why 'evolutionism' is a religion

Morris' article is simply non-sense. Evolution addresses the history and diversity of life on Earth in context of the scientific method. It says nothing of the supernatural since science has no way of addressing it. If you want to call it a religion address the science and demonstate that it is wrong--saying it isn't doesn't do the job.

The scientific method doesn't require experiments, but observations and testing. Experiments are a reliable method of doing such, but not a requirement of the scientific method. Please stop misrepresenting science.

So address the evidence. You have refused to engage the evidence substantively on repeated occasions. You insist it is wrong, but don't provide falsifications which have been provided nor any competing theory.

You are contradicting yourself. If the evidence fits two models, then we aren't discussing faith, but an argument over the what the evidence infers. If evidence is consistent with a model, then it isn't a religion, it is a hypothesis at least. Please try and keep your stories straight.So be specific and point out where the creationist "POV" deals with why the 'Common Creator' created retroviral insertions in identical portions of the genome for chimps and humans. This claim, if it is scientific, should be testable, have confirming evidence and potentially be falsifiable and not already falsified.Additionally, if the 'evidence' fits both 'theories' you should be able to identify specific evidence that would falsify either theory. The potential falsifications of evolution are quite clear. Identify the specific falsifications of creationism or ID.Cheers,
Larry

jp:Will you ever stop misrepresenting me? All I have said is that with the lack of substantiating evidence to the contrary it is SAFE to infer the Creation model and/ or ID.Wrong. Absolutely wrong in relation to the scientific method. You need to be able to identify positive evidence for either theory (and they are separate theories if they exist). So operationalize at least a portion of each theory with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.A theory may be inferred when it has supporting evidence for it, not because of the state of another theory. This is a very basic concept.

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 01-15-2002]

jp:The only thing misleading is evolutionists' portrayal of the Creation model of biological evolution.So portray the model. You haven't identified a specific theory that you are supporting as an alternative. You need to demonstrate some sort of model that is operationalized as a testable theory. Claiming that people are misrepresenting a theory that has not been introduced is a bit ridiculous since no one has the theory to compare it to.

John Paul:
No but the ToE makes other assumptions which aren't scientific.Specifically? And cite the source of where you got the assumption.