The Religion of Evolution

Examining creation will bring us closer to the Creator. That is what the earliest founders of science believed, or as the founders of astronomy put it, we would merely be thinking God's thoughts after Him.

But something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the enitre scientific enterprise was hijacked.

I am refering to Darwins's theory of evolution. Canada's leading scientist, who was chosen to write the Introduction to the centennial edition of The Origin of the Species, said that the greatest evil Darwin has brought upon the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.

The theory of evolution has had enormous and devastating impact upon the world in which we live. Michael Denton, author of the fascinating book titled Evolution: A Theory of Crisis, wrote:

The voyage on the Beagle was a journey of awesome significance. Its object was to survey Patagonia; its results was to shake the foundation of Western thought. The Origin of Species has been refered to as "one of the most important books ever written" (it is because it seeks to shake the foundations of the most important book ever written). As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of of the theory of evolution and the elimination of traditional teloelogical thinking was catastrophic.

Teleological thinking is the thinking you and I engage in every day. To think teleologically is to believe life has purpose and an end. The evolutionist believes nothing has purpose or an end. Consequently, life has no significance or meaning or importance. The whole scientific enterprise, however, has been hijacked into a naturalistic or materialistic view of the world. Naturalism believes that there is nothing in the universe but nature, nothing supernatural' materialism believes there is nothing in the world but matter.

What does this mean? It means that we live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man.

Anyone who does not realise that evolution is a religion does not know much about evolution. It is a religion that is passinately held by its devotees. Listen to what some well-known evolutionists, all highly placed scientists in the world, have to say. Professor Louis T. More one of the most vocal evolutionists: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that that evolution is based on faith alone." Professor D.M.S Watson, a famous evolutionist, made the remarkable observation that that evolution itself is universally accepted, "not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation-is clearly incredible." To the reprobate mind, the ungenerate mind, creation is incredible because it requires a belief in a creator, and that is totally unacceptable to men such as these. A famous British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, is just as frank in his admission. He says, "Evolution is is unproved and unprovable. We believe in it only because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

Yet over and over in our colleges' textbooks, evolution is being taught as a proved fact. A modern textbook titled General Zoology states, "All scientists agree that evolution is a fact."

A great many people have been led to believe evolution is a fact, but it is not. What is it? Professor David Allbrook, professor of anatomy at the University of Western Australia, says that evolution is "a time-honoured scientific tenet of faith." It is faith - faith in the substance of things unseen. It is a religion.

Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote an intersting and heavily documented book titled Why Scientists Accept Evolution. It contains numerous letters written by Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists. It points out that these men indicated in their letters, by their own admission, that because of their hotility to God and their bias against the supernatural, they jumped to the doctrine of evolution. Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, decendant of Thomas Hexley-"Darwin's Bulldog"-said on a talk show, "I suppose the reason we leaped at the Origin of Species was because of the idea of God interferred with our sexual mores."

Yet probably the most prevalent reason the average man believes in evolution -if he does- is that he is told that all scientists believe it. A recent newspaper article, however, indicated that one group of more than five hundered scientists disbelieved it completely, in every single facet. One of the worlds leading scientists, Sir Cecil Wakeley, whose credentials are rather impressive - K.B.E., C.B., LL.D, M.CH., Doctor of Science, F.R.C.S., past president of Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain - said, "Scripture is quite definate that God created the world, and I for one believe that to be a fact, not fiction. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." As famous a scientist as Sir Ambrose Fleming completely rejects evolution, as does the Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz, probably one of the greatest scientists America have produced.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution.

huh... what.. how... are you blind... or not know how to read.. belief in evolution does not mean one can not have faith in a higher eliment... a guiding hand in evolution.. or some theorize large "jumps" in evolution could be examples of such a "guiding" hand... there is TONS of scientific evidence for evolution.. for cryn out loude.. do you look like an exact clone of one of your parrents..., no probobly not.. and you kids wont look EXACTLY like them or EXACTLY like you ether.. you know why.. they are evolving.. to say there is no proof is RETARDED... but i an religious... yes evolution i do believe in... there are plenty of things ive seen and read.. but i am far.. FAR to lazy to find any... ill leve that to the more motivated individuals in this place... have at people.. have at...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote an intersting and heavily documented book titled Why Scientists Accept Evolution. It contains numerous letters written by Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists. It points out that these men indicated in their letters, by their own admission, that because of their hotility to God and their bias again ...[text shortened]... Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz, probably one of the greatest scientists America have produced.

Louis Agassiz is not a Harvard scientist and does not "completely reject" evolution, as he has been dead since 1873. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

He was also born in Switzerland and did not come to America until 1848 after he had already published several books, so he wasn't really "produced" by America, either. You might want to occasionally fact check your cut and paste jobs, dj2becker.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A great many people have been led to believe evolution is a fact, but it is not. What is it? Professor David Allbrook, professor of anatomy at the University of Western Australia, says that evolution is [b]"a time-honoured scientific ten ...[text shortened]... aith - faith in the substance of things unseen. It is a religion.

for starters an excerpt..
"Over the last 10-20 years, the fundamentalist rejection of the theory has gained momentum in the United States, and the same thrust has been evident in parts of Australia. The anti-evolution thrust argues two major points:
that the theory of evolution is flawed; and that a sense of balance in the teaching of the scientific basis of life requires that equal consideration be given to the creationist view, that sees the origin of the diversity of life in the specific intention of the Deity.

The following points summarize the view of the Australian Academy of Science on this issue:

"All scientific ideas are theories, imperfect and subject to test. That the theory of evolution is imperfect, and still the subject of study and modification, affirms that the theory is part of science. Many attempts to modify and expand the theory have been successful, showing (since Darwin's day) the gene-basis of inheritance, the basis of gene-reproduction in the double helix structure of DNA, the "genetic drift" basis of the origin of breeds, and so on. Many challenges to the fundamentals of the theory have failed empirical test. The theory has attracted enormous empirical testing and remains one of the most powerful of scientific ideas.
The creationist account of the origin of life has been and remains an important idea in human culture. However it is not a scientific idea. That is, it is not open to empirical test. It is an article of religious faith.

The creationist account of the origin of life is not therefore appropriate to a course in the science of biology, and the claim that it is a viable scientific explanation of the diversity of life does not warrant support."

AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE *

Statement on creationism

Originally posted by dj2becker
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote an intersting and heavily documented book titled Why Scientists Accept Evolution. It contains numerous letters written by Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists. It points out that these men indicated in their letters, by their own admission, that because of their hotility to God and their bias again ...[text shortened]... Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz, probably one of the greatest scientists America have produced.

Sir Cecil Wakeley died in 1979 at the age of 87; he was a eminent surgeon but was hardly "one of the worlds leading scientists". Sir Ambrose Fleming did some important work in electronics, but he has been dead since 1945. Since dj2becker started his paragraph with: "A recent newspaper article, however, indicated that one group of more than five hundered scientists disbelieved it completely, in every single facet." and then cited three men who have been dead for 26, 61 and 131 years respectively, we can see that he was: A) Being disingenous as they neither currently believe or disbelieve in evolution as they are dead; and B) Pretty desperate to come up with ANY scientists of note who rejected evolution.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Examining creation will bring us closer to the Creator. That is what the earliest founders of science believed, or as the founders of astronomy put it, we would merely be thinking God's thoughts after Him.

But something happened on the way to the twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century when modern science began to develop, the enitr ...[text shortened]... the world is to somehow divide science from God and, in fact, set the two at each other's throats.

Usual codwallop being served up...

Get a grip. When Copernicus and Galleleio described the solar system accurately, christianity (eventually)adopted the new discoveries and moved on, leaving dogma behind yet retaining allegory for illustration.

The works of Lyell and Darwin have similarly described our world in new and powerful was. The mainstream of christianity outside the redneck states of the US have adopted this knowlege and moved on. Only the fundementalist bigots seem unwilling or unable to move away from dogma. Retain the allegorical stories for their value and what they teach you; just get used to the idea that humanity has devised new tools and methods to investigate and discover the truth about our world. There may be meaning in the bible stories but literal truth???

If you were ill would you visit a doctor using the practices of the Greaco-Roman world of 2000 years ago? Of course not, you'd rely on a doctor who uses the acquired wisdom of the last 2000 years.

If you wanted a vehicle would you use a horse and cart. Of course not, you'd use the product of 2000 years of engineering advance.

If you wanted to understand the developement of the world and the creatures in it would you refer to the folklore of a middle eastern tribe from 2000 years age? Of course you would. How stupid we must all be to realise that this is an area of knowlege were 2000 years of enquiry and research have got it all wrong. A school-boy error on my part. I defer to the wisdom of the ancients. Pfft

This thread is evolving into yet another disaster for Creationism.

AS YOU SHOULD!... technology... resurch... sciens.. phahhh.... its herbalism, leach medics, meditation, and no computers for me.. who's ith me!

Originally posted by dj2becker

What does this mean? It means that we live in a time when there are only two religions competing for the minds, hearts, and loyalties of Western man.

Get a grip and look up from the redneck agenda. In most of the western world we've moved on from this 19th century argument that seems to fascinate the christian bigots of the rural US. Science and the acquisition of knowlege have changed the world. Only the folk in the interllectual stone age of the bible belt don't seem to be able to cope with it.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Usual codwallop being served up...

Get a grip. When Copernicus and Galleleio described the solar system accurately, christianity (eventually)adopted the new discoveries and moved on, leaving dogma behind yet retaining allegory for illustration.

The works of Lyell and Darwin have similarly described our world in new and powerful was. The mainstrea ...[text shortened]... ave got it all wrong. A school-boy error on my part. I defer to the wisdom of the ancients. Pfft

There is no branch that looks at a larger portion of God's handiork than do astronomers. The Scripture says: "The Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1); "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen" (Romans 1:10). Ninety percent of all astronomers today believe in God! Those who have most thoroughly examined His handiwork believe in God. That is a higher percentage than will be found of butchers, bakers, or candlestick-makers. Those who have looked most intently and to the fartherest extent that man has been able to see in the universe have concluded that the hand that made it is Divine.

Dr Robert Jastrow, one of the world's great astronomers, is founder and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA. In his blockbuster book, God and the Astronomers, he says "strange developments" are going on in astronomy. One of these was that the universe has a beginning. And that means there had to be a "Beginner." As Jastrow put it "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Louis Agassiz is not a Harvard scientist and does not "completely reject" evolution, as he has been dead since 1873. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

He was also born in Switzerland and did not come to America until 1848 after he had already published several books, so he wasn't really "produced" by America, either. You might want to occasionally fact check your cut and paste jobs, dj2becker.

You might want to occasionally fact check your cut and paste jobs, dj2becker.

Maybe you could site the site from which I copied and pasted before you make sweeping statements...

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You might want to occasionally fact check your cut and paste jobs, dj2becker.

Maybe you could site the site from which I copied and pasted before you make sweeping statements...[/b]

Alright, if you wrote it yourself, YOU might want to fact check YOUR OWN WRITINGS, dj2becker. And if you actually wrote it yourself you're more pitifully ignorant than even I could imagine. BTW, probably 90% of the scientists who "believe" in evolution believe in God also; it's been explained to you numerous times that there is no contradiction between theism and evolution.