why 'evolutionism' is a religion

quote:

---

edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

---

quote:

---

John Paul:
Baseless assertion. IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions? Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering?

---

I see that the Creationist, unable to substantiate Creationism as a science, must now attempt to label evolution as a religion in a desperate bid to make the two seem to be equals."IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occuring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist."Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering"Probably because the "great transformations" took millions of years of parallel mutations to come about. Genetic engineering technology is not advanced enough to manipulate that many genes in parallel. In fact, biochemists are still trying to figure out what gene codes for what protein and how protein folding is conveyed through genetics (hint: introns may play a role). In fact, transfering a handful of genes to an organism across species is still a big achievement. The best we could do is what evolution does, modifying one gene at a time across thousands of generations. Also don't forget that what we do with genetic engineering is unnatural, often not necessarily moving towards greater fitness. And finally, there is no research funding to attempt a "Great Transformation". You might be interested to know that "great achievements" so far in genetic engineering consist of bacteria that eat oil, bacteria that produce insulin, and an organism that grows on strawberries to protect them from frost. Genetic technology is not even advanced enough to move much faster than microevolution, yet you expect a macro - like feat? Have some patience. You want to build a supercomputer out of an abacus.

Also you seem to have forgotten that if we did generate a new living thing through GE, it would be an act of "Creation" and your side would feel vindicated. Therefore, in this manner, Creationism is yet again shown to be non-falsifiable. Suggest to Creationists that if they want serious consideration, they should try playing fair.

quote:

---

John Paul:
-ism: a system, principle or ideological movement. Creationism isn’t a science any more than evolutionism is. Both are PoVs.

---

We can play with definitions for a long time and not accomplish anything. For one, I've not heard the word "evolutionism" used in textbooks or in the literature, so I tend to think that that -ism is not terribly important in deciding whether or not the Theory is some kind of religion. However, to demonstrate my point about definition, "principle" and "system" are words commonly used in science. You could go through the trouble of defining them but the debate won't bring us anywhere.

quote:

---

John Paul:
"IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"

​

gene90:
Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occuring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist.

​

John Paul:
Thank you. You are proving my point.

---

I really don't see how I am proving any point of yours, but I will point out that you have implied that experiments were carried out under "ideal conditions". I pointed out that "ideal conditions" involve oceans of reagents and millions of years. You did not challenge my concept of "ideal conditions" and in fact said that I was "proving your point".Your claim that experiments have been carried out under "ideal conditions" then, is at best misleading.

quote:

---

I have patience. But in the absence of such experimentation all you have is faith that someday such evidentiary support will come. And with that faith the belief it will substantiate your (evolutionists') claims.

---

One tenet of our current understanding of gravity is that everywhere in the universe, objects with mass exert gravity. Unfortunately we have not checked every fragment of matter in the universe, but we still haven't found any exceptions to the rule. Still the uncertainty is enough for your line of reasoning to imply that physicists have faith and belief in their Newtonian claims. Therefore, by this stretched reasoning, you imply that the Theory of Gravity is a religion!Clearly this is absurd, and it demonstrates that you cannot base a credible argument on a confusion between "confidence" and "faith".I also demonstrate that this line of reasoning is being used inconsistently, it could cover any region of science.