Michael Ruse, who was once professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph:
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
1 Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
The great problem with evolution theory, as many writers have pointed out, is that it cannot be falsified. Nothing can falsify it, and that makes it an article of faith. It also puts it on a par with faith in God. Now that I regard as serious.
I say that it cannot be falsified for the following reasons:
1 If it has been seen to occur (it never has, as far as I know) that's proof of evolution(see, it happened!)
2 If it has not been seen to occur, that's proof too. (Never mind, we know it did, pat pat).
3 If it can account for the origin of anything, that's proof. (see, that's proof!)
4 If it can't, then that's proof too. (Ah the evidence hasn't emerged as yet).
It simply cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Popper says so.
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record that just means evolution operates in spurts.
If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks.
If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined.
If strickingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself.
If significant differences are found in allied species, that jyst means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly.
If no likely mechanism can be found for the large change evolution requures, that just means evolution is mysterious.
If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought.
If major predictions are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." Cornelius G Hunter
One patronizing criticism one hears is 'that's found on a creationist site' as if that invalidates a fact! If one were to say, it's found on talkorigins, and is therefore invalidated, then who knows what wrath will descend? There's a double standard here.
Secular scientists are so vested in this early consensus that there is literally no evidence to the contrary that could change their viewpoint. This is the reason why intelligent design arguments will never have a mark on the scientific consensus. Scientists are deaf and blind to any contrary evidence. Thus the belief in natural evolution is "non-falsifiable" in the sense that Karl Popper asserted (before he modified his views somewhat).
In summary, evolution by purely natural means is a prevalent dogma in science which, in circular fashion invokes "science" for proof, disregarding any contrary evidence by fiat. In fact, this belief is the opposite of science. It is an irrational disregard for any rational discourse, however strong, that points to evidence for design or purpose in creation.
Evolution is Religion
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.
Blankenship, molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis, pg.214
The two different classes of reaction centers have only minimal sequence similarity to each other, not significantly above what would be expected randomly. However, it is well known that very distantly related proteins can exhibit minimal sequence identity, yet still be homologous (descended from a common ancestor) (Doolittle, 1994).
Thats indeed telling. Cannot infer common ancestry through phylogeny comparison ? Its descended from a common ancestor anyway.... Thats religion at its best. That way you can turn the ToE however you want, it will be always right.
Last edited by Admin on Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:06 am; edited 6 times in total