why 'evolutionism' is a religion

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. 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." How convenient it is to be an evolutionist.
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism. However there is absolutely no evidence that life originated via purely natural processes. So without that evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis. So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?evolution is a religionBTW, if you think life did originate via purely natural processes, the following link may interest you.$1,350,000.00 Origins of Life Prize------------------
John Paul

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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.edge:
And not the mother nature-father time story again!John Paul:
Truth hurts sometimes and this is one of those times.edge:
This really makes you sound silly.John Paul:
If reality makes me sound silly to you then so be it.edge:
The "unholy" part is new, I have to admit, but who decides what is unholy? JP, we all know what a religion is.John Paul:
I have my doubts. That is why this thread was started.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?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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Actually, there is enough time.John Paul:
Great then let's see the experiment. No more hiding behind the time argument.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."edge:
Billions of years are represented and recorded.John Paul:
Only if you first assume it took time to create it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you look at it, their 'science' is based upon inference totally biased by materialistic naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Well, it seems to have worked before.John Paul:
Really? Have you read anything about Newton?edge:
We don't sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods any more, either.John Paul:
That has to do with what exactly?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.edge:
Including evolution?John Paul:
And another baseless assertion.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.'
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if life didn't originate via purely natural processes what would make anyone believe it diversified via purely natural processes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
If, if, if. Sorry, JP, invalid premise.John Paul:
That is all evolutionists have are IFs. That is whay I started this thread.edge:
On the other hand, since life did diversify by natural methods why couldn't it have originated by naturalistic processes?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?------------------
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?
Gene90:
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.John Paul:
-ism: a system, principle or ideological movement. Creationism isn’t a science any more than evolutionism is. Both are PoVs.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.John Paul:
"Why can't we duplicate the alleged great transformations in a lab via genetic engineering"gene90:
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.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.------------------
John Paul

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. -KvJohn Paul:
Did you know the US Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion? Also a religion can be defined as a thing that one is devoted to- from Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder. (see also http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)And that a synonym of religion is belief?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.------------------
John Paul

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]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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