Evolution is a Religion Pt I
Evolution is a Religion Pt I
[An except: Evolution Is Religion by Ken
Ham] “…The Southern Skeptic [wrote in 1985 (Vol. 2, No. 5)]: “Even if all the
evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis,
this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common
sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God.”
These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a
religious group are themselves a religious group. They have really said that
even if all the evidence supported the Book of Genesis they still would not
believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that
the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter
what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that
evolution is a fact.
Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are
explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of
life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science, or
history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion
versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another
religion).
The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin:
“Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines
of thought must follow.” To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of
the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12: “I am the light of the world: he
that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”
In Isaiah 2:5 we are exhorted to “walk in the light of the Lord.” In verse 22 of
the same chapter we read, “Cease ye from [trusting] man.”
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but
religion…” Full text:
Evolution Is Religion by Ken Ham.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "If atheism is a religion then not bowling is a sport."
Man is hopelessly religious. If he does
not worship God he worships something else (Ro
1:23). It takes more faith to believe in
evolution than in creation.
See:
Nutjob
Response to comment [from an "atheist"]: "[S]ome are hopelessly addicted to cute meaningless cliches. [S]ome are hopelessly addicted to projecting their own failings onto others. [S]ome cant conceive of a mind that doesn't operate the same way off the same set of assumptions as their own. [S]ome say things when they have no idea who they are talking to or what they are talking about."
Some sound sensitive to being
called out on their religion. Explain to us why atheist groups: meet
together, share their beliefs, and organize.
"Calling atheism or "evolution" a religion is that it stretches any possible meaning for the word so wide and thin as to make the word worthless..."
Atheist (lit. without God).
"If evolution is a religion so is gravity."
You are under the law and a slave to sin (Jn
8:34). You can be under Christ and a slave to him (righteousness [Ro
6:16]). Your choice.
Response to comment [from other]: [It takes more faith to
believe in evolution than in creation.] "Who taught you that cliché? I know you
don't have any thoughts of your own."
They rely on conjecture inconsistent with observations to maintain their
naturalistic worldview. It's more logical to believe in creation in the first
place.
"I do not doubt it was created. [I]t's here."
That's a step in the right direction.
Some even deny that we can know if we exist.
Still, to maintain a naturalistic worldview, the uniformitarian must use
assumptions which lead to contradictions.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "...[P]ut this gift to use."
Your welcome.
Response to comment [from "...[Y]ou can't make up definitions to words regardless of a person's personal feelings. Can an atheist have faith in themselves and their life experiences? Sure."
They are left with a fool for a deity as
C.S. Lewis' grandson likes to say of himself. ...Movie coming by the way
I love Aslan!
Response to comment [from an "atheist"]: "...moving past religion."
Evolving right? "New morality is just old sin." ~ J. Vernon McGee.
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "I don't...agree when they claim and project their beliefs as being an objective truth."
Is that objectively true?
"Human knowledge and understanding of this material foundation however is not a foundation of anything in an objective sense."
Did your human knowledge tell you that?
"...[B]elieve what you like and don't tell others what to do."
Didn't you just tell others what to do?
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[E]volution becomes a doctrine because they mistakenly hope that it will confirm their beliefs (or lack of them)."
Their hope is in evolution. The Christian's hope is in the Lord (not a plan or program)--the Lord (1Co 15:19; 1Ti 1:1).
Response to comment [from an "atheist"]: "I like that term, "fundie atheist"!
I like the term rabid leftist Mt 25:41
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Serpent's hope is in that something she cuts and pastes from AiG will somehow turn out to be true."
Poisoning the well.
Christians hope in the Lord (not a plan or program)--the Lord (1Co 15:19; 1Ti 1:1).
See:
[URL="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html"]Do real
scientists believe in Creation? [/URL]
Response to comment [from an "atheist"]: "Or that it will be taken anything but another boring pointless ho hum."
Nahum is not ho hum. Read your history
future if you do not repent (Nah. 2, 3). Love the "more right than left"
deception. You "Christian"/"atheist" "his/her/its" always do this (Eph. 4:14, 2
Tim. 4:3, 4).
Response to comment [from a Catholic] "...[Y]ou can post some of the scientific evidence..."
Oh sure, they want me over there, too.
Ok, I'll check it out. I would perhaps rephrase the question. I could "post"
evidence all day long and at the end of the day they will continue to reject
creation in favor of evolution. Scientists have the same empirical data. It is
the interpretation of that data that creates a worldview.
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such as hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999."
"It seems that whenever evidence challenges current evolutionary theory, the
theory just changes to accept the new data, but the presuppositions don't
change. What evidence would scientists accept that would cast doubt on evolution
itself?" Roger Patterson.
"Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can
be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed).
Evolution is the religion to which they are committed (Ham, Evolution is a
Religion Pt III
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=67919).
It's not science. It's bias. We admit ours. They do not.
