The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Evolution religiosity

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Police.png
Cleanup Required
This article does not meet the CreationWiki standards of quality. You are encouraged to improve this work by making revisions. Numerous references currently embedded as "external links" should be reformatted to footnotes


The theory of evolution is adhered-to and taught by atheists in a manner that could be defined as religiosity - i.e. a religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine). The actions and words of evolutionists are described herein for evaluation to determine if they possess the ear-marks of religion.

Indications of religion

A need to evangelize

Evangelize: Evangelism is the practice of attempting to convert people to a "religion". Or to share news of an "idea" in order to convince someone to join or otherwise accept it. So the subject one wants another to accept does not have to be religious by nature. Just one that requires the individual to accept another view in order to belong to a group.

Evolution evangelism

There are several (over 3 million) websites, YouTube channels, blogs, and forums run by atheist-evolutionists on how to debate, and convert (evangelize) Christians to believing in evolution. In a scientific theory, where the evidence is supposed to reign supreme in convincing people of what is more than likely true. Any type of evangelism should not be needed. In fact the evidence itself should convince people to evolution being true. But that is not what is observed.

Evolutionists gather at these websites, forums and blogs. To learn how to recruit Christians into believing as "they do". Which means, that just like church, they gather and discuss how to promote their views and how to convince (evangelize) others.

Evolution evangelism converts?

If evolution is not a religion. Then the only time a conversion is needed is when one person gives up a theory, or an idea, to adopt another (science to science conversion). But instead what we see are people converting from believing in God (Theist), to not believing in God (Atheist or Agnostic). How does science justify a theory that converts people from religion (something not scientific), to something that claims to be scientific and not religious? Is it even scientific for a theory to compete with religion like this? And where is it written in any scientific law that a theory can compete with religion, evangelize like religion,and convert like religion?

Even Richard Dawkins wants to convert any religious believers he can to evolution. Michael Shermer agrees that people whom have faith in the supernatural should convert to evolution. Richard Dawkins also admits that he writes his books in hopes of converting (evangelizing) Christians to what he believes in this interview.

Conversion is where a person has to give up an idea, or a belief, to accept another idea or belief. Why give up a faith based belief to accept a supposed scientific one that is not supposed to be faith based? Unless it is faith based and science has found a replacement work around to make their faith sound scientific.

Evolution convert testimonies?

Christians give testimonies of their conversions from Atheism to Theism. Even Evolutionism to creationism. But what if a "theory" needed testimonies to convince people to convert as well? This is a forum called Ex-Christians. Here you will find people giving their testimonies about their conversion from Christian to Atheism. The biggest tool of the conversion, and the testimonies here is Evolution. So how does a theory compete with a religion on a level like evolution does, and not be a religion itself?

Ex-Christian forums even have a science vs religion section. This plainly shows that even they know that science, through evolution, competes with religion just like an opposing religion would (different denominations or religions).

Evolution tracts?

There is an existing document (15 Evolutionary Gems) that is now being used to promote evolution. How to use it is explained like this: "A resource from Nature for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection." Spread the idea like this mimics religious tracts. The people who wrote the tract: Henry Gee, Rory Howlett and Philip Campbell.

Natural vs supernatural

The difference between evolution and creation, are the ideas that are allowed to be considered. Creation works with both Natural and Supernatural events. Evolutionists "claim" that they can only work with the natural world. Evolutionists often claim that unexplainable events in creation are simply "God did it" answers (creationists cop out for having no answer). But do evolutionists have a way of doing this that is exactly the same, but cloaked in scientific explanations, ideas, and made up scientific words?

Evolution equals Conformism

Putting restrictions such as: Science is only about finding the natural not the supernatural. Puts a limit on where the evidence can lead, when scientists are supposed to follow where the evidence leads regardless of it's direction. So all evidence has to conform to naturalism which is the main reason there will never be supernatural evidence accepted by science. It's rejected from the very beginning. Science will never find God because the very nature of His being is denied. Either the evidence conforms to proving evolution (natural evidence only), or it is rejected. Rejecting evidence for the soul reason of where it may point is not only conformism, but bias.

Invoking God did it situations

In explaining evolution, evolutionists often invoke a "God did it" like situation to where anything can happen, such as using the "time excuse", (Given enough time anything is possible) eliminating mathematical laws of odds, or rewriting those laws to create a new reality. This does not change the existing "real" reality or laws that we see and observe, but in making a situation where anything can and will happen, it is actually making an excuse for the math (odds for or against) not supporting what is claimed to have happened. When you start adding up all the things claimed, and all the odds against it, one soon comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for such things to happen. To steer the average person away from actually realizing this, new mathematical laws and terms are written up which completely take away the power of the already established laws of math. In addition, these new laws and terms only assist to promote evolution. They have not made math itself progress further.

Stanley Miller experiment invokes a God did it situation

Abiogenesis, according to science, is the very start of all life. However, through all of it's problems, it really proves nothing. Those evolutionists who choose to ignore these problems are choosing "ignorance on purpose", creating a "God did it" situation where the problems are made to no longer be a problem as no one wants to address them. In other words, they are not problems because they won't acknowledge them as being problems. So the "god did it" situation generated by this attitude, is that problems can exist because one can ignore them and they are cancelled out through thought processes but not the scientific method. In this way a new reality of what the individual wants to believe is created. What are the facts regarding the Miller experiment that are being ignored?

The soup of life:

  1. 98% of what was made was toxic to all life from forming in it.
  2. Only 2% were usable building blocks for life (amino acids).
  3. Of the 2% amino acids created, only 70% of what life needs to form was created.
  4. This means that 30% of what life needs is missing.

The spark of life

  1. The spark used in the Miller experiment was only around 5,000 volts (estimate).
  2. The energy generated in a lightning strikes exceeds 1,000,000 volts.
  3. The heat generated with 5,000 volts was minimal.
  4. The heat generated with 1,000,000 volts from a lightning strike can exceed the temperature generated on the surface of the sun.
  5. The 5,000 volts used in the miller experiment would only electrify a few feet of water.
  6. The 1,000,000 volts from lightning strike can electrify one mile of water from the center point of the strike.
  7. Early earth had several erupting volcanoes. Volcanoes produce their own lightning. Which means lightning had two sources (Storm clouds and volcanoes). Which means it struck often without abatement.

The atmosphere of life (the oxygen problem)

  1. Free oxygen will burn (oxidize) new life (so free oxygen cannot exist).
  2. Oxygen is needed for the ozone layer, to protect the new life from harmful UV rays.
  3. Oxygen is needed for rain required by the soup of life.
  4. And rain is needed for plants to create oxygen.
  5. Timing is important for all things to exist without one destroying the other, or one new life not getting what it needs (non-toxic water) in order to survive.
  6. Rain cleans all contamination from the atmosphere. But at the same time it rains those very same toxic contaminates on any life that tries to form (acid-toxic rain). And the volcanoes keep adding contaminates just as fast as the rain tries to clean it. Basically, a never ending cycle of toxic-acid rain.

These plus many more "real world" facts result in several problems for abiogenesis to proceed. If the chemical soup does not kill it, the electric charge will break down it's building blocks. And if the electric charge does not get it, the heat generated in the atmosphere will. This list of real world problems can continue.

To create the "god did it" situation, so that the above idea can work, the real world conditions are never revealed. When they are, they will be ignored. Like a child who constantly goes: "na na na na...", they don't want to hear what is being said. Evolutionists basically do the same by ignoring real world conditions so that "god did it" like conditions can exist. This makes all of their ideas work ignoring any problems encountered by the actual issues.

Side note: Evolutionists will try to claim that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. Just remind them that evolution cannot happen unless life exists. So abiogenesis is a major foundation of the evolution theory.

No challengers (eliminate those who oppose evolution)

By forming an elite group, that is placed above all others, through their own opinions of themselves (free thinkers, rational, etc...), they exalt themselves (self opinionated) above anyone who dares to disagree. Upon doing so, everyone else becomes labelled as a mindless, uneducated moron, who's education and life then comes under attack. They make every opposing thing they say against evolution not worth two cents. It's not because their opposing view is not a good argument, it's because they have been "labelled and stereotyped" as someone not to listen to. Their view is eliminated even before it is spoken. This creates a "God did it" like situation where no one can challenge evolution outside of the chosen group. Outsiders are basically that, outside.

Evolution vs Satanism

It has often been deemed by many Christians that evolution is a tool used by Satan. This is because of it's power to convert the Christian into either being agnostic, or atheist. Here we have a video interview with an ex-satanic priest who tells of how evolution is being used and how Darwin really came up with the idea even though he had zero degrees in science: Roger Morneau- ex Satanist

Unfalsifiable makes evolution not even a theory

Unobservable processes, due to deep time are an issue for this theory which require faith to overcome. This means that every interpretation of a fossil that is dug up, cannot be confirmed or disproved due to it's supposed age. A process is claimed as the rationale to how it ended up in that condition, and geological layer that it's found in. Deep time becomes the excuse for not being able to produce actual evidence for the interpreted process when asked to do so. When a challenger is to refute the interpretation, he also runs into the same problem. Deep time.

  1. A lack of evidentiary support due to deep time protects the theory from having to produce this evidence for an interpreted process by evolutionists when asked to do so.
  2. It prevents any challenger from being able to refute the interpreted process as the initial interpretation is given as evidentiary support for the alternate interpretation.

Neither side cannot prove or disprove the interpreted claims. A time machine would have to be built so that either claimed processes can be observed and proven right, or wrong. The building of a time machine to provide actual proof is unlikely. As such, access to such information, for either side, is not available. Therefore, the reliance on deep time to excuse the complete lack of evidentiary support makes the theory of Evolution unfalsifiable because this reliance on deep time allows neither side to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.

This is also why Evolution takes faith. All of the claimed processes are basically opinions, taken on faith by the person whom makes the interpretation. Even the individual who is supposed to be an expert in the specific field of study, cannot confirm his own thoughts or claims to what he has interpreted to have happened (because of time). As a result, each fossil interpretation is not based on observation. It is based on the interpreted opinion of the individual who dug it up. As the fossils are only backed up by interpretations, this makes the fossil evidence not empirical evidence, but interpreted evidence. Empirical evidence requires an observable process. Time does not allow for this.

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

If the "actual real process" is not "observable", then the other two (Experience and experiment) are cancelled out. Because without observation one cannot have experience of the claimed process, nor prove through experiment that said process actually happened.

Interpretation and Animation equals faith

Evolution is often claimed to have mountains of evidence, and is a true proven fact. But if the truth were made clear, it would be obvious that only about 5% of all of the fossil evidence for evolution is empirical. A fossil is found and here is what is empirical:

  1. It can be observed what layer it's found in.
  2. The fossil can be dated.
  3. And the species can be determined in most cases.

Everything else said and claimed about the fossil is being interpreted. And words (the interpretation) cannot be tested or retested. And to understand the interpretation through words, about a claim about a fossil that is dug up. Animation is needed. Animation is not evidence because animation is not real reality. And definitely not empirical evidence. So why are both "interpretation and animation" needed? One tells the story (interpretation), the other sells the story (animation). How? It's a known fact that what the mind can see and hear it will believe. In sells, it increases the chance of a sell by more than 50%. Which proves that evolution is not being proven, it's being sold. And to believe in it's claims takes a leap of faith. Don't believe it?

If one were to remove all the animation, and interpretations of evolution. What would be left to prove it? Practically nothing, And to remove all this would be removing all the claims of the evidence that is not empirical. So how much actual empirical claims of the evidence is left? Practically nothing.

Defining Truth scientifically

Science cannot define real truth because that would require them to make a commitment to something actually being 100% right. So they have only degrees of truth, which also means there are degrees of untruth. Knowing this, believing all of evolution is real truth means that everything in science also requires degrees of faith. This is because real truth (a fact the "never changes) does not require any degree of faith. Just ask a evolutionist to define real truth scientifically and you will get a blank stare.

Scientific Laws vs Truth

Scientific laws, like the laws of physics, are the closest science will ever come to actual real truth. But even then, they are sometimes proven wrong.

Confidence vs faith

Many evolutionists will imply that the theory of evolution is an absolute. In making statements such as: Evolution is a "proven true fact", "Evolution is just as provable as electricity, or gravity", "Evolution has mountain of evidence", they make their theory into something it is not. Scientific theories are required to be falsifiable. Why do they exalt this theory to a level that a theory is not supposed to reach, and still remain a theory? This is because confidence building (faith) is needed in something that cannot be proven, or it's processes cannot be seen. Just like the word of God builds our faith in God, the words of evolutionists build their confidence (faith) in their theory. Confidence or faith building is not needed if the evidence exists to convince a person all by itself.

Side note: This is why they have forums, blogs, and websites dedicated to trying to debunk the creation message and convert Christians to their evolution religion. It's all about building the masses confidence in evolution, because the evidence for evolution is not doing it. If the evidence existed, the rest would not be needed. What builds the evolutionist evangelists confidence is going after Christians who do not have enough knowledge to defend creation, or challenge evolution. When an evolutionist evangelist finds such a person, they are relentless in their pursuit to convert. Their actions are seen by many on the Internet. When they finally break the person's faith, their theory becomes justified in their minds as being right because they won the battle against one of God's children. This action makes them feel supreme (Like God) and feeds their ego. It becomes addictive, and the more they do it the more their pride and ego grows in justifying their theory. Does a proven true fact, with mountains of evidence, need justification?

A day of worship

Religion has set aside a day of worship. In most denominations, that day falls on Sunday. Why would a scientific theory need a day of worship? Ever heard of Evolution Sunday? If evolution is supposed to be science, and not religion, why is there not several evolutionists complaining about evolution sunday? It's because evolution fits into being a religion like a glove fits onto a hand. They know it whether they admit it or not. Their choice to not do anything about this, confirms this. Do we see "Gravity Thursday" or "Electromagnetic Tuesday"? No! Why not?

Deity vs Panspermia

The Christian religion worships God and His Son Jesus Christ. These are called deities by evolutionists. If a scientific theory has a deity type worship that is renamed to sound scientific, is it still science? Panspermia is the belief that a more evolved "intelligent" life form seeded this planet for one reason or another and we are the result. It is ironic how they use the word "intelligent" as the agent of cause in this theory. Outspoken atheist and evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins himself believes in the scientific theory of Panspermia and it's version of an "Intelligent designer" as he admits towards the end of this interview.

Evolution saves?

One well known evolution advocate, de Chardin once said:

It is Christ, in very truth who saves....but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?

Sin vs Evolution

If science is not made into religion through the theory of evolution. Can one [1] sin against it? How can one sin against an organization that teaches: truth is relative, and there are no absolutes? Which basically means there are no moral standards. This is why science sees no problem fudging numbers, pics, evidence, etc... And people who support science often defend what was fudged because truth is relative. So what's wrong with a fudge here and there if the point is made?... Truth stands alone, and does not require someone to fix or fudge it. In fact, notice they use a word that makes it not sound so bad. When they actually conspired to lie and use decpetion, not fudge. But fudge is used because they want people to accept it anyway.

Religious history of evolution

Evolution connection to Pagan religion

The evolution theory-idea that man evolved from a lower life form, can be traced back to Egyptian times, even back to Moses. The Egyptian pagan religions believed that life came (evolved) from the slime of the Nile River. And what animal a person came from (evolved), determined their race and their place in society. Sound familiar? The chosen higher race was Egyptians, of course. And they were deemed to have come from some of the most intelligent animals. Which were only exceeded by their god's they worship. Which were half animal half human. And many had mutations (bird head, dog head, many arms, heads, or breasts). Each mutation symbolizing what that god was about, and what power it possessed over nature. These ideas have been passed down through many pagan religions and still exist today.

Note: So the idea of evolution of animals to man, was a part of pagan religion before it was a part of science.

Charles Darwin's connection to religion

Charles Darwin had zero degrees in science. So what degrees did Darwin have? Darwin received a degree in theology at the University of Cambridge. Back in the time Darwin earned his degree in theology, what was being taught was Biblical literalism. Which means that Darwin was taught and believed in a literal 6 day creation (YEC) at one time before boarding the ship named the Beagle. After boarding the Beagle, Darwin read a book written by Charles Lyell who also had zero degrees in science. This book on the idea of the geological column made Darwin believe that he had been lied to about God. And that his time spent getting a theology degree had been a waste of time. Influenced by Lyell's idea and book, and his father's ideas from the book named: Zoonomia, The laws of organic life. Darwin wrote a book named the Origin of Species. which has sparked an all out battle with the very thing he turned his back on.

Because Darwin was taught YEC, turned his back on YEC. His idea sparked a all out war on YEC and Biblical literalism in all forms. This can be seen in the order of things through origins of the universe, and origins of life as shown in the example below:

The Bible Evolution theory Exact opposite?
1) Earth before sun. 1) Sun before earth. Yes
2) Oceans before land. 2) Land before oceans. Yes
3) Light before sun. 3) Sun before light. Yes
4) Land plants first. 4) Marine life first. Yes
5) Fruit tree before fish. 5) Fish before fruit tree. Yes
6) Fish before insects. 6) Insects before fish. Yes
7) Plants before sun. 7) Sun before plants. Yes
8) Marine animals before land animals. 8) Land animals before marine animals. Yes
9) Bird before reptiles. 9) Reptiles before birds. Yes
10) Man brought death in the world. 10) Death brought man into the world. Yes
11) God created man. 11) Man created God (out of need). Yes
12) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water. 12) Atmosphere above water. Yes
13) All life was created by God. 13) All life just happened, and evolved. Yes
14) There is a Creator. 14) There is no Creator. Yes

All of the ideas that spun off of Darwin's theory were made to be the exact opposite of what Darwin was taught to get his theology degree. All of these ideas are carefully written to make sure that they do not support any biblical ideas to continue in the tradition that Darwin started. Which makes one wonder if Darwin's idea was even scientific. That maybe.... his idea was his revenge upon a belief, and a God, that Darwin figured had lied to him after he read Lyell's book. This can be confirmed in a letter Charles Darwin wrote to his son George.

P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.

Reference: Darwin Project

Now why would Darwin make such a statement? Darwin had lost every bit of his faith in God or His Son. As shown in this letter:

Dear Sir

I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Yours faithfully

So Darwin's Theory of Evolution was influenced by his hatred towards God, and His Son. And those whom claim to follow them. For how does one write a direct opposing idea to a theist creation, state his hatred towards the belief, and his theory not be influenced by it? There are no other theories in science that even remotely compete with religion like evolution does. Is it even scientific for a theory to do this? And where is it written that a theory should do this?

The ultimate test for evolution

How can one person test to see if Evolution theory is a religion? Remove that theory, and all of it's supporting ideas, from science. What would be left that would compete with religion like Evolution did? Nothing. So what made evolution compete with religion?

  1. Evolution has it's roots in Pagan religion dating back to Egypt around the time of Moses.
  2. The idea was thought up by someone (Darwin) who had a degree in theology, and and zero degrees in science. Therefore knew about such pagan religious ideas of man coming from animals.
  3. Upon Darwin turning his back to God, he con cocked the idea based on his education, his father writings, and a book written by Lyell.
  4. And if you remove evolution from science, there is no other theory that will compete with religion like evolution does.

References