Changes

{{cquote|'''Dr. [[R.L. Wysong]]'''<br />''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."''<ref>Wysong, R.L. (1976). [http://books.google.com/books?id=yNev8Y-xN8YC&pg=PA419&dq=wysong+controversy+%22requires+plenty+of+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RzgaVKW4FMXy8AHjgYGwAQ&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wysong%20controversy%20%22requires%20plenty%20of%20faith%22&f=false ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''] (Midland, MI:  Inquiry Press), p. 419.  Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''Dr. [[R.L. Wysong]]'''<br />''"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural creator."''<ref>Wysong, R.L. (1976). [http://books.google.com/books?id=yNev8Y-xN8YC&pg=PA419&dq=wysong+controversy+%22requires+plenty+of+faith%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RzgaVKW4FMXy8AHjgYGwAQ&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wysong%20controversy%20%22requires%20plenty%20of%20faith%22&f=false ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''] (Midland, MI:  Inquiry Press), p. 419.  Retrieved from GoogleBooks on September 17, 2014.</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''Dr. T.M. Lessl'''<br />''By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls "objectification," the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.''<ref>Lessl, Thomas M. (1985). "Science and the sacred cosmos: the ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan".  ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'', vol. 71, no. 2, p. 178.  Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''Dr. T.M. Lessl'''<br />''By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls "objectification," the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power.''<ref>Lessl, Thomas M. (1985). "Science and the sacred cosmos: the ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan".  ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'', vol. 71, no. 2, p. 178.  Quoted in "Evolutionism quotes".</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''Dr. M. Ruse (evolutionist)'''<br />''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''<ref>Ruse, Michael (May 13, 2000). [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians."].  ''National Post'', p. B-3.  Retrieved from Omniology.com as "How evolution became a religion" on September 15, 2014. Caution:  may be copyrighted; for fair educational use only.</ref>}}

{{cquote|'''Dr. [[Michael Ruse|M. Ruse]] (evolutionist)'''<br />''Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a [[secular religion]] — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.''<ref>Ruse, Michael (May 13, 2000). [http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion.html "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians."].  ''National Post'', p. B-3.  Retrieved from Omniology.com as "How evolution became a religion" on September 15, 2014. Caution:  may be copyrighted; for fair educational use only.</ref>}}

==See also==

==See also==