Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

I would suggest reading this book and website:"Fabulous Science. Fact and Fiction in the history of scientific discovery.
by John Waller.
Oxford University Press, 2002. 308 pp.reviewed by Gert Korthof. 12 Oct 2003 version 1.4Pasteur: right for wrong reasonsThe chapter about Pasteur is illuminating and relevant for the current Evolution/Creation controversy. It appears that Pasteur was a creationist (he believed the Genesis story) and firmly opposed the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. Darwin's work appeared around that time. Pasteur and 'his friends' were opposed to evolution. According to Waller, Pasteur and his friends played an unfair game and did not give their opponents a fair hearing. He suppressed unwelcome data. Today we would label that 'unprofessional conduct'. Ultimately Pasteur was right, but for the wrong reasons. Waller is remarkably mild in his judgement of Pasteur: "his sins were of a comparatively modest nature."taken from: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof61.htmAnother website comments on Pasteur:"Pasteur died in 1895 and is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time. Rene Vallery Radot, Pasteur’s son-in-law said that absolute faith in God and in eternity were feelings which filled Louis Pasteur’s whole life.The virtues of the gospel were very present to him. He came to his Christian faith simply and naturally for spiritual help in the last stages of his life.( Quote from The Sower Series biography of Louis Pasteur by John Hudson Tiner)"taken from: "Louis Pasteur"Consider this also from a website: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator" - Louis Pasteur"taken from: http://www.cs.cuw.edu/biblestudy/Day5.htmlAlso consider this from a website:"This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia does, saying,Pasteur's faith was an genuine as his science. ... Some of his letters to his children breathe profound simple piety. ... What he could not above all understand is the failure of scientists to recognize the demonstration of the existence of the Creator that there is in the world around us."taken from: http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1227almanac.htm[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

kendemyer,the quotations you use seem to show that Pasteur believed in a Creator, but they don't indicate whether he believed that the Creator created in the manner depicted in Genesis. I think most theistic evolutionists would make the quotes themselves.Also, this doesn't address the topic of the thread, which is the "Taliban-like" academia censoring the poor creationists.

I updated the post before yours.Here is what I added:I would suggest reading this book and website:"Fabulous Science. Fact and Fiction in the history of scientific discovery.
by John Waller.
Oxford University Press, 2002. 308 pp.reviewed by Gert Korthof. 12 Oct 2003 version 1.4Pasteur: right for wrong reasonsThe chapter about Pasteur is illuminating and relevant for the current Evolution/Creation controversy. It appears that Pasteur was a creationist (he believed the Genesis story) and firmly opposed the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. Darwin's work appeared around that time. Pasteur and 'his friends' were opposed to evolution. According to Waller, Pasteur and his friends played an unfair game and did not give their opponents a fair hearing. He suppressed unwelcome data. Today we would label that 'unprofessional conduct'. Ultimately Pasteur was right, but for the wrong reasons. Waller is remarkably mild in his judgement of Pasteur: "his sins were of a comparatively modest nature."taken from: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof61.htm[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

Interesting. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Here is an excellent essay called "The Church of Darwin"http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

Here is an excellent essay called "The Church of Darwin"http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

Mindless propaganda.Kendemyer, do you wish to actually engage in discussion, or just post links to essays that you don't quite understand?

Better hurry with your question -I think he just edited his post.....again.

I would suggest it is the latter. Going on ken's track record, he has nothing substantial to say for himself and can only post links to ludicrous web sites which he doesn't have the ability to evaluate for himself. I've just about given up - it's like trying to have an intelligent debate with sawdust.

Ken,Pasteur refute spontaneous generation, a theory which stated that fully formed organisms can arise from non-organic solutions. Can you please show me where any theory of abiogenesis states that flies should have sprung up out of mud?How about we set up an experiment that Pasteur would have to have run in order to refute current theories of abiogenesis. First, he would have to set up his environment similar to that found on Earth before life arose. Second, he would have to supply the same chemicals and catalysts as that found in pre-life earth. Second, he would have to supply the correct volume for the reaction, in other words the entire volume of water found on earth. Next, he would have to include a 500 million year incubation time.Did Pasteur run this experiment? I don't think so.

When we subtract Johnson's bias and his woeful inability to distinguish between the methodological naturalism of science and the ontological naturalism of *SOME* scientists there is little of substance.The observations in the field agree with what we need to explain the fossil record in terms of evolution Johnson somehow finds even the examples he knows of unimpressive - but never bothers to explain why.Johnson's real objection is not that schools engage in indoctrination - it is that they do not. This is why the ID movement is so set on misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to remove evidence for evolution from American schools.

It seems as though materialist here are forgetting a common materialist mantra in relation to the abiogenesis hypothesis - namely, extraordinary claims require extraordinay evidence. Clearly, we know that abiogenesis even if we were to grant a such a thing which I am clearly not granting whatsoever, would not be ordinary. Nobody has ever witnessed such a thing and Meyer clearly shows it is contra-evidence: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.htmlSo where is the extraordinary evidence?Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

Is everyone discussing macroevolution (the topic of this thread), or abiogenesis?Funny, I believe it was the former. The latter, of course, has little to do with the former, correct?

TO: misteropusWithout a credible evidence to show that abiogenesis could realistically occur the materialist have not earned the right to go up to bat against the Christian creationist. In short, the materialist are not in the ballpark.Furthermore, in relation to the origin of the universe, the creationist have a Louisville slugger called the Law of the conservation of mass and energy. The materialist do not have a science "poker hand" that even approaches a scientific law.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

kendemyer doesn't seem to know what he is arguing about or against. I haven't read a post of his yet where he has succeeded in putting together a coherent thought.