Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

I saw a website that refered to the macroevolution hypothesis as evolutiontarianism. I thought this was humorous. I know science is a social enterprise and that when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged. Copernicus would be a good example. 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.Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored. I have no problem with private ownership of journals and the setting of agendas but it seems hypocritical when they do not at least acknowledge that they are basing Behe's exclusion on tradition rather than any real scientific grounds.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

1. To the person who wanted to know what PC is:Political correctness.2. To the person who said do I have any proof Behe was unfairly censored:I saw a letter that Behe published on the internet where one scientific journal where Behe exchanged several letters with finally said that they just do not have a tradition of publishing non evolutionist material. This was some time ago and now the internet is so flooded with Behe material that I just spent a few minutes trying to find it but I had no success. Perhaps Behe pulled it off the internet because Behe no longer feels his message is not getting out in the public arena.Sincerely,Ken

I suppose you are free to attack the historical and theological problems of the Roman Catholic Church in relation to science and other matters. As a protestant, however, I may decide to join you.In regards to Christianity and science, I offer the following:CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCEhttp://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm(Yes, I realize that Bacon was a Catholic but I will say I liked some although not all of what St. Francis said (Bacon was a franciscan monk).Sincerely,Ken

TO: SchrafinatorPlease read the following:The Marion StarHome | CS LewisI believe that some (not all) Islamacist and some (not all) /materialist/evolutionist have one thing in common. They often go crazy when they hear criticism of their position. Now I would admit that the Islamacist are often more hostile to criticism. On the other hand, I would also say that the materialist cannot cite one materialists martyr. Now I realize that a materialist would have very low incentive for martyrdom. I also realize that materialist have been afffored far more tolerance than they have given to Christians. Examples?I offer the following:North Korea:
Page Not Found | Freedom HousePage not found - Open DoorsI would also cite the Soviet Union (churches closed, millions of people died)and China.Here is a essay about Stalin/Marx in regards to Origin of the Species:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchNow am I saying that all evolutionist are given to such extreme measures. No, I am not. I do see though that at a lot of the very militant, materialist evolutionist have done a lot of harm to others.I also realize that not all Moslems are not like the Taliban. I have a friends who are Muslim from Somalia and Mali where the type of Islam
is not so extreme.Also, I would admit that some people who call themselves Christians believe in the lie of the macroevolutionary hypothesis.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

TO: SchrafinatorWhen I see many high schools talk about all the shortcomings of the macroevolutionary hypothesis I will rescind my Taliban comment. Secondly, it is obvious that milititant atheist who espouse darwinist dogma have persecuted Christians far more than they have been persecuted by people calling themselves Christians. I do not know of one materialist martyr. It seem to me that if they were persecuted at least one angry person or mob would have lynched/killed a materialist. Voltaire and others, however, died a normal death.End of discusssion.Sincerely,Ken

re: what specifically do I have problems with in regards to the macroevolutionary hypothesisI believe you have seen this string: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not validI do not know why you even ask this question.re: biologist/repressive regimesI would say that it is a multidisciplinary effort of many scientist plus the involvement of educators, judges, politicians, etc who attempt to foist the macroevolutionary hypothesis upon the earth and create a environment that professes a materialist ideology. Do all people in these fields of human endeavor do this? No, Duanne Gish could hardly be called a participant. I gave the specific examples of Stalin and Marx and their adoption of the material they read in the Origin of the Species. In certain countries, especially ones without a Christian heritage, the results have been disastrous. This is well documented.I cannot make it more clear. I think you are intentionally trying to obscure the facts due to the fact that you simply do not like them.Sincerely,Ken<[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-04-2004]

Dear Schrafinator:As you know Stalin abandoned the idea of being a lifelong priest (I am guessing Russian Orthodox) pretty much after he read Darwin's Origin of the Species according to the biographer who published a book about him in Russia during the time he was in power. Now since Darwin was no possessor of a biology degree but had a theology degree like Stalin was working toward or completed, I would say that Stalin is the biologist you are looking for. Stalin's work in biology was just as good as Darwin's in my estimation. If Stalin did no work in biology it still would be better than Darwin's contribution. I am not against being self taught but Darwin would not be a great example of the benefits of being self taught. For example, let us look at some legacies. Pasteur was a creationist and he had the great Pasteur Institute as a legacy. Perhaps there is a Darwin Institute. If there is a Darwin Institute it is surely not as well known as the Pasteur Institute. I would also say that the Pasteur Institute is far more productive than any Darwin Institute there may or may not be.Sincerely,Ken

A large point is being ignored. When atheism is left on its own and becomes the paradigm of a country and there has not been a foundation of Bible believing or strong Christian input we see large degrees of chaos in a society (Mao, Stalin, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc).Materialism does not work. Please consider this information:http://www.taemag.com/.../articleID.17700/article_detail.aspSincerely,Ken

I would suggest reading this book and website:"Fabulous Science. Fact and Fiction in the history of scientific discovery.
by John Waller.
Oxford University Press, 2002. 308 pp.reviewed by Gert Korthof. 12 Oct 2003 version 1.4Pasteur: right for wrong reasonsThe chapter about Pasteur is illuminating and relevant for the current Evolution/Creation controversy. It appears that Pasteur was a creationist (he believed the Genesis story) and firmly opposed the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. Darwin's work appeared around that time. Pasteur and 'his friends' were opposed to evolution. According to Waller, Pasteur and his friends played an unfair game and did not give their opponents a fair hearing. He suppressed unwelcome data. Today we would label that 'unprofessional conduct'. Ultimately Pasteur was right, but for the wrong reasons. Waller is remarkably mild in his judgement of Pasteur: "his sins were of a comparatively modest nature."taken from: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof61.htmAnother website comments on Pasteur:"Pasteur died in 1895 and is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time. Rene Vallery Radot, Pasteur’s son-in-law said that absolute faith in God and in eternity were feelings which filled Louis Pasteur’s whole life.The virtues of the gospel were very present to him. He came to his Christian faith simply and naturally for spiritual help in the last stages of his life.( Quote from The Sower Series biography of Louis Pasteur by John Hudson Tiner)"taken from: "Louis Pasteur"Consider this also from a website: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator" - Louis Pasteur"taken from: http://www.cs.cuw.edu/biblestudy/Day5.htmlAlso consider this from a website:"This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia does, saying,Pasteur's faith was an genuine as his science. ... Some of his letters to his children breathe profound simple piety. ... What he could not above all understand is the failure of scientists to recognize the demonstration of the existence of the Creator that there is in the world around us."taken from: http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1227almanac.htm[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

I updated the post before yours.Here is what I added:I would suggest reading this book and website:"Fabulous Science. Fact and Fiction in the history of scientific discovery.
by John Waller.
Oxford University Press, 2002. 308 pp.reviewed by Gert Korthof. 12 Oct 2003 version 1.4Pasteur: right for wrong reasonsThe chapter about Pasteur is illuminating and relevant for the current Evolution/Creation controversy. It appears that Pasteur was a creationist (he believed the Genesis story) and firmly opposed the possibility of spontaneous generation of life. Darwin's work appeared around that time. Pasteur and 'his friends' were opposed to evolution. According to Waller, Pasteur and his friends played an unfair game and did not give their opponents a fair hearing. He suppressed unwelcome data. Today we would label that 'unprofessional conduct'. Ultimately Pasteur was right, but for the wrong reasons. Waller is remarkably mild in his judgement of Pasteur: "his sins were of a comparatively modest nature."taken from: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof61.htm[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

Here is an excellent essay called "The Church of Darwin"http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

Here is an excellent essay called "The Church of Darwin"http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

It seems as though materialist here are forgetting a common materialist mantra in relation to the abiogenesis hypothesis - namely, extraordinary claims require extraordinay evidence. Clearly, we know that abiogenesis even if we were to grant a such a thing which I am clearly not granting whatsoever, would not be ordinary. Nobody has ever witnessed such a thing and Meyer clearly shows it is contra-evidence: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.htmlSo where is the extraordinary evidence?Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

TO: misteropusWithout 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 creationist. In short, the materialist are not in the ballpark.Furthermore, in relation to the origin of the universe, the creationist have a Louisville slugger called the Law of the conservation of mass and energy. The materialist do not have a science "poker hand" that even approaches a scientific law.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]

The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up. I would be afraid of this issue too if I were a materialist who eventually is going to meet his Creator. The materialist often worship the god of science but that god cannot help them escape death. Is science close to solving the "death thing" yet.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-05-2004]