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.

[elfman2]

"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."

Nonsense. Everything not proven is not "faith". Evidence (falling short of proof) separates it from faith.

[uptoolate]

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 _______.

Simple like that?
Why is this so hard for people? Some people think they are so wise with all their big fancy words.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

[Echo Talon]

Thanks for answering the question.

[Elsiejay]

That is not the claim. The forcing of interpretations of all observed phenomena relating to living organisms into a preconceived framework of naturalistic materialism is the unacceptable dictum of evolutionists.

[Echo Talon]

Wow, I like that Corinthians 1:27. Thank you for that.

[labette]

Oops! The ape-men pictures were pulled.

I thought the circumcised one was interesting.

[treffner]

Yeah, the 1st chapter of Romans pretty much sums up what is happening in the world today. It saddens me to think about all of the people who will be burning in hell for eternity for denying their creator.

[Dan(9698)]

life on Earth - can't be tinkered with, we have to settle for a strictly empirical approach. Let's teach kids what we've observed, nothing more...

Things we have not observed are taught as an assumption.

The Apostle Paul defined faith as hope in things not seen.

Scientific assumptions are taken as a statement of faith.

[stuartcr]

I agree, none of any of this can be proven. I don't know if they are true or false, but I don't think we will get to find out.

[Rudder]

Incorrect, abiogenesis has a lot to do with evolution.

Your mind says so. But science doesn't.

This is error number two (1. is untruthfulness): That is, by your own logic, creationists presume science to do what it doesn't purport to do. And when science fails to provide the answers you seek, you assume it has failed.

Science doesn't do the supernatural, by its own straightforward admission, and it declines abiogenesis as a part of evolution theory.

[treffner]

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[jec41]

You cannot disprove God, but you can prove You cannot disprove God, but you can prove God exists. If you can prove that the earth is young, all theories that try to reason away God 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. Understand, jec41? It's pretty simple. If you can prove that the earth is young, all theories that try to reason away God 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. Understand, jec41? It's pretty simple.

That's a grade school argument offering no logical proof. Once again The Six Ontological Proofs against the existence of God and The Six Ontological Proofs for the existence of God has already been logical reasoned by Reena Descartes. However by your own statements and if that is all the proof that you possess then god would be but a weak hypothesis and not even a theory. In other words you own opinion without proof. It is not philosophical argument with a logical foundation.

[Rudder]

In other words you own opinion without proof.

And, that, folks, is why science relies upon empirical data.

[calex59]

Thanks, most people get really pissed when I voice my opinions on the subject of evo and religion.