Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

TO: SchrafinatorWhen I see many high schools talk about all the shortcomings of the macroevolutionary hypothesis I will rescind my Taliban comment. Secondly, it is obvious that milititant atheist who espouse darwinist dogma have persecuted Christians far more than they have been persecuted by people calling themselves Christians. I do not know of one materialist martyr. It seem to me that if they were persecuted at least one angry person or mob would have lynched/killed a materialist. Voltaire and others, however, died a normal death.End of discusssion.Sincerely,Ken

Ken, you ignored my direct questions to you in your reply.This makes me think that you are not interested in debating honestly. Does your God approve of dishonesty?Here are the questions again. Please answer them:

quote:

---

What do Biologists have to do with repressive governments?

​

Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about?

​

Please list their names.

​

Please list your specific problems with the Theory of Evolution and we can discuss them.

​

What are your difficulties? What do you find lacking, specifically?

---

Now, to your current message:

quote:

---

When I see many high schools talk about all the shortcomings of the macroevolutionary hypothesis I will rescind my Taliban comment.

---

No.Justify or withdraw your comparison of a MURDEROUS religious government with the free and open exchange of ideas that is science.Perhaps you would also like to list all the shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution here for us to specifically discuss?I asked you to do this in my last post, but you ignored the request.

quote:

---

Secondly, it is obvious that milititant atheist who espouse darwinist dogma have persecuted Christians far more than they have been persecuted by people calling themselves Christians.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

I do not know of one materialist martyr.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

It seem to me that if they were persecuted at least one angry person or mob would have lynched/killed a materialist. Voltaire and others, however, died a normal death

---

Irrelevant.

re: what specifically do I have problems with in regards to the macroevolutionary hypothesisI believe you have seen this string: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not validI do not know why you even ask this question.re: biologist/repressive regimesI would say that it is a multidisciplinary effort of many scientist plus the involvement of educators, judges, politicians, etc who attempt to foist the macroevolutionary hypothesis upon the earth and create a environment that professes a materialist ideology. Do all people in these fields of human endeavor do this? No, Duanne Gish could hardly be called a participant. I gave the specific examples of Stalin and Marx and their adoption of the material they read in the Origin of the Species. In certain countries, especially ones without a Christian heritage, the results have been disastrous. This is well documented.I cannot make it more clear. I think you are intentionally trying to obscure the facts due to the fact that you simply do not like them.Sincerely,Ken<[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-04-2004]

You made an error in your post. There. I fixed it.

quote:

---

re: what specifically do I have problems with in regards to the macroevolutionary hypothesis

​

I believe you have seen this string: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

​

I do not know why you even ask this question.

---

Your opening post does not list specifics, it just lists a bunch of websites. Following your opening post, you were requested to pick specific evidences and discuss them. You refused, but refusing to discuss the details is tantamount to giving up before you've started the debate.Please pick one specific piece of evidence from one of those websites and we will discuss the details.I want to talk about very minute, specific details in great detail about one, specific bit of evidence.So, pick one, and we will talk about why it is that you disagree with the findings of science.If you like, I will pick one for you. Let me know.

quote:

---

re: biologist/repressive regimes

​

I would say that it is a multidisciplinary effort of many scientist

---

I know what you think.However, I would like to see what your evidence is for why you think this.That is why I asked the following question in my last post, which you did not answer. Please answer this direct question: [quote]Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about?

​

Please list their names.[quote]

Dear Schrafinator:As you know Stalin abandoned the idea of being a lifelong priest (I am guessing Russian Orthodox) pretty much after he read Darwin's Origin of the Species according to the biographer who published a book about him in Russia during the time he was in power. Now since Darwin was no possessor of a biology degree but had a theology degree like Stalin was working toward or completed, I would say that Stalin is the biologist you are looking for. Stalin's work in biology was just as good as Darwin's in my estimation. If Stalin did no work in biology it still would be better than Darwin's contribution. I am not against being self taught but Darwin would not be a great example of the benefits of being self taught. For example, let us look at some legacies. Pasteur was a creationist and he had the great Pasteur Institute as a legacy. Perhaps there is a Darwin Institute. If there is a Darwin Institute it is surely not as well known as the Pasteur Institute. I would also say that the Pasteur Institute is far more productive than any Darwin Institute there may or may not be.Sincerely,Ken

quote:

---

Now since Darwin was no possessor of a biology degree but had a theology degree like Stalin was working toward or completed, I would say that Stalin is the biologist you are looking for.

---

Did you learn logic like this in your managerial training?

Ken REALLY doesn't know what he is talking about.In Stalin's time biologists were often persecuted by the governmentThe Lysenko affair is well known:
Trofim Lysenko - WikipediaBut even before Lysenko achieved his full power Stalin was acting against biologists http://www.comms.dcu.ie/sheehanh/lysenko.htm

quote:

---

As you know Stalin abandoned the idea of being a lifelong priest (I am guessing Russian Orthodox) pretty much after he read Darwin's Origin of the Species according to the biographer who published a book about him in Russia during the time he was in power.

---

What is the name of this Biographer, and what is the name of the book?

quote:

---

Now since Darwin was no possessor of a biology degree but had a theology degree like Stalin was working toward or completed,

---

There was no such thing as a "Biology Degree" back when Darwin was alive.There was no such thing as any "degree" in any of the sciences as we know them today, because science as a profession had not been formalized yet.

quote:

---

I would say that Stalin is the biologist you are looking for. Stalin's work in biology was just as good as Darwin's in my estimation.

---

Please tell me the title of any naturalist paper or book written by Stalin.

quote:

---

If Stalin did no work in biology it still would be better than Darwin's contribution. I am not against being self taught but Darwin would not be a great example of the benefits of being self taught. For example, let us look at some legacies. Pasteur was a creationist and he had the great Pasteur Institute as a legacy. Perhaps there is a Darwin Institute. If there is a Darwin Institute it is surely not as well known as the Pasteur Institute. I would also say that the Pasteur Institute is far more productive than any Darwin Institute there may or may not be.

---

Let me sum up what you said here:There is no Darwin Institute.Well, there might be a Darwin institute, and because I haven't heard of it, it isn't as well known worldwide as the Pasteur Institute.Even though I don't even know if a Darwin Institute even exists or not, I somehow psychically know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Pasteur Institute is way better.

sorry, double post.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-05-2004]

Since you seem unable to pick a single bit of evidence regarding the ToE for us to discuss, I will do so for you.Let's see, why don't we discuss why it is that whales are sometimes born with hind legs?This is predicted in an evolutionary model, because there is very good evidence that modern whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals.We understand that an individual's genetic code can become expressed, or "turned on" by mistake every once in a while. These are called "atavisms."Why would an individual whale grow legs "by mistake" if all of whale "kind" had been created by God to always swim in the sea? Why would they have the genes to grow legs at all?Now, let's discuss your problems with this bit of evidence.

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Ken, you failed to answer this question, and I don't want it to be left behind, as it is a serious accusation.

quote:

---

I believe that some (not all) Islamacist and some (not all) /materialist/evolutionist have one thing in common. They often go crazy when they hear criticism of their position.

---

Please provide specific examples of evolutionists "often" going "crazy" when their positions are criticized.

A large point is being ignored. When atheism is left on its own and becomes the paradigm of a country and there has not been a foundation of Bible believing or strong Christian input we see large degrees of chaos in a society (Mao, Stalin, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc).Materialism does not work. Please consider this information:http://www.taemag.com/.../articleID.17700/article_detail.aspSincerely,Ken

Another good example is the contemporary U.S. Nothing is more materialistic than good old fashioned free market economics - as espoused by, of all people, the relgious right. I directly blame the chaos and social problems in this country, as opposed to other Western nations, to the dominance that the political right has enjoyed in this country.

I certainly don't expect any rational discussion of this from Ken, but I would like to point out that Pasteur was certainly not a creationist in the modern sense of the word, and almost certainly was not in the sense of the word in his time. Quoting John Wilkins in Re: Pasteur Safari:

quote:

---

Just to follow up - a search of "Louis Pasteur evolution" via Google finds only one non-creationist comment that Pasteur was against Darwin, and it is not referenced. But we find dozens of creationist claims, not one of which makes any citation or referenced quotation to Pasteur's own work or to a reputable biography, that Pasteur was anti-Darwin and was "opposed by the biological establishment" or some such. ...

​

His demolition of spontaneous generation was of a particular instance - microbial spontaneous generation *with respect to disease and fermentation*. It did not rule out abiogenesis.

​

He was not religious, and, like many people at the time (including Darwin) made the right noises in public. ... He did not abandon the idea of evolution - so far as I can find he gave a qualified assent to it. What he rejected was the (again, pre-Darwinian) notion that microbes evolved in situ:

​

`Pasteur, Oeuvres, V, 101; II, 411. Pasteur only once used Darwin's name in print -- while pointing out that the belief in microbial transformism was losing ground by 1876, "in spite of the growing favor of Darwin's system." Ibid., V, 79.'" (page 409)

---