Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

quote:

---

It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban although the current PC movement is in many ways equivalent.

---

The equivalent to the Taliban is ICR (Institute for Creationist Research). They think that destroying science as we know it will return this nation to God. Sound familiar?Moving past somewhat personal attacks on ICR, science is areligious. The theory of evolution is supported by observable facts (observed instances of speciation) and observable evidence (change in organisms over time). Science is grounded in what can be observed and tested, quite different than any religion I know of. If macroevolutionarianism was a religion, than so is golf, since I have golfed on sundays before.

quote:

---

Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored.

---

As noted above, Behe's ideas have been debunked by mainstream science. Above that, Behe based his ideas on his own incredulity. At the end of the day, his argument comes down to "I can't believe it could have evolved, even through indirect routes." Not a well supported theory, if you ask me.

Ken,Pasteur refute spontaneous generation, a theory which stated that fully formed organisms can arise from non-organic solutions. Can you please show me where any theory of abiogenesis states that flies should have sprung up out of mud?How about we set up an experiment that Pasteur would have to have run in order to refute current theories of abiogenesis. First, he would have to set up his environment similar to that found on Earth before life arose. Second, he would have to supply the same chemicals and catalysts as that found in pre-life earth. Second, he would have to supply the correct volume for the reaction, in other words the entire volume of water found on earth. Next, he would have to include a 500 million year incubation time.Did Pasteur run this experiment? I don't think so.

quote:

---

Without a credible evidence to show that abiogenesis could realistically occur the materialist have not earned the right to go up to bat against the Christian creationnist.

---

So what is the credible evidence that creationists have that proves life required supernatural origins?

Ken,You seem to be posting the same things on two different threads, verbatim. Why don't we get back to the topic at hand. Please identify the religious nature of evolutionary theories. Explain how it is only faith that allows one to accept the theory of evolution.

Ken,From the first site that you used for Genetic fallacy, I get this quote: [qs]So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history. To offer Kekul's dream as evidence either for or against the benzene ring hypothesis would be to commit the Genetic Fallacy.[/quote]This is actually arguing against your idea that we must understand abiogenesis before we can make statements about evolution. The "irrelevant history" is abiogenesis while the "idea being evaluated" is evolution. Do you get it now?

quote:

---

If one wants to say that purely naturalistic causes created the life and that macroevolution occured you cannot run from the abiogenesis issue. It is a foundation.

---

First of all, to most scientists macroevolution is the same as speciation. Speciation is the only known barrier to biodiversification, and crossing this barrier can be considered macroevolution. We have numerous examples of speciation events. The large changes in morphology, or shape, seen in the fossil record is explainable as a consequence of numerous speciation and adaptive events through evolutionary mechanisms. The evolutionary mechanisms that I speak of are random mutations and selection. Notice, that to describe the diversification of life I do not mention abiogenesis. That is because abiogenesis does not factor into how life diversifies. The theory of evolution deals with diversification.For example, to make a car do you have to know where iron came from? To sort out a deck of cards into 4 suits do you have to know who made them? Of course not. Evolution is INDEPENDENT of origins. Time travelling humans could have come back in time and created life on earth, which would close a causal loop. This still has no bearings on the mechanisms that cause speciation and biodiversity.Evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like they run away from particle physics or black hole physics. Neither of these things are cogent to thier field. How about this, until you can name the author of Genesis, you can't claim that it is authoritative on questions of origins. You do not know the specifics on the origin of Gensis, so why should I take that seriously? No one has ever claimed authorship. We can only make assumptions from oral traditions that may or may not be true. In fact, you can't claim, beyond your own faith, that Genesis was inspired by a diety.The book of Genesis is very important for creationists, because this is the foundation of creationism. Without Genesis, there wouldn't be creationism. Creationism and Genesis are DEPENDENT on each other, while abiogenesis and evolution are INDEPENDENT. It seems that creationists have a larger problem with origins than evolutionists have.

quote:

---

I believe darwinism is a false religion.

---

If you mean darwinism as a belief in eugenics and social order, then I would agree that it is a religion. Also, creating a world-view around evolutionary theories is also the wrong thing to do. Forming one's beliefs around scientific theories is a fals religion. However, this does nothing to refute the scientific validity of evolutionary theories, which stand on their own in the absence of religion. This is what you are afraid to tackle, the scientific support for evolutionary theories. Instead you attack a bumper sticker. It seems that you have missed the point about debating science, and would prefer to make fire and brimstone speeches that pull at the heartstrings instead of dealing with objective data. Preach all you want, but it will do nothing other than label you as a fanatic instead of one searching for the objective truth.