Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

---

Christian writes:
Please do go back and read my reply. Again you are bashing Dr. Hovind, you are not proving evolution. I know it must make you SOOOOOOO mad to know that when you try to prove evolution, you in turn make your self look like a complete ass when Dr. Hovind reminds you that it is only your belief not a fact.

---

Not sure why you're repeating your original assertion instead of responding to the messages. In message 2 Joz pointed out that Hovind's offer has already been discussed in another thread. In message 3 Mark described evidence for evolution. In message 4 Schraf explained that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and pointed you to a website that provides a good overview of what science is. It appears your points have been addressed, not as politely as I would have liked perhaps, but addressed all the same. Have you anything to say in response?--Percy

I was only pointing out that people had responded to your points, but that you didn't address any of them. Let's take just one:

---

Christian writes:
Evolution is often mistaken as science, when it can not be proven. If you can't prove it, what makes it science?

---

Schraf already pointed out in message 4 that science is not in the business of proving things, and she provided a link to a website that does a pretty good job of explaining what science does do. How does this different perspective on science affect your argument about evolution as science?--Percy

Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines requests that debaters back assertions with evidence. I'd like to see this thread adhere to this guideline a bit more closely.I'd also like to see Rule 2, respect for your fellow debaters, better adhered to.Informed discussion requires agreement on terminology. The word proof has been thrown around a lot, and it's not always clear what is meant. In the context of science, proving something can only mean offering strong supporting evidence. In a more formal and strict sense, there is no such thing as proving something in science - that is the realm of mathematics.Debate on this topic can easily become overheated and nonsensical, and it is the role of the moderator to keep discussion focused and dispassionate. I've also found that pleading with debaters to "Please be nice" almost never works, so there won't be any pleading on my part, I'll just hand out 24-hour bannings. Please make my job easy. Thanks.--Percy (moderator)

I believe Gene is referring to the last point on the page he linked to, which says this:

F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If evidence of evolution is "always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information," isn't the same true for the evidence of scripture? When evidence from the natural world conflicts with the evidence from scripture, in light of human fallibility how does one judge which interpretation is correct and which is incorrect?--Percy

You quoted Gene's entire message instead of just the part you're replying to, but perhaps this gives a hint of what part you're focusing on:

---

Christian writes:
Ok, you tell me where it says that it is to BELEIVE??? Here is the meaning of believe.

---

It seems you're saying that if science includes beliefs that it must therefore be religion. But Gene only uses the term beliefs as a parenthesized modifier of theory: (and "beliefs" of sorts). He's trying to meet you halfway by saying you're not wrong to say that science includes beliefs, but this use of the word is more along the lines of your definition 3 under intransitive senses:

to hold an opinion

or definition 1b under transitive senses:

to accept the word or evidence of

For example, we believe the natural laws of the universe will hold as well tomorrow as they do today, that they are constant over time. Our evidence for this is that these laws have always held in the past without variation to the extent we've been able to establish, and so we believe they'll hold true tomorrow. This is a belief, if you like, but it is a belief supported by evidence and is not in the nature of a religious belief such as definition 1a under intransitive senses:

to have a firm religious faith

--Percy

---

Christian writes:
Do you have evidence that there is no evidence of creation or that the bible is right? If you can't prove evolution, why do you disprove creation?

---

I think you might have the wrong idea about the positions of the opposing sides. Evolutionists believe there is little to no evidence supporting Creationism and that it is thinly disguised religion. They are not trying to "disprove creation." Absent Creationist attempts to promote Creationism as science in the public schools no one outside evangelical circles would know or care about Creationism and there would be no debate.I think you're actually responding to some of the antagonistic replies to some of your expressed religious beliefs, such as that the truth of your religion has been proven over and over. In a debate the assertions made in support of a position are fair game, and you made your religious beliefs fair game when you offered them in support of your position. No one here began with the goal of trying to prove your religion wrong, they're just responding to claims you yourself made.

---

You claim there is evidence when all there is are beliefs and guesses.

---

Much evidence has been provided you in this thread. One demonstrates evidence false by addressing it, not ignoring it.

---

Where do you see your definition? I've even heard evolution referred to as the "Ultimate Reality"

---

You will not find a pathway through your definitions leading to the unambiguous conclusion that evolution is synonymous with religion, both because language is too fluid for almost any word to have a single unambiguous meaning, but more importantly simply because evolution is not religion. The theory of evolution is accepted because of broad supporting evidence uncovered through years of field and lab and intellectual work based upon the scientific method. Religious beliefs are accepted on faith.--Percy

Phantom Mullet writes: Yes, this point goes a lot deeper too: the argument is more concerned with whether there is PROOF for beleiving in evolution or not, and sadly I haven't seen any real meat either way here.

The short answer is no, evolution has not been proven. No theory in science has ever been proven.If you've come to science looking for proof then you've come to the wrong place. Science is tentative, meaning it will change its views to accommodate new evidence or improved understanding. You don't really want to ask if science has proven something, but instead want to investigate the evidence supporting a given theory.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 10-20-2002]

Phantom Mullet writes: would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?

Believing something without proof is religion? Well, in that case, outside of mathematics, everything I believe is a religion, and I must therefore have hundreds of religions. I believe in the religions of physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology, basket weaving, stamp collecting, Dada art, and the sanctity of the National Football League.

If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?

Science is tentative. We devise theories to explain bodies of evidence, and then we modify/replace these theories in light of new evidence or improved understanding. Science never proves anything, not in any of its many fields.--Percy