Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Oakum

Evolution: A Religion

70 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Today, with up-to date-science, it becomes increasingly clear that the theory of evolution has become the modern-day religion of the educated—and, quite commonly, the religion of the uneducated.

Listen to the amazing words of Charles Darwin, whom many consider the "father" of evolution: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." Charles Darwin admitted that his wonderings and suggestions became a religion.

Some might wonder: "Well, how could evolution be considered a religion? Isn’t it based on science?" In fact, that isexactly the problem. Evolution is based more on blind faith rather than on solid evidence of science.

According to Webster’s Dictionary: "A religion is a cause, a principle, a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." If you use one common definition of faith as "a firm belief in something that has no proof" then modern evolutionists are full of faith. The faith based religion of evolution which lacks any semblance of proof is based on a series of assumptions that are absolutely without proof.

Let’s look at one of the principal doctrines of evolution that is a fundamental part of its very foundation--one of the assumptions upon which the whole theory stands or falls. That assumption is that "since the supernatural cannot be measured by scientists, we must reject the supernatural (or God) as a possible source of the origin of life." This is about as logical as saying: "Because you can’t prove where your cat went last night, you have to conclude that your cat didn’t exist while it was gone."

Just because scientists do not have instruments to measure the Creator, this does not mean that the Creator does not exist! As a matter of fact, current scientific evidence in physics and astronomy points to the supernatural origin of the universe. In the last 10 to 15 years, even many of the skeptical agnostics have had to admit that the universe could not have come into existence, on its own, solely within the laws of physics. Evidence of the creation event--which some have called the "big bang"--is mounting, year by year. There has been no past eternity of matter or past eternity of the universe. There was a moment in time when the universe virtually exploded into existence--of course, not as we know it today, but as the very first step in creation.

Instruments aboard the International Space Station, now orbiting the earth, clearly show a universe rapidly moving apart. If one were to calculate backwards to the very moment of the creation event, scientists say that it would be about 14 billion years ago. The universe had a definite beginning and did not exist before that time. Einstein’s famous theory of relativity demonstrated that space, time and matter had a beginning. In Einstein’s lifetime it was considered provable to about ninety percent confidence level.

Today, scientists consider the beginning of the universe provable, at a level of certainty that is essentially beyond a shadow of doubt. What does this mean? The universe had a beginning. The matter and the energy of the universe suddenly came into existence from nothing. Does this violate the laws of physics? Absolutely! It demandsa supernatural origin. And that is exactly what God has told us about the origin of the universe in His Word, in Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen [the universe] were not made of things which are visible [pre-existing matter]." So the universe was not made of pre-existing matter. It was made by God with His supernatural, unseen power or energy. We read in Jeremiah 10:12: "He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom."

The religion of evolution denies the supernatural, because evolutionists claim that they cannot measure the supernatural. Yet all of their scientific measurements point to the fact that the universe had a beginning--and actually came into existence outside the laws of physics. By definition, this proves the "supernatural."

The bottom line is that if we conclude that there is no supernatural, taking it to the obvious conclusion we must then say that the universe does not exist and, of course, neither do the evolutionists. Clearly, then, one of the principal doctrines of the false religion of evolution is improvable and based on blind faith.

**Oakum, please do not cut and paste other people's material without giving them due credit. Not doing so is referred to as plagiarism.**

**The above is from Jeffrey Fall, with the Living Church of God: Evolution: A Religion**

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Oakum, what would you like us to do with this? Point out the factual errors, the technical errors, the logical errors, or the philosophical errors?

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fdVgTSOOakmbnMPvH0Wv-A2.jpg
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Where to begin...where to begin....

Today, with up-to date-science, it becomes increasingly clear that the theory of evolution has become the modern-day religion of the educated—and, quite commonly, the religion of the uneducated.

Incorrect. In fact, it is the uneducated that mostly do not fully grasp the biological fact of evolution and impart incorrect information.

Listen to the amazing words of Charles Darwin, whom many consider the "father" of evolution: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." Charles Darwin admitted that his wonderings and suggestions became a religion.

Rebuttal by Darwin's children[edit]

Everyone in Darwin's family denied the validity of the story.[11] In 1918, Darwin's son Francis wrote that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so." In 1922, Darwin's daughter, Henrietta Litchfield, said she did not believe Lady Hope had ever seen her father and that "he never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A."[12] Leonard, Darwin's last surviving child, dismissed Lady Hope's account as a "hallucination" (1930) and "purely fictitious" (1934).[13]

So, yeah, fabrication.

Some might wonder: "Well, how could evolution be considered a religion? Isn’t it based on science?" In fact, that isexactly the problem. Evolution is based more on blind faith rather than on solid evidence of science.

Incorrect. Evolution, next to perhaps gravity, is the most tested and verified theory in science, like it or not.

According to Webster’s Dictionary: "A religion is a cause, a principle, a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." If you use one common definition of faith as "a firm belief in something that has no proof" then modern evolutionists are full of faith. The faith based religion of evolution which lacks any semblance of proof is based on a series of assumptions that are absolutely without proof.

See above.

Let’s look at one of the principal doctrines of evolution that is a fundamental part of its very foundation--one of the assumptions upon which the whole theory stands or falls. That assumption is that "since the supernatural cannot be measured by scientists, we must reject the supernatural (or God) as a possible source of the origin of life." This is about as logical as saying: "Because you can’t prove where your cat went last night, you have to conclude that your cat didn’t exist while it was gone."

Incorrect. The biological fact of evolution actually says NOTHING about the origins of life. That is an entire other question and the answer may actually lie in simple chemical bonds.

Just because scientists do not have instruments to measure the Creator, this does not mean that the Creator does not exist!

Completely irrelevant to evolution.

As a matter of fact, current scientific evidence in physics and astronomy points to the supernatural origin of the universe.

Incorrect.

In the last 10 to 15 years, even many of the skeptical agnostics have had to admit that the universe could not have come into existence, on its own, solely within the laws of physics. Evidence of the creation event--which some have called the "big bang"--is mounting, year by year. There has been no past eternity of matter or past eternity of the universe. There was a moment in time when the universe virtually exploded into existence--of course, not as we know it today, but as the very first step in creation.

Partially correct. ALL of our cosmological observations provide evidence for the Big Band having occurred and followed by a period of rapid inflation. This is all supported by, get this, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Instruments aboard the International Space Station, now orbiting the earth, (Where did it used to orbit?) clearly show a universe rapidly moving apart. If one were to calculate backwards to the very moment of the creation event, scientists say that it would be about 14 billion years ago. The universe had a definite beginning and did not exist before that time. Einstein’s famous theory of relativity demonstrated that space, time and matter had a beginning. In Einstein’s lifetime it was considered provable to about ninety percent confidence level.

Partially correct. The universe IN ITS PRESENT STATE did not exist approximately 13.8 billion years ago. That was, as far as we know, the beginning of the universe as we now know it. What came before is anyone's guess. I'm going with turtles all the way down.

Today, scientists consider the beginning of the universe provable, at a level of certainty that is essentially beyond a shadow of doubt. What does this mean? The universe had a beginning. The matter and the energy of the universe suddenly came into existence from nothing. Does this violate the laws of physics? Absolutely! It demandsa supernatural origin. And that is exactly what God has told us about the origin of the universe in His Word, in Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen [the universe] were not made of things which are visible [pre-existing matter]." So the universe was not made of pre-existing matter. It was made by God with His supernatural, unseen power or energy. We read in Jeremiah 10:12: "He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom."

Incorrect. See above.

The religion of evolution denies the supernatural, because evolutionists claim that they cannot measure the supernatural. Yet all of their scientific measurements point to the fact that the universe had a beginning--and actually came into existence outside the laws of physics. By definition, this proves the "supernatural."

The evolution of the universe and the evolution of life are two separate fields of study, one not having anything to do with the other short of the fact that things change over time. And again, the universe as well know it began with the Big Bang. As far as being outside the laws of physics, that is simply not true. If m-theory pans out, we may have solved all of these cosmic questions with maths and quantum physics. Or the previous unstable state was just a quantum foam, for which we have physics, or, more excitingly, the universe may have been in a completely different state the requires new physics!

The bottom line is that if we conclude that there is no supernatural, taking it to the obvious conclusion we must then say that the universe does not exist and, of course, neither do the evolutionists. Clearly, then, one of the principal doctrines of the false religion of evolution is improvable and based on blind faith.

The bottom line is that most of this information is incorrect. The author makes the jump from biological evolution to the evolution of the universe without cause.

I find it best that if one intends to discuss, or critique, a topic, then one should probably have a grasp of the topic before attempting such.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” -Douglas Adams

Edit: Format

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

If you really want to discuss evolution, biological or cosmological, there are already numerous topics on both that you can find using the search function.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All evolution means to religion, if you are a believer, is that the act of creation was a lot more complicated than just abracadabra, and allakazam.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh....

.1aquote-tyson-science.jpg

Well, except for little bumps in the road like Piltdown Man and Steady State Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Steady State theory was a perfectly valid scientific theory. It just wasn't correct. You can't hold a theory guilty of ignoring facts that haven't yet been discovered.

Piltdown Man was challenged pretty much from the beginning. The Royal College of Surgeons went so far as to make a reconstruction that shown the molars were the wrong shape. Others pointed out how convenient the breaks in the fossils were to encompass entire bones sections independently, instead of them being encased in the same stone as is normally found. Decades prior to the eventual evidence of the artificially aged stains and the filed down teeth in 1953, the Piltdown Man had already been dismissed as a probable hoax.

Although, this does tie in nicely with the topic. A lot of misunderstanding about science are perpetrated because a lot of people expect science to be something that it is not.

Edited by aquatus1
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, this does tie in nicely with the topic. A lot of misunderstanding about science are perpetrated because a lot of people expect science to be something that it is not.

I think my favorite is when people think that science is evil and all us scientists gather together and plot nefarious things.

I mainly just want to make a living doing something that I enjoy.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Listen to the amazing words of Charles Darwin, whom many consider the "father" of evolution: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them." Charles Darwin admitted that his wonderings and suggestions became a religion.

What is the source for this quote of Charles Darwin? What book or writings of his does it come from?

edit: I see it's part of the Lady Hope hoax story invented to try and discredit him. No surprise there.

Edited by JesseCuster
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent half an hour trying to find out what sort of doctor this "Dr. Jeffrey Falls" is. Anyone have any clue?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent half an hour trying to find out what sort of doctor this "Dr. Jeffrey Falls" is. Anyone have any clue?

I have also been searching for that info. I just emailed him. Now we wait and see...

Probably christology or a jesustician...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with him via email. He's a dentist.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's right. Evolution is a religion because some evangelist is trying to squeeze in his "god of gaps", and the scientific method won't allow it.

Interesting enough that his criticism of the scientific method proves that evolution is science.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution, whilst not yet perfected, makes a heck of a lot more sense than the rather silly creation story in the Bible, imo!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is not a religion, LOL, it is just a fact of life.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting, last Sunday's church was largely soured by the preacher. It wasn't the usual dude (who was on holiday) so hopefully it's more an aberration.... but the sermon was on one of the Psalms, and a large part of the sermon was about how stupid evolution was, and why we are a "special creation". I had to leave early (my uncle's birthday) and then head to Sydney for a wedding so I'll chat with the real pastor next week, hopefully, but being a Theistic Evolution idealist I'll hopefully say that it's all opinion (and at worst that we can "agree to disagree").

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, except for little bumps in the road like Piltdown Man and Steady State Theory.

Steady State Theory is a bizarre example to pick... it has nothing to do with evolution.

And the scientific community absolutely panned the Piltdown Man hoax, nobody was fooled but laymen. It may have taken a very long time to fully expose as a hoax, and identify its perpetrator, but the skepticism over it was immense, from the very start.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Evolution is not a religion, LOL, it is just a fact of life.

Yep, man lies. Which is the reason sons of men have to evolve into human beings. [see Ecclesiastes 3:18]

Edited by 029b10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yep, man lies. Which is the reason sons of men have to evolve into human beings. [see Ecclesiastes 3:18]

Hahaha, what??? :lol: Elaborate/explain please?

Edited by Jeanne dArc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steady State theory was a perfectly valid scientific theory. It just wasn't correct. You can't hold a theory guilty of ignoring facts that haven't yet been discovered.

Piltdown Man was challenged pretty much from the beginning. The Royal College of Surgeons went so far as to make a reconstruction that shown the molars were the wrong shape. Others pointed out how convenient the breaks in the fossils were to encompass entire bones sections independently, instead of them being encased in the same stone as is normally found. Decades prior to the eventual evidence of the artificially aged stains and the filed down teeth in 1953, the Piltdown Man had already been dismissed as a probable hoax.

Although, this does tie in nicely with the topic. A lot of misunderstanding about science are perpetrated because a lot of people expect science to be something that it is not.

So, Science is true.....until we discover that it's not. For a scientist, Tyson spouts off a lot. Besides, I was rather fond of Pluto, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, Science is true.....until we discover that it's not.

Yes, true, in the "in accordance with facts" way. When we discover it is no longer in accordance with the facts, it is considered obsolete. Being that we cannot ever determine whether we are absolutely correct in regards to anything, this is the next best thing.

It would be arrogance to ever claim that we are incapable of making mistakes. Science is not about 100% accuracy. Science is about validity and probability, not correctness.

For a scientist, Tyson spouts off a lot. Besides, I was rather fond of Pluto, too.

A rose by any other name. I' ve grandfathered Pluto in with the rest of the planets myself.

Edited by aquatus1
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, Science is true.....until we discover that it's not. For a scientist, Tyson spouts off a lot. Besides, I was rather fond of Pluto, too.

Yeah, thank god religious people never do that !

Oh wait ........ :no:

Nobody has ever said that scientists doesn't make mistakes.

One of the thing that differentiates science from religion, is the fact that scientists will change their oppinion if new evidence is presented !

How does Pluto in any way prove that atheism is a religion ?

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a scientist, Tyson spouts off a lot.

When instead he should be doing what exactly? I mean he's, without a doubt, one of the best science communicators alive, and considering that this topic, evolution, suffers greatly from lack of communication to/education of the ignorant at least in my country, we could use a lot more 'spouting' from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.