to already be done without question. The bottom line was, the question of evolution wasn't even covered. It was just assumed that it should already be strongly believed.

There is good reason for forums like these and their, growing number, reveals that more Christians are realizing that evolution isn't a benign scientific theory. It is a canker sore of doubt that festers in the minds of seekers and wanderers, of all who which ask the big synthetic questions of life, like the author of that documentary.

Sorry Jason, but I'm right. Evolution is not science. It is merely the number one religion among scientists. There is a huge difference.

Adam

PS - I hope you consider de_skudd's expansion above because it really doesn't leave any wiggle room for the person who thinks they can work their way out of logically considering the ramifications that evolution is indeed a religion by any normal definition of the word. The evident byproduct of Darwinism competes directly with the metaphysical claims of scripture. So wouldn't it be too convenient to presuppose that evolution is not a religion while it's number one purpose is to compete with the claims of scripture and the supernatural. It is way too convenient to declare a theory benign while it destroys the faith of many.

View Post


Evolution is a fact. You can watch it happen in a laboratory. How evolution happens is the subject of the theory, and is an on going area of investigation for biologists.

Edit: I read de_skudd's post above, and you would have to expand the definition of religion to include an explanation of the diversity of life to make evolution a religion.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:43 AM

Constantine wrote the bible in 313 CE didn't he?  I thought that it was a matter of historical record?
Evolution is a fact.  You can watch it happen in a laboratory.  How evolution happens is the subject of the theory, and is an on going area of investigation for biologists.

Edit:  I read de_skudd's post above, and you would have to expand the definition of religion to include an explanation of the diversity of life to make evolution a religion.

View Post


So you can watch chimps become humans? I'd like to see that.
Not all of the claimed processes of evolution can be observed. But if you want, you can argue that and we'll just say that it's an absolute and no longer a theory. But then again, you would also have to provide the evidence to make that so.

So does evolution have any problems? Or has the whole thing been proven? You can't have it both ways. That makes it an oxymoron theory.

Added: Plus Judy V would disagree: http://www.evolution...indpost&p=22692

Is she allowed to do that?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users