Why Evolution is really a Religion and should Not be in Public Schools
66
|
Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars
Price: $16.66
List Price: $21.99 |
|
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
Price: $13.93
List Price: $21.95 |
|
Scientific Creationism
Price: $4.35
List Price: $11.99 |
|
Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Price: $6.00
List Price: $12.95 |
The Emperor Has NO clothes!
Macro Evolution is a religion because it cannot be observed, tested or duplicated. Also in order to believe in evolution one must exercise “faith” in the proponents of evolution. Moreover, the evidence against macro evolution is much more widespread and observable than the evidence for it. I would dare ask anyone to find a dog that gives birth to anything but a dog, therefore providing ample evidence in every species known to man that kind gives birth to kind and one species does not parent another.
Evolutionary change above the species level is macro evolution while evolutionary changes in populations within a species are termed micro-evolution. Micro-evolution explains why we have toy poodles and St. Bernards within the same species, while macro-evolution is the supposed science that explains how we evolved from rocks.
Proponents of evolution state that the reason we cannot observe evolution is because it happened so long ago, over billions and billions of years and that even now while evolution is still occurring it is happening at such a “slow” rate that one cannot observe it. How convenient!
Regardless of the “supposed” reason for the lack of observation, the fact that we cannot observe, test or duplicate macro evolution puts the theory squarely into the realm of religion and/or faith no matter how many scientists protest.
In addition, since Macro-evolution is unobservable, untestable and unable to be duplicated it has no place in a public school science class since the constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion.
Do you believe in Macro-Evolution?
See results without votingPrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
No one is good but God :) and I certainly don't come close, but thanks Vladimir.
Brie
Brie,
Thank you for this hub. Short and to the point. Those that say that evolution is a "fact" are about 10 years behind the times--they need to read your hub...
Thanks Bibowen, I just wanted to point out this one very important fact. I find that most points of truth are very basic.
AMEN! I love this little Hub! Lord knows, you are so right. Thank you for standing up to the Deceiver.
Well, finally a hub you like! :)
this is pure idiocy
Tell me, Jeff what is idiotic about insisting on proof for something that is supposedly "scientific"?
How's this for observable evolution? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria. That's right MRSA, and the lot. What happens is, we try to kill off bacteria with anti-biotics- Some become resistant, through NATURAL SELECTION, and they live on to replicate. It's simple evolution. Right before our eyes. That is NOT religion, that is science. Boo yah!
This is true but bacteria doesn't evolve into non-bacteria..it's still bacteria.
Just like roaches become resistant to insecticide, they are still roaches they don't become lady bugs or fish!
Really, the illogical arguments for this charade are mind-boggling.
Well, I have liked several of your hubs, dear. And I most assuredly like you! :D
:) Nice to know!
Brie, super-good points you've made here!
It absolutely does take faith to believe in the theory of evolution, in fact a great deal of faith! You will not hear evolutionist admit that this is what it is, but that's exactly what it is.... faith!
If you get a chance to look at my Hub "The Newest Hyped Fossil Find Ardi" you might be interested in some of the comments beiing left there and my replies to them.
Let me just add that the "eureka!" fossil finds evolutionist-scientists come forward with every few years, are proposed pre-human spieces but are always those from many millions of years ago when they were apes. The ones claimed to be closer to human were trumped-up from single fragments or single teeth, that in some cases were found to be from other non-primate/ape animals. The single "Ardi" fossil, partial skeleton reconstructed (much of it digitally) has been proclaimed as an entirely new species of pre-human apes. Rather than other similar fossils confirming a find, they can always go as far as they want with singular ones. This despite the possibility of dwarf or midget animals, deformities or simply hybrid type animals (without human interference).
Here's a huge key to this proof-proclaiming that is often overlooked by the public:
The fossils that would really prove something are not being found and never will be. These would be the ones from a much less distance of time - The ones that have proof of in-between ape-men. Ones that for example are 70% man and 30% ape or even 90% man and 10% ape. These type might only be a million years old, possibly less if they really existed. If they find one, I'll be the first one in line to shake their hands and apologise for my total skepticism of evolution that I literally believe to be the biggest hoax to ever be perpetrated on the public.
Creationism is absolutely a science and a reality and should be taught in school, especially since evolutionary theory is being taught and claimed as fact!
Sorry for the long comments - hope you didn't mind. Keep up the intriguing Hubs!
Brie's observations are concise,easy to understand and accurate. While I would not agree that Creationism is a science in that "the beginning" was not observed, there is growing scientific support for all the events Genesis described. This support will increase as our technology progresses. Yet, coming back to the coffee table or bar stools where most debates occur, the question I always ask and never receive an answer to is," Intermediate fossils dude, where are they...missing links...where are all those fish with front legs."
Good point Eddiekay, thanks for the comments.
Great hub. You gotta fan today.
Thanks Spiderpam!
Do all you people watch The Flintstones as though it were a DOCUMENTARY????
Your comment reveals that you have no criticism that can be reasonably addressed, so you are forced to use base put downs in order to hide the fact that you cannot refute the facts.
Have you taken many science courses in college?
If you want the facts about evolution look not at the evolution of man, but in the evolution of plants. The answer is there. Without plants no one eats. Food is the religion. Amen.
Preaching to the choir. Drink your kool-aid have a nice life believing in your fairy tails. Dont push it on the rest of us. The flying Spaghetti monster lives.
Hi Jinks: The evolution of plants does not prove the evolution of species and if you think it does feel free to demonstrate!
And I agree with Jeff: It is in fact your religion, the religion of Evolution, that has been pushed on us and we don't want YOUR RELIGION, neither should we be forced to pay for it.
When one person is delusional, it is called insanity. When many people are delusional, it is called religion! And I don't argue with the insane!
Considering that so many people "believe" in evolution and it can't be proven using scientific methods I would agree with you, however, I am an optimist and hope to reason with the masses.
I'm curious. Those of you who believe in Creationism have yet to provide any proof that what happened roughly 6,000 years ago is exactly what happened according to the Old Testament. While I'm willing to accept that you believe history has a different course than what has traditionally been taught in schools, you are severely lacking in any evidence of that. Those of us who believe in evolution and have shown the proof are rebuked, but only with fluff. Brie, you say, "Considering that so many people 'believe' in evolution and it can't be proven using scientific methods," yet, of all your posts, not one has a single source supporting Creationism. Where is this leg that you stand on, and where does your clout come from? I am curious to see what proof you have that your opinion is the right one. Of course, if you think that calling Creationism "religion" in the way you call evolution "religion," than I hope you understand that this is truly an invalid and unsupported argument.
To support the theory of multidrug resistant bacteria, here are a few sources on different species that have developed different traits. All in the name of that fabled concept "natural selection."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/188/4184
But if you're looking for some support, try this link:
I understand that microscopic organism may evolve into other "things" however I am talking about species to species Macro-Evolution. I believe I mentioned that in the blog.
Regarding the evidence for Creationism. The blog was NOT about Creationism it was about the evidence or lack thereof for Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Creationism and if I do a blog about that I will state it. However, ultimately the crux of the matter is that Evolution is currently paid for with tax payer money even though it cannot be proven and therefore should not be taught as science in public schools or should be taught along side Creationism as a theory.
Brie, I enjoyed reading your article. You are a very clear and concise writer. However, I had a question:
You state that "Macro Evolution is a religion because it cannot be observed, tested or duplicated". To rephrase, you are stating that Macro Evolution is a religion because it requires faith. However, your statement is a misrepresentation of the definition of religion. According to the American Heritaqe Dictionary, religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
As far as I am aware, evolution has nothing to do with a supernatural power nor does it consider the idea of a singular "creator" and belief or worship of this creator. Because evolution does not fall under the definition or religion, we should teach it in schools. However, if you have proof of why evolution should fall under the dictionary definition of religion, I would be interested in seeing it.
Hi Alex:
I am using the term religion in a general sense. The dictionary definition of religion is as follows:
religion - 5 dictionary results
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
I suppose that definition #6 and or #2 would be close to the definition I would use when describing the devotion to evolutionism. Maybe the word "faith" should have been used but I think most people understand what I wrote.
Thanks for commenting.
ha! good troll. you had me going for a while
so what do you propose we teach kids how we got here? that god flipped a switch and said let there be light? and all of a sudden god created man???? where is any science in that?
Either provide all "theories" or none.
You have not cited any sources for quotes paraphrased and made baseless generalizations about the scientific process. This is what is known in the scientific community as bullshit.
I am not hostile towards religion and myself believe in both evolution and Christianity, but I am able to distinguish between theory and religion.
Evolution is not a religion simply because it is indeed falsifiable, regardless of how slowly any process happens, it is still observable and can be studied. It is a theory, not because it does not require faith, but because it is fluid and can be modified as evidence surfaces. If I throw an object in the air, I have faith it will fall back down, but if it didn't, the gravitational theory would be modified, as all commonly accepted theories have been over time.
Another note is that a theory is not the same as a fact. When the facts no longer support a theory, it is discarded. I acknowledge that it is possible that future analysis may reveal evolution as a folly on par with phrenology, which differentiates theory from faith.
Well David the facts do NOT support Macro Evolution because as you can see dogs come from dogs and cats from cats and humans from humans. The addition of time does not change this.
All you have to do is go to google and type in "observed instances of speciation" and click the first link. Many instances, documented and peer-reviewed.
Stop thumping that bible and open your eyes. First step: youtube users AronRa and thunderf00t.
Learn what you are talking about scientifically before you pretend to know what "macro-evolution" is (a null term, really) or even evolution at all. Evolution is not about dogs turning into cats or something silly like that.
No it's about rocks turning into people (given enough time)!
Brie,
Rocks turning into people is obsurd.
Evolution is a theory that explains the DIVERSITY of life, not the ORIGIN of life. The origin of life is a field of study called abiogenesis.
As is true with most creationists, you are ill-informed and ill-equipped to debate either one of these fields of study. I suggest you start by at least reading the wikipedia articles on evolution and abiogenesis to AT LEAST learn the distinction between them and the current state of theory.
It never ceases to amaze me that you are so eager to dismiss scientific understanding of the nature of the universe while basking in its protection. It is likely that science has saved your life more than once. It is definitely a FACT that it allows you to use that technological marvel called a computer to post your bronze-age assertions that the universe was essentially sneezed into being by an invisible man in the sky.
The incongruence is astonishing.
Also, your understanding of what constitutes a theory is lacking as well.
Creationism does not have any of the characteristics required to be a theory. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis. By definition, supernatural things cannot be tested and must be taken on faith, and there are no facts that can support them. It cannot be measured or verified, and it is not falsifiable.
Creationism is conjecture, at best.
Macro Evolution cannot be tested and must be taken on faith too! And we are not talking about Creationism, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists want to change the subject.
Darwin wrote "THE ORIGIN of the Species" honey!
OK... honey (I love condescension).
It is not taken on faith, see "Jeff Khoury's" post above. Since your earlier posts refer to the Christian god, it is obvious what you're talking about, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.
It is also plainly obvious that you've only read the cover of Darwin's book, otherwise you would know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. You might want to read a little bit on the scientific method as well.
Please, please do some reading. To attempt to make these points going on second-hand information only weakens your argument because someone like me will call you on your incorrect assertions.
You are commenting on something about which you know nothing. There is no evidence supporting your position, and mountains supporting mine. You have been given references and recommended reading. Please take advantage of them.
According to you black is white and white is black. You cannot prove macro-evolution in anything bigger than a flea (if that)nor can you reproduce your results (which is what is required of the scientific method). If you can, show me! The onus is on you to prove your case, not on me.
The Emperor has no Clothes
OK, so you're using a typical creationist's tactic, which is "moving the bar". You say no macro-evolution on anything bigger than a flea, yet the references given by Jeff clearly show peer-reviewed papers showing speciation in flies, which are certainly many times larger than fleas.
The fact that the papers have been peer-reviewed mean that they pass muster with the scientific community, and provide enough evidence that the findings could be verified. Unfounded claims are treated mercilessly by the scientific community and they do not stand long.
My case has been presented with references. I have shown you, but you refuse to read them. You are essentially plugging your ears and screaming "La La La".
Present your alternate theory. Write a paper, get it reviewed. Otherwise you're peeing in the wind.
In addition, your reference video above is from a convicted fraudster currently serving time. How reliable is his input?
Your "peer reviews" are meaningless since if someone has an opposite view regarding evolution they are blacklisted and unable to obtain tenure. In addition , the reference to the video above still stands (not because he was illegally put in prison on some trumped up tax charge) because what he is saying is true, which is what you EVOLUTIONISTS always do to change the subject when confronted with the facts!
OK Brie,
The more you talk, the sillier you sound. You've gone off the deep end and are now straying in to the wacky conspiracy theories. Blacklisting, Hovind's crimes really aren't crimes, etc.
The only times people are "blacklisted", that is - ignored out of hand is when they make wild claims with no verifiable evidence. Hovind is criticized by even other young-earth creationists and if you'd do a little background investigation on that you would have found that out as well.
Hovind is in prison for the same tax fraud scheme that landed Wesley Snipes in prison - namely renouncing citizenship and claiming that taxes do not apply to him. That is wrong, and fraud, and indicative of the man's character.
No evidence will ever be good enough for you since you take your world-view on faith alone. You have been brainwashed since birth to believe in your god and nothing else. Your mind is closed to reality and sadly I fear it will remain so.
I have lead you to water, but you refuse to drink.
How convenient for you to say "no evidence will ever be good enough" since you offer NONE!
At least I don't believe we came from rocks.
You are arguing in a circle. I have already told you People from rocks is absurd. That is right from Kent Hovind's mouth. If you quit regurgitating his words and learn for yourself, you might increase your knowledge.
Kent Hovind's understanding of evolution and abiogenesis is flawed, and he says he's taught high-school science, but he is clearly unqualified.
There is evidence cited above, as in googling "Observed instances of speciation" First link. Dozens of examples... all verified, solid, reviewed evidence.
All bigger than a flea..oh fly?
I can prove evolution much more easily then you can prove the existence of heaven and hell or your superstitous God.
Care to proceed?
None are so blind as those who will not see.
On this topic, the rational and logical people should take a page from Brie's book, "Do not cast pearls to swine."
Cheers!
Go for it Evolved.
First of all there is proof positive of evolution, which I will get to later, but, first answer this for me. Do you believe in adaptation to ones environment? Also since you are so adament about the denial of evolution are you going to prove to me the existence of heaven and hell and creation for that matter? Answer these two questions for me and we can begin.
Adaptation to ones environment is not the same as one species changing into an entirely different species.
We are not discussing Creationism here we are discussing Evolution, quit trying to change the subject!
Whos trying to change the subject here?
Adaptation has EVERYTHING to do with evolution.
I noticed your surrounded by yes men here Brie.
Get a little testie when confronted with actual thought provoking questions I see.
Lets stick to the subject shall we? Do you believe that Humans have adapted and exploited to most environments on the planet, yes or no? A simple yes or no.
Your not avoiding my questions are you?
You say that creation is not the subject here, I say your trying to avoid my questions, my whole challenge was for you to prove creation and I'll prove evolution. You can't deny evolution without discussing creation to.
Debate me or dont.
I challenged you and you accepted.
Where is your proof of creation?
Proof of evolution is written not only in the fossil record
it is written in our chromosomes.
Where is creation written other then a superstitous religion written in the bible by people who thought the earth was flat and Earth revolved around the sun?
Dont demand Im changing the subject, when you refuse to answer me, now answer or concede.
Correction. The bible was written when man believed the SUN revolved around the Earth and the Earth was flat.
Brie, you cannot deny evolution and demand that heaven and hell exist without one lick of proof, that's proposterous.
I look forward to your responses.
sigh... OK, the proof of a Creator is the Creation, one does not look upon a painting without knowing that their was was painter does one? The same is with Creation. Where is the proof of evolution in the fossil record? What does the fossil record prove except that there were fossils, it doesn't "prove" anything at all. Human beings have adapted to their environment but that doesn't "prove" macro-evolution (here is where you are confusing the issue and you know it). All that proves is that there are varieties WITHIN the species!
Ok thank you, you admit to adaptation.
If you realize adaptation then its only logical to assume that given isolation and time a species can and does adapt and evolve or become extinct. Dinos existed for hundereds of millions of years on a planet that was stable for a very long time, when confronted with a major alteration in climate(impact of the asteroid that killed them) most couldnt adapt so they went extinct. Raptors for instance werent as specialized as say a T-rex or triceratops so they adapted and later(proven through the fossil record) EVOLVED
into birds. there is consensus on this among specialists.
If you deny science you deny reason and logic.
I concede of course things were "created" via the big bang
but created in the framework of the bible? 7 day and 7 nights? Cmon! To argue from that is just wrong and ignorant
to say the least.
Another proof of evolution is the solar system itself, did it not evolve from gas and dust and rock to form the sun and the planets that rotate around the sun? The earth itself has evolved from one of these rocks orbiting the sun
It has cooled and morphed into a giver of life and beauty.
This is also a consecus among scientists and all logical and educated people alike.
I have a new concept for you to ponder Brie
Consider the Earth a primordial soup barren of life, one day over countless days a puddle of bacteria encounter another form of bacteria, one bacteria secretes something that is useful for the other to survive and vise versa so they co habitate establishing a symbiotic relationship, eventually merging for the benefit of both, not so hard to imagine.
Look at ouselves as example a complex lifeform that has evolved form simple celled organisms into the incredibly complex machines that we are now.
So if we benefit from the bacteria in our intestines and they benefit is that not symbiotic?
If we follow this concept on a larger scale and imageine the earth as an organism itself(It inhales every winter and exhales every summer)Proven by NASA. if it lives and breaths in a sense,then arent we parasites that live on her?
If so then we can imagine the Earth as a flower and we her pollen.
Lets take one step back here and imagine the unconcious evolutionary goal of our planet, to produce a species that can be the eyes and ears, could it be us?
Could we be the end result of planets earths evolutionary goal? To spread her life beyond our earthly boundaries.
If so then the earth is a flower and we the pollen.
Please consider my perspective, its worth a thought or two in defense of evolution.
Heres another thought based on your denial of evolution.
Whether you call it creation or evolution my logic cannot be denied...
The Earth how ever long ago did sping to life from rock as you conveniently love to mock. A barren lifeless planet, perfect conditions over countless millenia. All the right acids and minerals and water and sun energy and POOF! There was simple celled primative life from all the neccessary ingredients.
Life from rock that was refined and processed over and over through natural earthly conditions of decay and rebirth through volcanoes and weather like it or not! Next?
Evolved, I don't even know where to begin with you, you have proven NOTHING. The Solar System does not prove evolution. Do you even know what the word "prove" means? The earth was not the result of the Big Bang.
Furthermore, nothingness plus time does not equal something!
Our very complexity points to an all knowing all powerful God, not random chance. There is no "poof" in evolution and that is not science...that is religion, if you choose to believe it that is your business but it is a religion because it can't be proven using scientific methods that are repeatable and definable.
Thats right you dont know where to begin with me and you never will know my depths because you limit yourself with superstitions and rigid decided perspectives.
Based on that alone you are already wrong on many levels.
You surround yourself with people that kiss your ass and say they love you. WEAK. You dismiss science logic and reason, you are not living up to your humanely potential, in fact you waste it by taking the easy road and questioning nothing, what a waste of a human life.
Dont speak of complexities, you are simple and naive.
You are the opposite of complex. Simple,rigid and wrong.
When people resort to name-calling it is a sign they have lost an argument. ... Mockery is the last refuge. Cal Thomas
Evolved, I am done with you, you have proven nothing except that Evolution is indeed a religion and apparently one that has followers that don't even know what the word "proof" means, go find someone else to harass.
I SAYETH TO EVOLVED THAT HE IS A SATANIST!
HE SHALL BURNETH IN THE ETERNAL FIRES FOR QUESTIONING MY LORDS WORD!
ANY ONE THAT SPEAKETH AGAINST THE LORD IS A SPEAKER FOR THE GREAT DECIEVER!
RAPTURE WILL SOON BE UPON US AND THE UNBELIEVERS WILL BURNETH FOR ETERNITY....AAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
BURNETH MY WAYWARDETH CHILDRENETH BURNETH!
GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
GOD LOVERS REJOICE!, even God has said that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. You seem to be taking pleasure where God has none?? Don't you think that it is better to mourn those that turn away?
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Vladimir Uhri says:
2 months ago
Great hub. You are so good. Thanks.