Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows, "Cause, principle or system of beliefs held with ardour and faith." Surely this is an apt description of evolution.
Evolution is a 'belief system' i.e. a religion !
Notice that that definition is at #4- which means that it is the least-used, or weakest, definition of those listed. In fact, if you were to twist the definition enough, you could say that supporters of the civil rights movement are religious, or that, if somebody is particularly devoted to collecting stamps, that that is his religion. The definition that you used does not mean religion in the way that you're trying to make it mean.
In addition, evolution is not held with faith. The reason why people consider the scientific theory of evolution valid is the amount of evidence in support of it. Should there be a strong piece of scientific evidence that was not in favor of evolution, that evidence would have to be considered, and the theory would have to be revised or tossed aside entirely, if evidence ended up being strong enough against it.
Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (religion) of evolution that is the basis for scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present.
Wrong. A scientific model is a mathematical, computer simulated, or analysis that helps to create an illustration of a scientific hypothesis, theory, or discipline. For instance, Geologic modeling is where scientists create computerized representations of the Earth's crust, which often can be used to locate oil and gas fields.
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).
Somebody has not heard of Theistic Evolution. Evolution makes no comment on the existence, or lack there of, of a deity, and if it does exist, it's impact on the evolutionary development of the diversity of life on the planet, as science cannot comment on the supernatural.
Yes, it is a theory - an unproven theory as far as I am concerned !
Nearly all the evidenceused to support evolution actually supports Creation when interpreted by a Creationist.
Then riddle me this rfrank- How exactly does the existence of endogenous retroviruses support Creationism? How does the existence of various transitional forms, such as
Deltavjatia vjatkensis,
Planocephalosaurus, Apsisaurus, and
Protocaptorhinus, support creationism?
Do you know the origins of life according to Evolution ?
From the Book of Darwin Ch 1;
v.1 In the beginning there was nothing
Then some nothings got together and became something
v.2 Then something exploded ( the big bang )
The Big Bang was not an explosion, in the common sense of the word. It was a rapid expansion of space-time. In addition, we can not be certain of what occurred "before" the Big Bang, due to the fact that before the big-bang, the scientific laws that govern our universe, and in fact, potentially time itself, didn't exist. Asking "what happened before the Big Bang?" Is an utterly meaningless question.
(PS- The Big Bang theory has absolutely no relevance to the theory of evolution. The theory only discusses how life became as diverse as it is today.)
Millions of years passed by.
As the gaseous remains of the big bang spread out
Some of it became galaxies, stars, and planets
Again, this is utterly irrelevant to evolution. I'm sure that this is also a strawman, but I don't know enough about cosmology to refute it, so I'll let this one be.
v.3 Millions of years passed by.
On the planets it rained and it rained
v.4 Millions of years passed by.
Some rocks dissolved into puddles,
And this became the primordial soup
v.5 Millions of years passed by.
Something in the soup decided to be life
This is a strawman of abiogenesis, the scientific study of organic compounds originated from inorganic compounds. Much about how this occurred is unknown, but such a mocking of the dicipline is unacceptable. Also, this also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
v.6 Millions of years passed by.
This life mutated and mutated and
v.7 Millions of years passed by.
this is where ALL life comes from!
Yeah Right!
You're overlooking natural selection. You're overlooking genetic drift. You're overlooking various other pieces that cause evolution to be supported by the vast majority of scientists throughout the world.
If the theory OF evolution your referring to has to do with species and how they change, then I believe it, but to speak of natural selection, random chance ,non living evolving into living ,than that to me is intellectual sabotage.
Natural selection is not "random chance". The only random part of evolution is the mutations. Natural selection is the environment process, and factors that cause mutations to be beneficial, neutral, or negative for the organism that possessing it. If the mutation is beneficial, that gives that organism a greater chance to reproduce, and soon the population with the mutation is much greater than the population without.
"Non-living evolving into living", is abiogenesis, not evolution. The way you use "evolve" here is accurate, as evolve simply means change, however in the context, you subtly twist the word as if you are referring to the theory of evolution, when you really aren't.
Have any of you ever been on an Easter egg hunt when you were small? I have and I truly believed in the Easter bunny by virtue of all the eggs that I discovered.
Could it be that all that science has put together is like the Easter eggs that have been put there for us to discover and we are attributing that to evolution and not God the same way children attribute Easter eggs to the Easter bunny and not the parents who really put them there.
The problem with this argument is that easter eggs were from a result of deception by your parents. At the very least, when you talked about how the Easter Bunny was the one who laid the eggs, they didn't correct you, so it is deception by omission. In the same way, if God created the world as YECs/OECs state, then he has deliberately planted evidence to make people think that the origin of diversity of life on this planet is different from what it actually is- not what I'd expect from an all-loving and benevolent deity.
Tell Albert Einstein that. Many years ago, Addressing a large group in Berkley, Calif., professor Einstein declared that the further he delved into the sciences of the universe, the more completely he was convinced that there was some force of intelligence, or "God" that had organized it and placed it there for our discovery.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."-
Albert Einstein did not hold a belief in the type of deity that you do. In fact, this is nothing but a vague argument from authority.
Professor Einstein is certainly not alone in this view of the universe amongst his peers.
Another opaque argument from authority.
To put it in plain terms, the concept of "chance" being the founding cause of all creation is so astronomically small that Professor Einstein declared that it could be said to be non-existent.
Strawman. Nobody says that the "founding cause of all creation" (Whatever THAT means) is chance. I demand you find one quote that states otherwise.
