why 'evolutionism' is a religion

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
evolutionism- the belief that today's ToE is indicative of reality.

​

Why is it a religion? Adherents to the ToE put their faith (yes faith) in the un-Holy trinity of Mother Nature, Father Time and some as yet unknown natural process(es). How so? There is no way to conduct an experiment to substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.

---

Let me get this straight. If I have faith my Subaru will get me to work in the morning (and believe me, it does take a leap of faith) that this is a religion? Hey, it matches your definition.And not the mother nature-father time story again! This really makes you sound silly. The "unholy" part is new, I have to admit, but who decides what is unholy? JP, we all know what a religion is. You expand the definition so as to make it meaningless.

quote:

---

We haven't conducted an experiment to substantiate endosymbioses, in fact we haven't conducted any experiments to substantiate any of the gradiose claims made by evolutionists. Why is that? All that is said in their defense is "There isn't enough time to observe the changes you are talking about."

---

Actually, there is enough time. We see it in the fossil record. Billions of years are represented and recorded.

quote:

---

How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.

---

We've been taking notes.

quote:

---

When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism.

---

Well, it seems to have worked before. We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.

quote:

---

However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes.

---

You mean other than the fact that everything else has occurred by naturalistic processes? Including evolution?

quote:

---

So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.

---

I have never heard any evolutionist refuse to discuss abiogenesis with you.

quote:

---

So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?

---

If, if, if. Sorry, JP, invalid premise. On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
edge:
Let me get this straight. If I have faith my Subaru will get me to work in the morning (and believe me, it does take a leap of faith) that this is a religion? Hey, it matches your definition.

​

John Paul:
I don't understand where faith is involved in your Subaru. Either it functions or it doesn't.

---

You obviously don't know my car. See, I can't PROVE that it will even start. I have faith that it will. And I can't PROVE that it doesn't burn oil instead of gasoline, either.

quote:

---

edge:
You expand the definition so as to make it meaningless.

​

John Paul:
And evolutionists use false extrapolations to support their faith. Is that also meaningless?

---

How do you know they are false? Can you PROVE that they are?

quote:

---

John Paul:
Great then let's see the experiment. No more hiding behind the time argument.

---

Evolution is tested countless times a day at all of the paleo digs around the world. We use micropaleontology to tell us where we are in an exploration well, AND to predict what is ahead. Face the facts, it works. If not, the oil companies would refuse to use it.

quote:

---

edge:
We see it in the fossil record.

​

John Paul:
You see time in the fossil record? No, you just assume it took time to create the fossil record. Huge difference. You see what you want to see in the fossil record. It is a great example of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it."

---

Sorry, but many geological processes are known. They take time. And yes, to a trained person the geological record reads like a history book.

quote:

---

edge:
Well, it seems to have worked before.

​

John Paul:
Really? Have you read anything about Newton?

---

Newton denied that nature was responsible for the natural environment? He thought that god moved the planets, or what?

quote:

---

edge:
We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.

​

John Paul:
That has to do with what exactly?

---

Well, people used to think that volcanos were not natural and were controlled by the gods. Sacrifices were supposed to appease them. Now, we know (well, some of us do) that natural processes explain eveything that we see in nature.

quote:

---

However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes.

​

edge:
You mean other than the fact that everything else has occurred by naturalistic processes?

​

John Paul:
That is nothing but a baseless assertion.

---

Good, then you can give us many clear cut examples of non-natural effects of non-natural processes in our environment.

quote:

---

So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.

​

edge:
I have never heard any evolutionist refuse to discuss abiogenesis with you.

​

John Paul:
The point is evolutionists distance themselves from abiogenesis with statements such as 'How life started is not important. Evolution is after life was started.'

---

No, JP, we are just trying to help you understand the difference. We are usually glad to talk about it once that is cleared up. Numerous evolutionists have told you that there is a big difference in the evidence for evolution versus the evidence for abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From keenanvin:
religion (r-ljn)
n.
1.a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

​

keenanvin:
Evolution does not follow 1,2 or 3. Evolution is NOT a religion, according to the definition. -Kv

​

John Paul:
Did you know the US Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion?

---

And?

quote:

---

Also a religion can be defined as a thing that one is devoted to- from Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder.

---

Ah, good. Then football is a religion. I've been telling my wife this for years...

quote:

---

And that a synonym of religion is belief?

---

And "idea" is a synonym of "belief." And "proposal" is a synonym of "idea." And "request" is a synonym of "proposal." So, is evolution a request?

quote:

---

Evolution as in 'a change in allele frequency over time' may not be a belief system, but extrapolating that to mean the ToE is indicative of reality surely makes it one.

---

Are you saying that a change in allele frequency can't be real?

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.