As I said already, a religion is a system of beliefs. Regardless of what anyone claims, the belief system which governs a persons life IS their religion.
As far as I can tell, the term is used to try to discredit a theory of science that *some* people feel somehow threatens Christianity.
Darwinist eugenicists have murdered well over a billion people in the last century, if that's not a threat I don't know what is.
I do have faith that, eventually, people will get over this perceived threat to Christianity, just like they got over the supposed antitheistic theory of heliocentrism.
Eugenicists kill over a million people each week, that's hardly a "perceived threat."
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Catholic church un-excommunicated Galileo, within the last few decades.
Yet again, the core beliefs of people like Galileo and Newton didn't involve a twisted philosophy that resulted in their followers committing mass murder, the same cannot be said for the Darwinists.
Science concerns itself purely with what can be observed and measured in a systematic fashion. It does not, and cannot, concern itself with the metaphysical.
Your point?
We do not, and never will, have the ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God. Anyone who tries to claim that science proves that God doesn't exist (whether they're using the ToE or some other theory as their justification) is a liar.
Yes, but mankind DOES have the ability to play god and that's what Darwinists do.
Perhaps you should go back and read some of my other posts on this thread. The theory of evolution is a red herring, it has NEVER been at the core of Darwinism, it is a device they use and nothing more. The people who want to focus on evolution almost invariably do so in order to avoid talking about eugenics.
Furthermore, the use of science as a rationale for committing atrocities is not a condemnation of science. Someone who is set on committing atrocities and who has the power is going to do so, no matter what. It isn't because of some pseudoreligion called "Darwinism" that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, etc., committed their atrocities. They did that because they were fundamentally evil people, drunk with their own power.
You really need to look at the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, much of this evil occurred BECAUSE many people advocated eugenics. Prominent people were avowed eugenicists and their rhetoric is even found in one of America's more infamous Supreme Court rulings.
If studying or using the theory of evolution has some strange power to turn people into monsters, then I must ask: why aren't thousands of scientists like myself busy committing atrocities right this minute?
Again, why are you confining Darwinism to evolution. Darwinism IS NOT evolution, evolution is merely a small component of Darwinism.
One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers.
As I said earlier, EVERYONE worships SOMETHING. That thing may be God or science or Satan or the intellect or whatever. Though YOU may not worship science, there are plenty who do.
Well, Galileo was a devout Roman Catholic right up to the day he died; Newton declared a Creator God, Whom he described as: "The Lord of Life with His creatures." I strongly doubt Darwin had any such spiritual understanding.
Note, Newton was a monotheist, but not a Deist. He believed that the mechanistic tendency of his theories would eventually produce disorder in the world, and that God had to step in from time to time to set matters aright. Newton was perhaps more theologically Jewish than Christian; the point is he, like Galileo, believed in God.
Darwin, on the other hand, lived in a world of agnosticism bordering on atheism, a world that believed above all in the infallibility of human reason, a world that eclipsed God by putting the figure of Man and his seemingly limitless "potential" in the forefront, as the only true object worthy of devotion.
Worldviews have consequences — and you, wagglebee, have given several powerful examples of the actual historical consequences of the Darwinist worldview. Thank you so very much!
As I said already, a religion is a system of beliefs. Regardless of what anyone claims, the belief system which governs a persons life IS their religion.
Then, how do you define "beliefs"?
When I walk outside on a sunny day and see a blue sky, I don't have to "believe" the sky is blue; I can see that it is blue. I do not consider that knowledge based on evidence constitutes a belief system. Likewise, with the science of biology, I do not have to "believe" the evidence of evolution, because I can examine that evidence and see for myself that it supports the theory. A theory is a little more complicated, in that it is the unifying explanation of many observations that ties them together within a coherent framework. I do not consider that acceptance of a theory constitutes a belief system, either. Beliefs, to me, are those things for which we do not or cannot have direct evidence. Thus, to me, the theory of evolution is not a matter of belief.
Darwinist eugenicists have murdered well over a billion people in the last century, if that's not a threat I don't know what is.
Again, this is an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by attaching the acts of evil people to the theory. As allmendream pointed out, the Soviet Union, one of the most murderous regimes of the last century, did NOT accept evidence-based biology. They tried to impose "socialist" biology (Lysenkoism), which, as a working scientific model, did not and could not work. Because of the evidentiary nature of scientific investigation, it is impossible to advance science using any model that is not based in evidence. That would include the "creation science" that so many creationists so often promote; trying to use "creation science" as a basis for the formulation of hypotheses would quickly cause scientific discovery to grind to a halt, just like Lysenkoism did in the USSR.
For the most part, I will leave out refuting point by point the many statements you made based in the false premise that there are "followers" of Darwin, which is itself a result of the creationist invention of the fictional religion of Darwinism. I will, however, ask where the historical evidence that the mass murderers of the last century used the theory of evolution as justification for their pogroms? And by "historical evidence", I do *not* mean "evidence" produced by creationists which cannot be verified to exist outside of creationist writings.
One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers.
As I said earlier, EVERYONE worships SOMETHING. That thing may be God or science or Satan or the intellect or whatever. Though YOU may not worship science, there are plenty who do.
I have yet to meet anyone who worships science as if it were a religion. Since most people I know are scientists (not surprising, considering my profession), I think that I have a fairly good idea of the range of belief systems that exist among scientists.
Many of the abortionists (Kermit Gosnell) are driven not by ideology to weed out the unfit, but pure, unadulterated greed; many of the womyn seeking abortions have been subject to "hard selling" of abortion or pressured into one by family members or impregnators : after *first* having been sold the bill of goods that "sexual liberation" is better than "repression".
It is all but one front in a much larger war on the souls of men: fought as much by words, propaganda, social media and peer pressure as much as by bullets and bombs.
But that does not mean that all of the participants are explicitly aware of, or endorse, the strategy and tactics of the Generals, so to speak.
NO cheers, unfortunately.