What Does the Religion of Darwinism actually have faith in?

[Seymour Flops]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

 

[Penelope]

"The Significance Of The Passage Of Time"​

the holy ones that believe in God are getting less and less nowadays. Darwin was right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

"The Significance Of The Passage Of Time"​

the holy ones that believe in God are getting less and less nowaday. Darwin was right.

I think that you mean fewer and fewer.

But, I get that you think that science is a democracy and whoever convinces the most people to say that they agree with a particular "theory," wins.

It isn't. Science is evidence-based. The evidence that the apparent design of life on Earth is actually caused by random events is little to none.

You would have to present some evidence for me to believe that there was even enough to called it "little evidence."

 

[fncceo]

If you have an alternative theory that excludes natural selection and fits what we do know about the development of species, PLEASE detail it. I'm sure most people would be excited to hear an alternative, plausible, theory that fits what we already know.

If you don't have an alternative theory, then attacking people who accept natural selection as a likely explanation of development of life on Earth then you are just a contrarian.

You don't have to "believe" or even accept that natural selection caused the evolution of species on Earth. But, there is no reason and nothing to be gained by casting aspersions on those who do.

 

[cnm]

In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

A sky fairy?

 

[cnm]

The evidence that the apparent design of life on Earth is actually caused by random events is little to none.

I'm not aware of any scientific consensus that speciation is caused by random events. Got a link?

 

[Penelope]

I think that you mean fewer and fewer.

But, I get that you think that science is a democracy and whoever convinces the most people to say that they agree with a particular "theory," wins.

It isn't. Science is evidence-based. The evidence that the apparent design of life on Earth is actually caused by random events is little to none.

You would have to present some evidence for me to believe that there was even enough to called it "little evidence."

I think it is caused ty random events and evolution.

 

[Hollie]

It isn't a faith in Darwin as a man, nor faith in "science," meaning the people who claim to practice science and get the media's attention and approval. Their dogmatic approach and exclusion of critical thinking about their religion is how they keep Darwinism propped up, but those things are not what they have faith in.

But, they must have faith in something. How else could they believe (or for many pretend to believe), that all of the design that is so clearly apparent in the universe is actually the result of no design at all? What could allow them to even consider that all the complexity of life on Earth was created by a series of random events? In what do they have faith that could have allowed such an unlikely idea to be true?

The answer is the passage of time. We now know that there is much significance to the passage of time. Our second highest elected leader explained it thusly:



No matter how impossible it seems that a single light-sensitive cell developed (by random mutations) into the sophisticated vision systems that millions of different species possess, Darwinists explain it all by saying WTTE of, "well it took a long time, of course."

That is faith. If faith is to be admired for its own sake, it is an admirable faith, because it requires the believer to exclude so much evidence that is readily available for their observation.

Another spam thread by the Flat Earther.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution doesn’t rely on “faith” it relies on evidence

 

[Samofvt]

By Darwinism, do you mean Socialism?

Socialism is the new religion for people who have abandoned God. It is no different than religions that worship a higher power. In this case, socialists worship the political power structure instead of an unseen higher power. What they fail to realize is that Socialism is a relatively new and untested religion; It is not based on principles. Movements like Americanism are based in part on religious experience that goes back thousands of years: the teachings and values explained in the Bible are respected as the best practices for a civilized society. What does Socialism have at its core? A handful of half-baked notions written by madmen over the last century or so?

In every case where it has been fully implemented, it has caused human suffering and chaos. The current war in Ukraine is a perfect example: Putin is the most worshiped socialist leader in the world. For all intents and purposes, he is the Socialists deity. Yet he chooses bombs, death and destruction on a scale not seen since the last big buildup of socialism.

In my opinion, there is room for science and even much of what Darwin wrote about. Those govern nature. But for human society, much more is needed if we should survive.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Darwinism is not a religion. It invests no power in the supernatural nor does it require faith. It is a system that explains how life on Earth has occurred and evolved.

 

[cnm]

It is a system that explains how life on Earth has occurred and evolved.

I was not aware the Theory of Evolution dealt with the origin of life.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was not aware the Theory of Evolution dealt with the origin of life.

The term "has occurred" does not imply the original life. To occur means to take place and life has taken place on our planet over billions of years.

 

[cnm]

The term "has occurred" does not imply the original life.

Yes it does.

occurred​

[...] intr.v. oc·curred , oc·cur·ring , oc·curs 1. To take place; come about. ​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes it does.

occurred​

[...] intr.v. oc·curred , oc·cur·ring , oc·curs 1. To take place; come about. ​

Life comes about constantly.

 

[cnm]

Life comes about constantly.

The theory of Evolution does not explain how life comes about. But I understand you require your very own meaning of words to make your arguments work. Go to it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The theory of Evolution does not explain it.

It explains how life adapts to changing environments through chance mutation, dipshit.

 

[cnm]

It explains how life adapts to changing environments through chance mutation, dipshit.

Well done, fuckwit. Finally. It doesn't explain how life occurred. And I would say 'fitting' mutation.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well done, fuckwit. Finally. It doesn't explain how life occurred. And I would say 'fitting' mutation.

I certainly know one asshole life I wish hadn't occurred, that's for sure.

 

[cnm]

I certainly know one asshole life I wish hadn't occurred, that's for sure.

Next you'll blame me for the bullshit you post.