Religion vs. Science or Religion vs. Religion?

While its true that Creation scientist Duane Gish makes the claim that Creation is not science he- in the same sentence- says the same of evolution. His reasoning is that both belief systems appeal to a non-provable, non-repeatable, non-testable function.  While the evolutionists claim to be grounded in science, it must be noted that their theories have never been repeated, never been tested and have never been proven.  While we cannot repeat the Big Bang, neither can we repeat Creation.  In this manner, both evolutionism and Creation are religious in nature while both use scientific data to support their positions.  The difference is the religion; Theism (or the belief in an active, loving, personal God) or materialism (also called: naturalism or the belief that “nature is all there is”) This presuppositional approach is necessary of science in that evidence cannot “lead” anyone anywhere. It is only our interpretations of evidence that can lead- and the evolutionists know it!

Devout Evolutionist Richard C Lewontin in a review of Carl Sagan’s book agrees, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”

Richard Dawkins further agrees when in an email letter to Phillip Johnson he wrote, “Our philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true...” (He then goes on to “espouse” that Creation offers “no solution” to the origins debate- a circular argument)

In his response Johnson asserts that when you “separate the philosophy from the science, the proud tower (of evolution) collapses.”

We see that evolutionists in a variety of fields agree with the postulate that evolutionary origination is religious in nature- based not on empirical evidence (as they seem to claim over and over again) but on philosophical commitments (aka- faith). Physicist and Information scientist Hubert Yokey writes, “the belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply an article of faith in strict reductionism and is based solely on ideology”

Evolutionist and co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick sadly offers, “Every time I write a paper on the origin on life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Evolutionist, mathematician and astronomer, Chandra Wickramasinghe agrees when he observes, “The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time…”

Evolutionist and microbiologist,  Michael Denton also agrees “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.

So when the leaders of the movement admit to being religiously motivated but a follower (ie: an evolutionist) claims to be irreligious then we see an inconsistency in their worldview- like jamming the wrong piece into the puzzle. We know that truth is not inconsistent so they must be incorrect. Indeed the evolutionary worldview lacks empirical evidence and as stated above requires a pre-commitment (a priori) to materialism. Otherwise stated, its conclusions are loaded into its assumptions. The matter then is not whether it’s religion against science (and I could go into this a bit further at another time) but a matter of reasonable faith (one with evidences) versus unreasonable faith (one without IE: Atheism, Mormonism).

I’m just glad I’m on the right team.