Evolution: Science or Religion?

No, science is a process of continually getting less wrong. Wouldn't you rather be close to the truth, and getting continually closer; than eternally, unchangingly wrong?That's what religion offers, basically. Eternal error. I'll take science any day. Being wrong for now - but assured of greater correctness in the future - is much more attractive to me than continual error.As for observing evolution, we observe the mechanisms of evolution every day. We even use them to design microchips and jet airplanes. What more observation do you require? The actual history itself? If so, why do you accept that the Civil War happened, and not evolution? There's as much evidence for both.

Not so, We observe the same mechanism that got us from ape-like ancestor to Homo Sapiens generating new species every day. Did you miss my other post? The one where I said we use natural selection + random mutation to generate circuit designs and jet airplanes? How much more observation do you need? Why do you think there was ever nothing? How do you know the universe ever didn't exist? Maybe all this "something" exists because it's not possible for it not to exist.Existence is not evidence for a Creator, because you don't always need a creator to get something. It's just evidence for existence.

No, that's exactly what happened. It's called "genetic programming", and it's a process of generating functional circuits or jet planes in a computer simulation, through processes of natural selection and random mutation. At no point is a circuit design actually designed by a human. Natural selection and random mutation - evolution - does all the designing.You can read about it here: No webpage found at provided URL: www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/SI110/readings/EvoInventions.pdfYou think wrong. It's very well documented. Look through a biological journal and you'll see new species arising through reproductive isolation. It's a very well-understood phenomenon. There isn't a creationist group today who argues that new species don't arise. The only assumption I'm making is that natural processes can account for all natural phenomenon - the same assumption used by all the sciences.Now, believing in a Creator God - that's a leap of faith, and that's making too many assumptions. If you compare you'll find I'm actually making a lot less untestable assumptions than you. It's been proven as well as anything else in the sciences. Perhaps that's what you mean by "100%". Why else would it have near-universal acceptance in the biological community? Like I said, there's no intervention in the GP process except to set inital conditions. The circuits are designed through the same process that gives rise to new species.If evolution can make circuits and jet airplanes, why can't it turn an ape-like ancestor into two populations of men and apes?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-20-2003]

I just meant, there's no evidence that the universe has ever not existed, is all. The idea that it arose out of nothing ("ex nihilo") is just your assumption.