Except for the detail in the first definition you could argue that Darwinism is indeed a religion. It is a set of beliefs that scientist practice in explaining how our world and the universe works, and it is definitely agreed on by a large number of people. So if you stuck solely to the definition of religion you could say that darwinism is a religion. The definition says nothing of spirituality, that is just something that has been associated with religion. But people generally don't think of Darwinism as a religion. I was pointing out that the author if he had chosen to, could say Darwinism is a religion.
Wrong. Next stupid assertion.
Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and experimentation. We have observed evolution, ergo it is science. And yes, we have *directly* observed evolution, including the origin of a new species from existing species.
Could it just be one of those urban legends? If anyone has a site to shed light on this please post, like I said I found this interesting.
It's called the "Lady Hope story", after the liar who started it. Yes, it is just an urban legend, or, more specifically, just one of the many blatant falsifications the creationist loons use to push there agenda.
Such as...
Maybe not the t-rex or the sort as it's not documented, but they've found cave drawings of dinosaurs.
No, they did not. This is false information.
ad a harder time doing that than finding something of value. Heck, they're a bunch of Harvard people.
No, they aren't. The document is clearly falsified, as there is absolutely no record of it in the scientific literature. Your source is a creationist website, and, as they are already proven to lie in order to sell their fairy tales, cannot be trusted.
The real is issue is whether He is the author of it all or not. I say He is and I don't care how He did things.
Precisely - if I throw a ball at you, physics dictates the path, but I'm responsible for the action itself. I took action, but acted within physical laws to do so.
Or, look at it this way - we're not gods, and we've invented machines to do our work for us. Do we really think god is so stupid he does everything manually, rather than setting up a system that will automatically do what he wants with only an invisible nudge every few million years?
Honestly, I've been watching the whole creationism thing for decades, and they have not only failed to come up with any convincing argument or real data, but even worse are just recycling the same tired and disproved tropes they used 150 years ago.
And, while I'm coming at things from a scientific perspective, don't think I wouldn't call BS if I saw it - I'm about to lay some serious smackdown on the entire field of primate locomotion because of flaws in some of the original papers. Puncturing existing theories is a great way to make a name in science, and it's a very competitive field. Do you seriously think that if there was some big secret, nobody would have tried to make their name by blowing the cover? If you do, you *clearly* have no idea how little cash a post-doc makes compared to faculty.
Seriously, creationism is an embarrassment to religion. It's crappy theology supported by made-up stories.
Mokele