Evolution is Religion.

[RichardT]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolreli.txt

 

[Mallon]

I love it. Henry Morris writes about book about how neither evolution nor creationism is science because it cannot be observed. And what does he title the book? "Scientific Creationism."
What a liar and a hypocrite. Why would I believe anything he had to say?

 

[Baggins]

There that's that sorted then

 

[Dannager]

Henry M. Morris was a known liar and purposefully deceived thousands of people in order to promote his radical, religiously-motivated agenda. By the way, he was not a biologist, nor even a research scientist - his doctorate was in hydraulic engineering.

Fun Fact: In 1991, Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR."[3] Four years later TRACS' government recognition was put on probation for 18 months until is complied with staff and accreditation changes.

Frankly, Henry M. Morris' outdated and fallacious opinion on evolutionary theory and its scientific nature was never worth a darn to begin with.

 

[TheInstant]

All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's
foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they
use in describing evolution:

Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion
A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution
Man's world view Anti-knowledge
All-pervading process Revealed truth
The whole of reality An illuminating light
Metaphysical belief Story-telling

Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life."

Given the common creationist tactic of quote-mining, I think it would be best to see the actual context of these quotes. I'll try to find them online and get back to you.

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not
surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based
on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to
teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it
supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of
evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It
has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and
philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism,
gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All
beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe,
presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are
fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and
forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of
the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form
(as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of
all things.

This whole section is based on that last part, the premise that the "evolutionist worldview" features the denial of a creator God. Unfortunately for Mr. Morris's argument, this is not the case.

In the modern school of course, this teaching
mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents
claim to be a "non-theistic religion."

Is he claiming that secular humanism is taught in schools?

It should also be recalled that
such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and
anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based
on what they regard as scientific evolutionism.

This is going to need to be backed up. At any rate, "what they regard as scientific evolutionism" is usually not the actual theory of evolution.

Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
evolution was tantamount to attacking science!

I don't care how this random evolution supporter decided to make an argument. It does not make the evidence for evolution go away.

The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
real scientific understanding and accomplishment.

Why do I get the feeling that "real scientific understanding and accomplishment" means "any scientific findings that don't conflict a literal Genesis"?

G.W. Harper comments
on this subject as follows:

Who is G.W. Harper?

The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal
was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing
of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty
years.[14]

Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies.

(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information

(3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology.

(4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA.

(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant
DNA molecules.

Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
(since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance)

The DNA molecule is not too complex to have arisen naturally (note that this is not the same thing as "by chance"). Discoveries related to DNA are discoveries related to evolution, so Morris's point doesn't apply.

and of
conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds).

DNA replication is not perfect.

One of the
two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
known true mutations are harmful,

Wrong

this contributed nothing whatever to
the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed
an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved
and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
physical laws.

Wrong. Does Morris ever back up any of the things he says?

There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific
learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in
school curricula.

Whoah there. Does he want religion in schools or not? I thought the whole point of this is that evolution is a religion so it should not be taught in schools.

It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the
pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.

Perhaps Mr. Morris does (or did) not know that evolution does not equal atheism.

EDIT: replace where I said "Mr. Morris" with "Dr. Morris". My mistake.

 

[Dannager]

EDIT: replace where I said "Mr. Morris" with "Dr. Morris". My mistake.

No biggie. It's not like he had a doctorate in any relevant field anyway. It might as well have been in psychology.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Morris been workin in the quote mine...

And this piece is 24 years old. Hasn't he found some more recent people to misquote?

Decievers these days, I don't know. They just don't seem to make an effort any more...

 

[Dannager]

Morris been workin in the quote mine...

And this piece is 24 years old. Hasn't he found some more recent people to misquote?

Oh, he was misquoting people right up until his death some months ago.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I find it particularly telling that Dr. Morris attempts to speak authoritatively on what science is and yet clealry knows nothing about the method at all. let us examine the most tell tale clues

Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
science,

Science does not deal in proof. Where Morris the authoritative voice he claims to be, he would know this.

Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

There are many ways in which it can be tested, the same way as we test anything in analytical sciences. We make predictions about what we can expect to find and what we will never find if the hypothesis is correct, then we look for those things.

Clearly Morris has no idea what the scientific method is, since he makes the simple mistake of assuming science is verificationist not falsificationist. If his claim was true then forensics would also not be a séance. So not only is he not an authority on science, he is also inept at simple logic.

Its very
comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically.

Again, this shows Morris does not understand how science is conducted, clearly evolution can be tested by the falsificationist method just like any other theory. In fact the very things creationists often demand as proof of evolution (monkeys giving birth to humans) would falsify evolution instantly. Hence it is falsifiable, hence it is testable.

Latter on Morris goes on to show his grasp of theology is almost as poor as his grasp of science, but given that he shoots his credibility full of holes in the opening paragraphs by demonstrating he has no idea what science does or is, I think the fact his theology is also terrible can hardly make him any less credible than he already is.

What exactly is his PhD in? It is certainly neither a science nor theology.

Ghost

 

[Magnus Vile]

Oh, he was misquoting people right up until his death some months ago.

I only remember his death, since it led to a completely unjust accusation of my misusing comma's.

However, you'd think that some of his more recent lies would be better for posting here. At least some of them might not have been revealed as such, which would supply the people here with something to do...

 

[TheBear]

Oh good God. Not this again...please.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Hmm and outdated collection of misconceptions, quote mines and lies. Darwin would turn in his grave.

Actually he'd bust out and whoop some creationist butt.

 

[Dannager]

Hmm and outdated collection of misconceptions, quote mines and lies. Darwin would turn in his grave.

Actually he'd bust out and whoop some creationist butt.

AGENT MORRIS: I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I attempted to classify your species and I realized you weren't actually mammals.

DARWIN: Fool, we are mammals!

DARWIN immediately roundhouse-kicks AGENT MORRIS in the face and leaps up through the roof as the camera shoots upward to reveal a downward shot of MORRIS sitting bewildered on the ground, staring at DARWIN's rapidly receding trenchcoat.

 

[Hydra009]

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
one "believes."

I'm sorry, but this is moronic.

Simply because people often use the word "believe" as shorthand for "accept" doesn't make it a religious belief any more than using "theory" to describe a scientific model makes it a wild guess. Sheesh, what's up with creationists not realizing that a word can have more than one meaning?

Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=believe

"To accept as true or real" is not the same thing as "to have firm faith, especially religious faith". If it was then just about everything would be a religious belief.

Creationists should be ashamed by this kind of nonsense.

 

[Silvertongue]

So, umm...was this supposed to convince me of something other than the fact that many Creationists have little to no grasp of what they're talking about, and that when proper debate fails they're not above just quote-mining and throwing out fallacies? Because I already knew that...

Seriously, though, surely you could have found something a little more recent than an article that was written when I was a two year old...

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Seriously, though, surely you could have found something a little more recent than an article that was written when I was a two year old...

Don‘t let the date of hte article fool you, there are lots of fallacy riddled, non-sensical untruths written by contemporary creationists who don’t know what they are talking about that he could have used.

Ghost

 

[Dal M.]

Hi, Richard.

I think most people here already know what Henry Morris thought of evolution. But since it's pretty much impossible to hold a meaningful debate with him these days, why don't you post what you think about evolution?

That'd lead to a better conversation than if we just copied-and-pasted articles back and forth at each other, wouldn't it?

 

[Silvertongue]

Yeah, I know I actually own several of Lee Strobel's books myself, and I followed the Kitzmiller v Dover trial quite closely while that was playing itself out. It just kind of confuses me that he would reach so far back, though I do know that Miller is quite a respected figure in the movement who recently passed away. *shrug* maybe that had something to do with it...or maybe he's waiting for us to dismantle the article sufficiently and then come back saying, "see how those godless evilutionists'll even trash a dead guy!" or something like that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i can do no better than to quote:

Scientific findings...ought to be judged on their own merits, regardless of the ethical connotations some people might see in them. Ethical choices, OTOH-while they should certainly be informed by the best science available-are too important to be left only in the hands of scientists. ... This confusion between the purposes of science and religion is of course based on the fundamentalists' misunderstanding of their sacred scriptures as not only books on how to live, but also descriptions of how the universe works. By the same token, the, scientific discoveries must describe not only how the world is, but how it should be. This is perhaps the single most tragic mistake repeatedly made by both sides of the debate, though much more often by the religious side than the scientific side.

pg 25
Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
Massimo Pigliucci

 

[EvoDan]

...Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested...

I stopped reading here because I have an antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria that makes my head hurt when I read such nonsense.

I've been reading Genesis, but there's just not anything in there that's helping.