why 'evolutionism' is a religion

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.

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.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
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?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark:
That natural methods were responsible for abiogenesis is not baseless assertion.John Paul:
Sure it is. We have no evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. That makes it a baseless assertion.Mark:
Every single observed process is the result of a material naturalistic process. BAR NONE.John Paul:
Really? Even the process that makes computers? How about the process that makes automobiles?
Ya see if life is not the result of purely natural processes every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process.Mark:
The supernatural/God has never been observed. NEVER.John Paul:
Moses would say otherwise. We can observe God through God's Creation.Mark:
So to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed is baseless.John Paul:
Like I said before, if life didn't arise via purely natural processes, every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process. But I guess it is OK for you to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed. Typical double standard.Mark:
To infer something that has NEVER been observed, over something that has ALWAYS been responsible, where mechanisms are evident (without fail), is the most craven act of pseudoscience yet.John Paul:
By your logic the ToE is pseudoscience.Mark:
There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists - GapWe haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses - Gapin fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists - GapAll that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist. - GapHowever there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes - GapJohn Paul:
Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.Mark:
How many pieces of evidence have you brought in support of creation?John Paul:
Hello!? That isn't what this thread is about. However if you must know, Creationists use the same evidence. We just have different inferences based on our diferent biases.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
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.John Paul:
I don't recall saying the evidence is 'wrong'. Evidence is evidence. What I say is that the evidence you claim to support the ToE is not exclusive to the ToE. It can also be used to infer a Common Creator. And if, as you said, you read more Creationist literature than I have, the Creation model of biological evolution should be obvious. Seeing that it is not obvious to you, either you haven't read more Creationist literature than I have, you haven't read much at all or you are intentionally misrepresenting the Creation PoV.------------------
John Paul

[QUOTE]John Paul:
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.[/B][/QUOTE]First of all, I don't know any Biologist, scientist, or educated person who calls themselves an "evolutionist". That is a term which is preferred by and used by creationists to try to portray Creationism and a particular scientific theory of Biology as somehow two sides of the same coin. This is, of course, a false and misleading dualistic portrayal.If you are equating the kind of faith that I have in the evidence for common descent, for example, with your religious faith, then yours is a very strange religious faith.Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.Is this how you would describe your faith, John Paul?

quote:

---

We can observe God through God's creation.

---

No, that would be an inference, not an observation.God has never been observed.

quote:

---

Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.

---

So, because we do not have perfect knowledge, Genesis/ID is correct? How can we argue with logic like that?

quote:

---

However if you must know, Creationists use the same evidence. We just have different inferences based on our diferent biases.

---

Please tell me why, according to the website you sent me to, humans and apes are not the same "kind", but my tabby cat and a Bengal tiger are the same "kind".Please tell me why flowering plants, including trees and grasses, are only found in later geologic layers. Did they all run for high ground during the flood?You can say that you infer the evidence "differently", and that would be true. It would also be true that these inferences are not scientific because they assume that the Biblical version of natural history is correct even before any observations are made.Science makes no such assumptions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:
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.
[/B]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
First of all, I don't know any Biologist, scientist, or educated person who calls themselves an "evolutionist".John Paul:
Really? I know many that do.schraf:
That is a term which is preferred by and used by creationists to try to portray Creationism and a particular scientific theory of Biology as somehow two sides of the same coin.John Paul:
LOL! It is a term used to differentiate between the two worldviews. That's it.schraf:
This is, of course, a false and misleading dualistic portrayal.John Paul:
The only thing misleading is evolutionists' portrayal of the Creation model of biological evolution.schraf:
If you are equating the kind of faith that I have in the evidence for common descent, for example, with your religious faith, then yours is a very strange religious faith.John Paul:
Faith is faith. In the absence of evidence people have faith. Faith is not science.schraf:
Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.John Paul:
Are you telling me what my faith is?schraf:
Is this how you would describe your faith, John Paul?John Paul:
In what? I see evidence for God all around me and yes if someday we were to prove (or at least get unrefutable evidence for) that the big-bang theory, nebula hypothesis, abiogenesis and the ToE are ALL indicative of reality, I would change the way I perceived God & Scripture (that is if I am still alive).------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can observe God through God's creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
No, that would be an inference, not an observation.God has never been observed.John Paul:
And you know this how?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
So, because we do not have perfect knowledge, Genesis/ID is correct?John Paul:
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.schraf:
How can we argue with logic like that?John Paul:
And how can I debate against someone who blatantly misrepresents what I say?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However if you must know, Creationists use the same evidence. We just have different inferences based on our diferent biases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Please tell me why, according to the website you sent me to, humans and apes are not the same "kind", but my tabby cat and a Bengal tiger are the same "kind".John Paul:
OK, I went over this before. I am not a baraminologist. I do understand your point as I don't believe I would lump a tabby in with the big cats. However I do not have their data in front of me.schraf:
Please tell me why flowering plants, including trees and grasses, are only found in later geologic layers. Did they all run for high ground during the flood?John Paul:
Could be ecological zoning. Could be that flowering plants (which are still an enigma to evolution- no precursors), trees and grasses were all uprooted, floated and then were buried.schraf:
You can say that you infer the evidence "differently", and that would be true. It would also be true that these inferences are not scientific because they assume that the Biblical version of natural history is correct even before any observations are made.John Paul:
It assumes it because parts have been scientifically validated.schraf:
Science makes no such assumptions.John Paul:
No but the ToE makes other assumptions which aren't scientific.------------------
John Paul

Hey, JP, how about answering schraf's question regarding flowering plants? (Don't worry this is just a rhetorical question. You don't have to if you don't want.)

quote:

---

John Paul:
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.

---

In the meantime we have other lines of evidence that JP rejects.

quote:

---

schraf:
First of all, I don't know any Biologist, scientist, or educated person who calls themselves an "evolutionist".

​

John Paul:
Really? I know many that do.

---

I know of none that refer to themselves as "evolutionist biologists," etc., either. Probably that is because your only contact with scientists and evolutionists is on these message boards.

quote:

---

John Paul:
The only thing misleading is evolutionists' portrayal of the Creation model of biological evolution.

---

Agreed. However, we are forced to do this. It is unfortunate that you have not presented us with a model. When you come up with something let us know. We will then stop misrepresenting you.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Faith is faith. In the absence of evidence people have faith. Faith is not science.

---

No faith is not faith. There are different kinds. I thought we went over this before. Your "faith" is absolutist religion. Ours is confidence in natural processes.

quote:

---

schraf:
Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.

​

John Paul:
Are you telling me what my faith is?

---

I don't think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:

​

That natural methods were responsible for abiogenesis is not baseless assertion.

​

John Paul:
Sure it is. We have no evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. That makes it a baseless assertion.

​

---

What other basis would you assert? We’re not talking causes, but entire frameworks.Give a reason for asserting supernatural mechanisms without quoting lack of natural evidence. No God of the gaps, please.That there is no direct evidence of a natural mechanism is irrelevant. We are talking reasons for including frameworks (ugly, inappropriate word, but I can think of no other). Every KNOWN mechanism is natural in origin (by definition), there is NO REASON to believe it was supernatural. "Supernatural", for the purposes of this thread, means extra-universal-intelligent-involvement (choose your own definition, by all means, I'm just going by what you have asserted in other threads).If you maintain that natural mechanisms are ultimately of supernatural origin, please produce positive evidence.That there is only one DEMONSTRABLE framework is reason enough for its inclusion, at the expense of the un-witnessed one. This is basis. Natural mechanisms are therefore not baseless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Mark:
Every single observed process is the result of a material naturalistic process. BAR NONE.

​

John Paul:

​

Really? Even the process that makes computers? How about the process that makes automobiles?
Ya see if life is not the result of purely natural processes every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process.

---

Yup, even computers & automobiles, electrons moving down neurones, ATP being expended to flex muscles etc. etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:
The supernatural/God has never been observed. NEVER.
John Paul:
Moses would say otherwise. We can observe God through God's Creation.

---

Moses can’t say anything God AND Gods creation is a circular argument. You need to prove God to prove Gods creation. You DO NOT KNOW THERE IS GOD!!!!! Believe it, by all means, don't pretend you KNOW it.If you maintain you do know there is a God, there is a thread "Is the Bible the Word of God?". Please join & give Redstang some moral support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Mark:

​

So to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed is baseless.

​

John Paul:
Like I said before, if life didn't arise via purely natural processes, every observed process of life is therefore NOT the result of a material naturalistic process. But I guess it is OK for you to infer a framework that has never, ever, been observed. Typical double standard.

---

IF.The onus is on you to show there is such a thing as the supernatural. I can show the natural (by definition). Until then, there is no reason NOT to put forward natural mechanistic processes as the culprit. I repeat, it is not individual causations we’re talking about, but reasons for asserting natural/supernatural frameworks.IF life didn’t arise via purely natural processes is meaningless, it asserts nothing with basis.Double standard? It will be when you give me positive evidence of supernatural mechanisms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Mark:
To infer something that has NEVER been observed, over something that has ALWAYS been responsible, where mechanisms are evident (without fail), is the most craven act of pseudoscience yet.

​

John Paul:
By your logic the ToE is pseudoscience.

---

No. Evolution is supported by OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. Can supernatural mechanisms say the same?If evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next, ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html ) Then it has also been demonstrated in the laboratory. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html"Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.
It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.
Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.
To determine which explanation was correct, Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck, working together at Cold Spring Harbor during World War II, devised a test. According to Luria, his inspiration for the test was his observation of a colleague playing at a dime slot machine at a faculty dance. After consistently losing for some time, his friend finally hit the jackpot. Luria realized that if the slot machine distributed payoffs randomly, according only to chance, the payoff would usually be zero, occasionally be a few dimes, and almost never be a true jackpot. However, the machine he was observing had clearly been programmed to return an excess of both zeros and jackpots.
Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was "rigged" by mutation.
It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.
By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Actually there are so many gaps any running back could score on any play from anywhere on the field. Close the gaps and then get back to me and I will change my position on the ToE being a religion.

---

Actually there are so many gaps.But there are stones to keep your feet dry on. supernatural mechanisms cannot say the same.This is why natural reasons are sought, pink fairies have no basis.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-15-2002]

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.

quote:

---

The only thing misleading is evolutionists' portrayal of the Creation model of biological evolution.

---

So, provide a detailed "Creation Model of Biological Evolution" so we will stop "misrepresenting" it. If you know enough about it to know we are misrepresenting it, then you should have no trouble producing it.

quote:

---

Allison: Your faith is based upon evidence found in nature rather than any supernatural, holy, sacred, or otherwise religious idea. You look at new evidence from nature all the time to see if your faith is to be rejected or strengthened, because with every new discovery, it might go either way. You make predictions about what we will find in nature, and if the predictions fail, then your faith is weakened.

---

quote:

---

John Paul:Are you telling me what my faith is?

---

No.I am making a point that the word "faith" has different meanings, even though you seem to have unilaterally decided that it has only one. This seems rather desperate, this getting "cute" with definitions.You said "faith is faith", and I simply described the kind of "faith" that I put in scientific theories in such a way that would show you that, when applied to religious "faith", it wasn't the same kind of thing at all.

quote:

---

I see evidence for God all around me and yes if someday we were to prove (or at least get unrefutable evidence for) that the big-bang theory, nebula hypothesis, abiogenesis and the ToE are ALL indicative of reality, Iwould change the way I perceived God & Scripture (that is if I am still alive).

---

There is no such thing as "irrefutable evidence" in science, so you have made science's goal impossible to reach.Also, you have been terribly inconsistent the entire time you have been here. Sometimes you say that the only problem Creationists have is with the origin of life (Abiogenesis), and then you go on for a while about ID, even though your favorite reference, Behe, accepts evolution, that there wasn't a Flood, the universe is billions of years old, etc. At other times, you argue for the Flood, that evolution doesn't happen, etc.Do you accept the evidence which supports the Germ Theory of Disease?
The reason I ask is that, in the Bible, either God or evil spirits cause disease, not microorganisms. If you are to remain consistent (which you haven't been), it seems that you must reject the Germ Theory of Disease.I mean, the only reasons you have really given to why you object to the science that you do are religious, or personal incredulity.