Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?

You hit on something. Evolutionism has a messianic and religious aspect to it. it's not just science, and imo, it's not good science. What it is though is a powerful propaganda tool, imo.

Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice. What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe, and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....

It's inherently religious and non-empirical.The point is not that evos are like Christians, but that they claim to be science-based, but it's really pseudo-science which is why some blatant errros are so difficult to change regardless of the facts. The facts all contradict mainstream evolution. The fossil record doesn't match; the set of iconic proofs for evolution are false, etc, etc,....

It sure doesn't seem that way since you falsely accuse that objectively look at the facts and reject evolutionary models as somehow being false or intellectually dishonest or something along those lines.The bottom line for me is that ToE does not match the facts, plain and simple.

First, why don't you bring some papers that seek to prove evolutionary theory is true rather than assume it is true.Can you do that please?The simple truth is evolutionary theory was accepted, based on false evidence, long before legitimate scientific publication in journals (by today's standards). What was published was often false (such as Haeckel's drawings and the whole Biogenetic theory), but that didn't stop evos from insisting such false things were true, even for over 100 years, and perhaps still today.The fossil record over the years is ample evidence gradualistic evolution never occurred, but evos still cling to the myth despite all the evidence against it.

What facts? You mean the peppered moth story, the myth of recapitulation, the myth that the fossil record shows gradualistic evolution when it shows the opposite, the use of undefined terms such as "random mutations", etc, etc,.....If there were genuine facts behind the theory, I wouldn't make these charges, but there isn't.

pathetic response on your part, devoid of any real arguments or facts....typical of many from your side I might add.

FACT: The peppered moth, recapitulation, the false claims on the fossil record, etc, etc,...are or were all used as prima facie evidence for evolution. You know it. I know it, and everyone knows it.To deny this fact is quite absurd and very telling on it's own.

Good reprimand. Sorry for getting off-topic.On the OP, I think if you look at many evos such as Dawkins, or Wilson and the other guy recently on Charlie Rose, you will see that many prominent evos have insisted on rather far-reaching and dare I say theological implications for evolutionary theory. There is a missionary zeal whether emotionally or intellectually, and the belief is that somehow evolution proves there is no God, or no Designer, or whatever.It comes back to beleiving evolution validates an atheist ideology asserting randomness as the key feature to life and even the universe at times.Imo, the fallacy of such thinking by prominent evos is stupendous and has an undue influence on the thinking and presentation and teaching of evolutionary theory.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Why don't you try telling them that?

Show me the papers then, and I will look at them and critique them.Where are they?

So now you present a blatant argument from authority with no substance or details, and you think that is reasonable?You also refer to a mythical creationist website not cited by me here. Are you drunk or something?Edited by randman, : No reason given.