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.

[From many - one.]

You forgot the

"Bleeech"

[R. Scott]

No it isn't. A model is a suggested explanation of how some system came into being or how said system works.

That is the definition of a “theory”.

It cannot be considered to be a theory until it is tested and those tests can be duplicated. Since evolution cannot, or at least has not, been duplicated, it is not a theory.

No, after testing and replicated it becomes more of an accepted theory. After enough confirmation it becomes a “fact”.
Evolution has not been duplicated, but it is tested continually. The person who theorized (hypothesized) that birds came from dinosaurs posited that we should be able to find intermediate animals – dinosaurs with feathers. They have been found. The people who hypothesized (theorized) that whales once lived on land predicted that fossils would be found of the intermediate animals. They have been found.

[Coyoteman]

Definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

[longshadow]

Festival of Anti-Evo Intellectual Twaddle

[From many - one.]

Are lions and tigers one kind?

What about gorillas and orang-utangs?

Eagles and hawks?

Since no fungi were listed in Genesis what kind of animal dd they evolve from since the flood. In case you are not aware of it, fungi are not plants.

[PatrickHenry]

Festival of Anti-Evo Intellectual Twaddle

Why are you so afraid to think outside the box?

[From many - one.]

'Cause they're stuck with a (24 hour) day notion.

And the idea that if any modern observation doesn't square with a literal interpretation of the currently approved Biblical version of Genesis, the entire Bible is (gasp, strangle) a LIE and all of the morals and ethical principals in it disappear in a puff of satanic smoke.

[From many - one.]

Simple answer.

Shale splits easily and plants insert roots and other root-like structures into the splits. Also green algae can get in and goo-ify

I'm pretty good on plants, both live and fossil. If you have and can post pictures or id info I can probably help explain.

Generally, many plants of the Carboniferous era do resemble to some degree many modern species. This is especially true of fern-y looking stuff.

[uptoolate]

"It's simpler to state that the universe was always here" The 2nd law of Thermodynamics (Created by the Creator and set in motion by the fall of man) makes it impossible for the universe to have always been here.

[uptoolate]

Did you go to school to come up with thoughts like that?

[connectthedots]

What is the difference between a 'theory' and an 'accepted theory'?

Also, how would you define a 'scientific model'?

[connectthedots]

Based on the definitions you posted evolution includes a great deal of speculation, assumptions, guesses, faith, and opinions.

[R. Scott]

Not worthy of reply.

[connectthedots]

Not worthy of reply

In other words, you have no good answer.

[wyattearp]

Couldn't both be true? More than one was created

Like who, Adam and Steve?

Again couldn't both be true? Animals were created, then man, then more animals?

Read the book. That's not what it says.

Again couldn't both be true?

No. Not unless you are making things up.

[jec41]

If I may be so bold, It isn't "if" that you don't like. It's the assumptive you don't like. "If" is fine if you like the assumptive. You're a closed minded idealogue - nothing more or less.

You've got a long way to go and like many others, when the trend of a debate is not to your liking, brand them with a name. Means nothing except a way to avoid issues. Using If to define a position on previously tested data is accepted by both philosophy and science, That would suppose that the data or evidence or proof would meet the criteria required by said position either scientific or philosophical. If as a opinion lacking either empirical or logical deduction to presuppose a thought or position is just that, a if. Like if the world was shaped like a pretzel or square its diameter could be known. If God or the ID could build a rock so big they could not lift it. Logical deduction would suggest that both are not possible so at least part of the position is false.

[wyattearp]

In chapter 1, it clearly states that "sealife" and all associated with it, were created(out of the water) on the 5th day and before Adam.

Wrong.

Genesis 1:20 - And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...

Genesis 1 has God making fowl out of the water, Genesis 2 has the LORD God making fowl out of the ground. Maybe "God" and the "LORD God" are two different Gods? In any case, the two verses are contradicting each other.

[TheWormster]

Here's a criticism of evolution that I need your help to shoot down:

An evolution of an animal from one species to another species (e.g. turtle to bird) is actually made up of numerous mini-evolutions of all the biological systems (skeletal, circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, digestive, etc) within that animal. Since all these biological systems are integrated together and depend on one another then each of these mini-evolutions would need to be coordinated with the other evolving systems. The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible.

---

I strongly reccomend a biology text book. Or alternatively a pop science book along the lines of Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins.

[wyattearp]

Science has demonstrated that it would be impossible for all peoples to have been born of only two human beings. So it makes common sense there would have been more than two fully grown adult human beings formed.

Yes it has, and yes it does! However, that is not what Genesis says. Clearly, Genesis is in error regarding the creation account of man and woman. I haven't even gotten into where Adam and Eve's sons got their wives from...

[TheWormster]

Can you read, white horseman? I mentioned theistic evolutionists (I might be getting my posts confused though, sorry if I do). You must be in the second grade. ;)

The supposed evolution of ape-to-man is flawed and debunked. If you'd like I can dig up how almost every link in the chain is proved wrong.

---

Go on then. Do it. With references to scientific journals, peer reviewed by experts in the field.

Hint: Answers In Genesis does not count as a scientific journal.