Re: A Research Program into Religion

"Grendel" <nadda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q8NDf.128032$m05.7218@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Pal, either God did it from supernatural forces
> Or
> Nothing did it from a magic quantum hat.

The above statement is egregiously false for a start.

>
> Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Also false - see my first response, Grendel.

> The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want
> to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything
> without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic
> religion.

Wrong again, Grendel! MOST people I personally know who support evolution
are also religious, mainly Catholic.

> The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from
> admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people
> evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory.

Particles-to-people is not evolution theory. Simple organisms to people
(eventually) is.

There are
> no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during
> human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law
> of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Again, 110% nonsense.

> Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost
> always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.

Could that be because those debates
a) take place only when the creationists have strict control over venue,
audience, format, etc.
b) attempt to demand explanations through ignorance in a wide range of
separate fields of study from a scientist is an expert in one, maybe two of
those fields. It's so easy to be ignorant in so many subjects, but so hard
to be a genuine expert in the same number.

> Accordingly,
> most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates,
> preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Creationists are more than welcome to submit work for peer-review in
scientific journals. I wonder why no such work has materialised?

> Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm
> than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3
>
> The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist
> message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

Because creationists are persistent in their attempts to push their
religious doctrine onto innocent children as legitimate scientific theory
when it is anything but.

> And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even
> doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism
> cannot be proven to be true.

Actually, atheism is, by definition, the lack of a religion.

>
> Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

Which is part of the reason creationism is NOT science and why Kent Hovind's
$250000 challenge is worthless and a publicity gimmick.

> Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a
> hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

Such a hypothesis is excluded from science because there is no real evidence
to support it.

> Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere
> science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a
> full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . .
> . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
> and it is true of evolution still today.

Again, nonsense in one of its purest forms.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Asimov editorial on "scientific creationism"
    ... science is no friend of truth. ... learn religion as religious instruction. ... Evolution isn't straight forward. ... Some scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CA323: Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views.
    ... Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views. ... Creation scientists, especially those promoting "intelligent design" ... Scientists who disagree with evolution are denied ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... complain about is people publishing on evolution even though they have ... about that list of 18th century scientists. ... irrational paranoia, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of science ... any evidentiary contribution of religion to science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... Appeal to authority, appeal to numbers, ... practicing scientists, some are. ... an alternative to evolution. ... All religion requires faith, and faith is received wisdom, or wisdom ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CA323: Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views.
    ... Creationists are persecuted for expressing their views. ... Creation scientists, especially those promoting "intelligent design" ... Scientists who disagree with evolution are denied ...
    (talk.origins)