thedrifter
01-16-06, 09:13 AM
Evolution Debate: The Religion of Science
by Nathan Tabor
Posted Jan 16, 2006
We’ve all heard the argument, evolution is a “science” and, therefore, it is somehow more valuable or respectable than religion. This same argument won the right of evolution studies in our public school classrooms, and helped build the wall around so called non-scientific “creationism” and to this day keeps it from being taught in our public schools.
It seems that labeling something as a science is a one way ticket to popularity and acceptance. Deeming something to be of a religious nature practically guarantees objection, often ridicule. Could these labels be less than honest? Could we have been sold a bill of goods when they say that evolution is a science? Could it actually be a religion? Evolution and Creationism couldn’t BOTH be religions, could they?
Absolutely.
When we take a closer look at the definitions of science and religion, we find that evolution is based on the same premises as any religion, and isn’t a science at all.
Science is defined as the “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.” To observe, study and experiment would mean that one would have to have some kind of contact with that which is being observed, studied, or experimented upon. For example, one can study a plant, or a gas, or the effects of weather, since one can see them happen right before them, in real time. A scientist can only truly study what is in the present, or what is existing and changing right now.
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
The definition of religion is “cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Creationism is exactly that (according to evolutionist)…but so is evolution. Evolutionists hold to their beliefs with great “ardor and faith.” The difference between the two is that evolutionists believe that there is no God or that a God didn’t create the world, and they work from that principle. Creationists believe in a God that gave man life and created the world, and base their system of belief on that. There is nothing to observe, study and experiment with, both must rely on faith, and relying on faith isn’t science.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of “science” from evolution and see it for what it really is -- a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
by Nathan Tabor
Posted Jan 16, 2006
We’ve all heard the argument, evolution is a “science” and, therefore, it is somehow more valuable or respectable than religion. This same argument won the right of evolution studies in our public school classrooms, and helped build the wall around so called non-scientific “creationism” and to this day keeps it from being taught in our public schools.
It seems that labeling something as a science is a one way ticket to popularity and acceptance. Deeming something to be of a religious nature practically guarantees objection, often ridicule. Could these labels be less than honest? Could we have been sold a bill of goods when they say that evolution is a science? Could it actually be a religion? Evolution and Creationism couldn’t BOTH be religions, could they?
Absolutely.
When we take a closer look at the definitions of science and religion, we find that evolution is based on the same premises as any religion, and isn’t a science at all.
Science is defined as the “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.” To observe, study and experiment would mean that one would have to have some kind of contact with that which is being observed, studied, or experimented upon. For example, one can study a plant, or a gas, or the effects of weather, since one can see them happen right before them, in real time. A scientist can only truly study what is in the present, or what is existing and changing right now.
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
The definition of religion is “cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Creationism is exactly that (according to evolutionist)…but so is evolution. Evolutionists hold to their beliefs with great “ardor and faith.” The difference between the two is that evolutionists believe that there is no God or that a God didn’t create the world, and they work from that principle. Creationists believe in a God that gave man life and created the world, and base their system of belief on that. There is nothing to observe, study and experiment with, both must rely on faith, and relying on faith isn’t science.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of “science” from evolution and see it for what it really is -- a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.