The Religion of Science (Evolution as Faith!)

CHJ ^ | Jan 14, 2006 | Nathan Tabor

[WatchYourself]

How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?

A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.

It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.

[RunningWolf]

My kind of thinking bump

Wolf

[jec41]

Like christianity, evolution is not provable, unless of course you want to accept conjecture and false fossils as evidence

Then why should someone accept a force supposition, (not enough emperical evidence for a theory) without evidence. Did you perhaps read Aristotle's reasoning on a prime mover or his reasoning for inventing science.

[elmer fudd]

Darwinistic evolution is a THEORY, and while some parts are fact, it is being taught as an official government belief system rather than a theory.

So you're saying we shouldn't teach relativity, the Bohr atom, or plate tectonics. They all are just theories after all.

In scientific terms a theory isn't just someone's educated guess. Intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It's hardly even a hypothesis.

[DoNotDivide]

The vast majority of 'scientists' are Human Secularist High Priests, it seems.

[Dimensio]

Evolution must be a force because it has been proven that outside influences(such as cold etc) do not change a species but merely emphasize the variation within a species.

Apparently you are unaware of oberved instances of speciation.

For instance if I cut off my index finger and all my progeny cut theirs off, my g, g, g, g, g, great grandchildren would still be born with index fingers. This has been known for many

And the theory of evolution does not say that anything else should happen. This is a total non-sequitur.

but some evos still try to survival of the fittest drives evolution, it doesn't and has been proven.

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't drive evolution. Mutation combined with environmental reproductive selection pressures drive evolution. This has been observed. Your "index finger" argument doesn't disprove this in the least.

[Dimensio]

If you can prove that the earth is young, all theories that try to reason away God

There are no scientific theories that "try to reason away God", where "God" is defined as any deity. As such you are arguing against a strawman.

are false since they requires billions of years of something out of nothing and order out of chaos, and thus, there must be a God.

Non-sequitur. Demonstrating that scientific theories that rely upon or conclude an ancient universe are false would not, in any way, demonstrate the existence of any deities. Evidence for the existence of a deity must stand or fall on its own merits.

[connectthedots]

That's why burdens of proof are on people who advocate something. Otherwise all our time would be spent trying to disprove crank theories and we'd never have any time to work on plausible stuff.

The the 'proof' of evolution is? Evolutionists even admit that evolution is only a theory (it's actually a model). If it is, at best, a theory; there is no proof for evolution. Belief in evolution requires some degree of faith; doesn't it?

[loboinok]

"The two creation stories contradict one another."

Not at all.

The Law of Recurrence.

The Law of Recurrence involves the recording of an event and the repetition of the account which gives added detail.

You will find another example in Ezekiel 38:1 - 39:16
Chapter 38 gives a complete account of the coming invasion of Israel by Russia and the subsequent destruction of the Russian army in Israel.

Chapter 39 then repeats the account from the beginning giving additional details.

[Dimensio]

Oops. MY previous post should have been addressed to Kuiper

[Dimensio]

I see creation. There must have been a _______.

You're assuming that what you see is a "creation".

[Dimensio]

Evolutionists even admit that evolution is only a theory

You have been told time and again the significance of the term "theory" with respect to science, in that there is no label "higher" than "theory" for any scientific explanation. That you pull the "only a theory" line despite having told over and over again that a "theory" implies an explanation that has withstood rigourous testing and has amassed significant amounts of evidence demonstrates that you are fundamentally dishonest.

[dr_lew]

Well, the period of 225 million years, which is the time taken for the sun to orbit the galactic center, is termed a galactic YEAR. Note the galaxy does not rotate as a rigid body, like the earth.

Also, I can see you are not a very careful student of Genesis. The heaven and the earth, as well as light, and day and night also, are created on the First Day. However, the firmament ( heaven ) is created on the Second Day, and this is famously problematical with respect to day and night having been created on the First Day. So all in all, we are pretty much free to form whatever correspondences we wish.

I will say as I have always said, from my own secular viewpoint, that the Seven Days of Creation in Genesis 1 correspond amazingly well to our scientific understanding of the evolution of the universe, and life on earth, and really I don't see why this isn't seized upon as a vindication of the wisdom or correctness, or what you will, of the Genesis account.

[Dimensio]

Lucy for instance was proven by the french to be a chimpazee,

Reference for this claim, please.

[snuff]

Kuiper said: "Beyond that, there is no way that even if the first cell did exist and function (which is mathematically impossible)"


Mathematically impossible? I think not. Mathematically improbable? Yes. BUT, it's also mathematically improbable that I saw a Wyoming license plate 8 - 5672 today, but I did.

[Echo Talon]

I have never claimed to be a Biblical scholar but, I know enough to not believe everything the evos say.

[dandelion]

"So you're saying we shouldn't teach relativity, the Bohr atom, or plate tectonics. They all are just theories after all."

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Please re-read my statement. I am asking that Darwinistic Evolution be TAUGHT as a THEORY, just as the other theories you mentioned are taught - if you read my entire statement, you will see that NOWHERE do I mention that evolution should not be taught. That is a false statement on your part. However, it is indicative of the kind of dialogue that is now taking place regarding the debates about early man. Any attempt to deviate from the "official" position - regardless of the reason - will be shouted down or demeaned as "censorship", when in fact it is merely an attempt to broaden understanding of the science behind evolution.

How many discussions about parellellism in early hominid/primate evolution have been shouted down, thanks to the rigid mindset of professors intent on dispensing only their "official" view of hominid evolution? How many hominid fossil discoveries have been dismissed or mis-catagorized because they did not fit in with the "official" version of evolution? How many times will real questions about the origin of the species be shouted down because no one must question the "official" position on evolution?

What I am saying is this: SCIENCE is not being taught. Evolution is a theory, and in order for it to be taught, it must be open to new viewpoints. As long as the educational establishment sees it as a cause and not a theory, Evolutionary Theory will NOT be science - it will be dogma.

Do you really want them to teach dogma? Or do you want them to push the boundaries, ask questions, and bring SCIENCE back into the study of the Origins of Man?

[jec41]

In scientific terms a theory isn't just someone's educated guess.

They don't understand that a theory requires empirical evidence, a logical deduction, explanation and observation.
A theory is a situation that has been proved to the greatest degree fact. Nothing can be proved 100% fact but a theory is as close as one can get using the scientific method. Most do not understand the definition of theory, hence one hears them speak my theory is etc. That is not a theory but only untested opinion consisting of babble.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a theory, and in order for it to be taught, it must be open to new viewpoints.

How, specifically, should it be taught differently than it is now? Make sure that any nuances you have regarding the method of teaching it would be equally applicable to all other theories taught in schools, including plate tectonic theory, atomic theory and gravitational theory (more commonly known as relativity theory).

[elmer fudd]

I see a painting. There must have been a painter? I see a building. There must have been a builder? I see a car. There must have been a car maker? I see creation. There must have been a _______.

So what created the ______ and if nothing created the ______ and it was always here, then why not use the scientific method and eliminate the unnecessary part of the hypothesis? It's simpler to state that the universe was always here. Unless you have evidence of a ______ it should not be included.

[wyattearp]

Much of the "added detail" in chapter 2 contradicts the original detail in chapter 1.

- In chapter 1, man was created on the the sixth day. In chapter 2, man was created AFTER the seventh day.
- In chapter 1, animals were created BEFORE man. In chapter 2, animals were created AFTER man.
- In chapter 1, birds (fowl) were created out of the water. In chapter 2, they were created out of the ground.

These chapters are not complimentary, they are contradictory. They are two distinct and different stories. Read and compare them yourself.