1,767
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::::::The whole "Present both sides, argue with me, find counter-arguments! Or are you afraid?" gig doesn't apply when the initial claim starts off on complete nonsense.
::::::The whole "Present both sides, argue with me, find counter-arguments! Or are you afraid?" gig doesn't apply when the initial claim starts off on complete nonsense.
::::::Your sources construct a wrong image of science, scientists and the scientific method in regard to evolution and then "prove" how that image can be seen as a religion. Then they just declare "It's proven! Evolution is religion!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Your sources construct a wrong image of science, scientists and the scientific method in regard to evolution and then "prove" how that image can be seen as a religion. Then they just declare "It's proven! Evolution is religion!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
From the latest edit:
{{QuoteBox|Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be atheists as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.}}
I just read that in AiG ("Evolution as religion") and think that it clashes a bit with the "not all are atheists" assertion unless you go into semantics:
{{Evolution makes religious claims on the basis of a presumed flow of history. '''It is a religious system which is against Christ and His church. One system of faith denies the other.'''}}
You apparently can't be a Christian and support evolution since evolution is against Christ.
On a more technical level, the "Many [...] have been known to be atheists" is VERY relative once you look a little beyond the US borders and treat "hold to the theory of evolution" as "thinks that it's the best explanation right now". Creationism isn't exactly a majority view outside the US (Christian Creationism even less), but tons of people outside the US are Christians. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)