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.

[Oztrich Boy]

what projections can be made as to how species will evolve in the future?

What's the weather going to be like 1,000,000 years from tomorrow?

Without knowing the conditions, you can't know what adaptations will be favoured. and then a massive meteor strike could randomize everything

[freedumb2003]

Random word generator is back, I see.

[RunningWolf]

Correction

//"who needs aerodynamics when we have angels to hold up airplanes?"//

No one actually says that though, save for a very few on these thread that think it clever.

NOT

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Now that you've completely and totally misrepresented the majority of the objections to your post, could you provide something of substance?

[metmom]

You have been told time and again the significance of the term "theory" with respect to science, ...

And so where did this *little boys club* version of theory come from in the first palce? I never heard it before I came on FR and heard it from the evos. In all the science courses I took in college, the definition of theory that I was presented with was the one that anyone can find in Merriam-Webster, or some such other reliable, reputable, widely acknowledged and accepted source. My profs taught that any theory well enough established as to be accepted as fact, was genreally given the status of *law*. And they did teach that theories could only be disproved, not proved.

[RunningWolf]

Very astute observation and equally well said.

I however went down to the level, well not quite but close enough.

Regards,

Wolf

[Oztrich Boy]

AIG is an official scientific journal, regardless of your disagreements with it!

AiG isn't a journal at all: it's a cult centre. They do publish a magazine Creation: Is that an "official scientific journal"?

What is an "official scientific journal": Who decides? I would think being referenced by the Science Citation Index would be required. Creation?: nope.

[metmom]

When has the law of gravity not held true?

[uptoolate]

Gen 1:20-21
20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

21God created (AB)the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Gen 2:19
19(T)Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and (U)brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

I don't see the contradiction

Secondly, I was not trying to sound or be self righteous to anyone. If I came across that way to anyone I appologize, that was not my intent.

I am an average joe, drive a semi for a living, middle class, high school grad, with some college. (Accounting 101 & 102, Art and Business of Recording, and New Testament Survey @ Moody.)

I have been found guilty of the sins of: blasphemy, greed, adultery, murder, lieing, cheating, obstructing an officer in the line of duty, slander, lust, dishonor to those who deserve honor, drug abuse, alcoholism, and idolatry to name a few. Some of these I have been found guilty in front of an earthly judge.

When I die I will stand trial before the Heavenly Judge. Holy, Righteous, and Just in all decisions, I will have earned the punishment for all my crimes against Him. The prosecuting "attorny" will be standing there, wings spread, seething at the mounth, recalling to the Holy One all of my deeds against this Holy God. He will be seeking the due penalty of banishment from the presence of The Most High and a continous non-consuming burning in the Lake of Fire for all eternity.

It will be at that time that my "Represenative" will speak out on my behalf and say, "Father, this is one for whom My shed blood and broken body has paid the penalty in full".

For insight into what I believe, after the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I mentioned before, you may check out this link. It is a long read but worth it if you want to know how the Spirit has helped me find the truth in His mystery.

May my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who died, was buried, and rose from the dead to satisfy the punishment for all of mankind's sins, grant you the grace and peace of the soul He has me.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/viewcreation.pdf

[Dimensio]

n all the science courses I took in college, the definition of theory that I was presented with was the one that anyone can find in Merriam-Webster, or some such other reliable, reputable, widely acknowledged and accepted source.

You mean "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena"?

My profs taught that any theory well enough established as to be accepted as fact, was genreally given the status of *law*.

Where did these "profs" teach? A "law" in science is a generalization of regularly occuring patterns observed in the universe. A "theory" in science is an explanation for the cause of observed events in the universe based upon a collection of data points. Both are generally considered "true", but they serve different purposes. A scientific explanation does not ever become "law". The "law" of gravity is not an explanation, it's a formula for calculating resultant force from two attracting bodies. The explanation for the cause of this force is a "theory".

[RunningWolf]

And so where did this *little boys club* version of theory come from in the first place? I never heard it before I came on FR and heard it from the evos.

Bravo Touche bump!

Wolf

[Dimensio]

When has the law of gravity not held true?

It doesn't work at a subatomic level or across different relativistic frames. There's also the problem of it assuming that the force of gravity is instantaneous, when Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that gravity is limited to the speed of light.

[metmom]

Repeatedly asserting that evolution is a "plot" to destroy Christianity and Western Culture doesn't make you right. It does, however, make you look paranoid and delusional.

Not much different than all the evolutionists claiming that Christianity is out to destroy science and education in this country thus sending us back into the Dark Ages and a Taliblan-like existance. That sounds pretty paranoid and delusional, too.

[Dimensio]

AIG is an official scientific journal

Care to back up this claim?

reality check: AIG and similar sites are peer-reviewed

Please cite a "peer-reviewed" document on AiG or a "similar site".

reality check: no, modern species are not transitional,

Some might not be. Some might be dead ends, leading to extinction. But you can't claim "all" unless you have the ability to see into the future.

they are current.

And your evidence that they will be "current" throughout all of the future?

Transitional species mean the ancestors of current/modern ones,

Wrong. A "transitional" species is one where a subpopultation of the descendents are eventually a different species. The only possible alternative is that the species dies out completely without leaving any successful descendants.

There ARE no fossils in the process of evolving from one type to another

No one has ever suggested that fossils evolve.

Be less animalistic, but I guess I can't blame you, are you keeping up the front we just I would start the mudslinging and slander you all like you have done to me when it was quite uncalled for, but I am just better than that. When you drones are not willing to debate because of your constant personal attacks, I go off and debate somewhere with civilized debaters. I don't return the attacks.

What a verbose way of copping out like a coward. If you can't address the evidence that has been presented -- especially by Ichneumon -- then just admit it. Stop projecting your failings onto everyone else.

[Dimensio]

Not much different than all the evolutionists claiming that Christianity is out to destroy science and education in this country thus sending us back into the Dark Ages and a Taliblan-like existance.

So who here has done that? Please cite specific examples.

[loboinok]

"I think you lost track ofthe argument."

I was not aware that we were having an argument. I was more of the mind that there is a misunderstanding by one of us.

"If, as in your interpretation, waterbirds (which fly over the earth) were created in Gen 1 and Gen 2:19 from the ground every "fowl of the air"...whence flightless birds?"

Do they swim, float, eat marine life? Is their existance naturally dependent on the oceans or seas?

Gen 1:20 one group of birds from the water.

Gen 2:19 one group of birds from ground.

same creation account, additional details.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. Are you looking to verify, understand or pick apart Genesis?

Your leading statement tells me you may be looking to win or hold on to something.

If that be the case... hold on to what you believe. I did'nt write the book and its' truth does not depend on me or my defense of it.

[Oztrich Boy]

Not much different than all the evolutionists claiming that Christianity is out to destroy science and education in this country thus sending us back into the Dark Ages and a Taliblan-like existance. That sounds pretty paranoid and delusional, too.

Who has claimed all of Christianity wants to do this? Most of us are quite clear it's only the Creationists versions wanting this.

[RunningWolf]

Not much different than all the evolutionists claiming that Christianity is out to destroy science and education in this country thus sending us back into the Dark Ages and a Taliblan-like existance. That sounds pretty paranoid and delusional, too.

DOUBLE DOH!!

Wolf

[metmom]

Well, sure you can substitute *creationists* for *Christians* and the evolutionists STILL sound paranoid and delusional.