Evolution is Religion—Not Science

“This is the main reason it is important to realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that the temptation people face when confronted with that religion is nothing new.” This is a quote from Dr. Michael Houts affirming that evolution is another false religion. Dr. Houts goes further to present the separation of evolutionists from true science. He is absolutely right. He stated, “It is important for Christians to realize that evolution is simply another erroneous belief, and that they need not be intimidated into believing that the theory is supported by true science. It is also important that Christians not become suspicious of science just because evolutionists and atheists falsely claim it supports their worldview.”

Click here to read the article, “Evolution is Religion – Not Science”.

This is a great article written by Michael G. Houts Ph.D, who “holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including a NASA Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Dr. Houts was employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for 11 years, serving in various positions including Deputy Group Leader. He presently serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.”

About Scott J Shifferd

Minister, church of Christ in Jacksonville, FL. Husband and father of four. Email: ScottJon82[at]yahoo.com
This entry was posted in Christianity, Evolution, Faith, Science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Evolution is Religion—Not Science

  1. Mike says:

    Simply because you think in a faith based, mythical way doesn’t mean others do. Evolution is a well founded theory in science that produces predictions and many proven hypothesis. It is both theory and fact. Ignorance like yours is inexcusable in a world where information is rwadily available and it is nearly criminal that you would try to spread your misconceptions.


    • Your statement falls on its own.


      • Jim Enderby says:

        Can you explain why Scott?


        • Evolution is an embedded theory in the scientific community and not “science”. The statement falls here and upon the accusation of my ignorance and misconceptions being “inexcusable” and “criminal” showing the irrational and impatient mentality of many Darwinists being against what is self-evident and desiring law against an establishment of religion.

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”


  2. X says:

    Calling evolution a belief does not make it a belief.


  3. In what way? Do you mean evolution has been challenged?


  4. Pingback: Biblical Events Timeline

  5. Scott says:

    I wish I knew what definitions you’re talking about, because I can’t find any inaccuracies in the definitions besides that of “micro-evolution” for adaption and genetic drift caused by geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors. “Micro-evolution” is certainly a convenient title for evolution from whoever it originated. I also don’t understand the so-called atheists’ and skeptics’ rights to set boundaries in Biology when it was first the field of the Creationist and certainly the Creator. I doubt that it can be shown that Christians believed adaption and genetic drift were ever heresy 50 years ago and they have certainly traveled the slow road of science as much as the evolutionist.

    The Scriptures teach the Christian that the Creation presents the everlasting power and divinity of God being perceived through the things that are made (Romans 1:20). I really don’t see how Creationism has moved anywhere nor do I see Creationism losing any ground in Biology. The arguments of Creationism are as much if not less argued to an end as Evolutionists do for their beliefs.

    I appreciate the discussion.


  6. Jens says:

    Hmmm….I’m starting to get where you are coming from. The problem here is that your definitions don’t match that of biology.

    Here is a quote from an article on apologetics press explaining the creationist definitions of macroevolution, macroevolution, species, etc…

    “Creation includes the evidence for a sudden appearance of complex life. The creation model denies “vertical” evolution (also called “macroevolution” — the emergence of complex organisms from simple organisms), and change between kinds (such as an amoeba gradually changing into a man), but does not challenge “horizontal” evolution (also called “microevolution”—the formation of species or subspecies within created kinds, or genetic variation such as a species of birds gradually getting a smaller beak or a species of moth changing its colors over time).” ( http://tinyurl.com/yuw2m2 )

    This is interesting because these definitions are exactly what you are using, yet they do not conform to the definitions of biology at all. They aren’t even close.

    The biological definition of macroevolution includes speciation (the creation of new species) and microevolution is defined as changes in alelle frequency within species. Further biology does not recognize “kinds” since all organisms are organized using linnean structures of species, genus, family, order, class, etc…

    I’m interested to know how creationists came up with this definition of microevolution and macroevolution. It obviously isn’t based on genetics or classification of phenotypic traits. Furthermore there is really no good definition of “kind” that I can find. The article and various searches of creationist sites don’t turn one up.

    The intersting thing in this is that the way the definition of micro-evolution is set up it is impossible for biologists to ever prove macroevolution. Why? Because you have renamed what evolution is. You’ve moved macroevolution from the biological definition, creation of new species (along with the study of genetic changes between species), into creation of new “kinds” which is basically similar to evolution between biologial classes or orders in the linean system.

    You’ve said that species evolve, they just don’t evolve directy from a donkey to a bird. Doh! My bad! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    The very fact that this type of change would take millions of years forstalls the argument forever since you will not accept inferences from the fossil record as proof.

    The crux of the matter is that the way you structure the argument precludes questioning of whether species evolve by changing the very underpinnings of the definition of evolution. You accept what you cannot disprove and then use a word like “kind” that remains undefined and use that to disprove macroevolution, which you have handily changed the definition of as well.

    I will retract my statement that you didn’t read the articles. You very well may have read them multiple times. I will not retract my assertion that you did not understand them. Your writing makes it plain that you don’t understand genetics.

    I will forgive you for misunderstanding the biological definitions since yours are so blatantly different. However, I cannot forgive the fact that you take these definitions as the same as those of biology without questioning or understanding the reasoning and data that went in to creating them. If you want to start your own scientific field do it, but if you want to talk biology learn what the definitions really are. It is impossible to argue a point when the definitions being used are not understood.

    The fact that I can list the definition of species, macroevolution, microevolution, genetic drift, information-positive, mutation, etc…speaks to the work that has gone into understanding biological systems. These definitions have been in force for many years, some as far back as times of Carolus Linnaeus.

    The fact that you can bandy about a definition such “kind” without allowing it to be properly defined is ridiculous. It speaks to an unwillingness to put data behind your definitions and your work. It makes it appear that your arguments are simply created to an end, that you believe macro-evolution cannot exist, and therefore you will create logical devices which satisfy your premise despite the evidence.

    The ironic part is that creationism has taken a long, slow road down the path of accepting scientific results. Unwillingly for sure, but it has happened. Not long ago creationists would have scoffed at the idea of including microevolution in their beliefs, let alone speciation. Now you seemingly believe that species are able to evolve acording to your onine courses. This would have been heresy even 50 years ago. I find it somewhat hilarious.

    I think I’m done arguing evolution, I’m going to let history play out. The preponderance of evidence seems to be pushing creationism so far back that it is hardly creationism any more. If you want to believe it go ahead but I hope you realize that all you are doing by changing the defintions to meet your beliefs is giving ground and cheapening your argumentative talent.


  7. Scott says:

    How did you conclude that I didn’t read the articles? See your logic of jumping to whatever conclusion you want. You didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt that your articles did not prove anything or that I did read but did not understand. This is why I believe that you’re hard-hearted. I’ve read all of your articles, sometimes twice. After all, I did ask to read them. I’m always curious about the reasoning of atheists and skeptics.

    I know the salamanders can’t breed, and that doesn’t prove that they evolved just like Danes and Chihuahuas did not evolve though are classified as different species. There are no new genes. That’s my point. That article doesn’t prove anything but the range of God’s design. It was just another documented genetic drift. There are no new genes. I know that you like to make straw-men from my statements, but I wonder if you really do believe the stuff that you write. You’re right. My questions can’t be answered by you, because no answer can defend your faith in evolution. Finally, you’re getting it. You won’t answer the questions, because all the possible answers don’t fit your secular worldview. Why didn’t you just say in the beginning that you couldn’t prove evolution? How hard is it for you to prove a “fact” that new organisms can come from one gene pool that came from another gene pool? Certainly, you can prove this fact again and again using empirical evidence. You’re just going to send me an article presenting genetic drift and slap “evolution” on it.

    You fuss about interpretation and that’s right. I point to your interpretation not as a retreat, but to the fact that your interpretation makes no sense. You’re whole argument about me using the word “kind(s)” is a straw-man, and you know it. “Kinds” was brought up from the Law of Biogenesis. I don’t have a problem with talking about using the standard man-made classifications of organisms, but with the Law of Biogenesis, it is kinds of animals. Here’s your non-sense in a nutshell, “This is group of organisms is a species (organized by people) can interbreed, but not with another species according (so these are different species by definition), and then point out how those species can breed and therefore conclude ‘species can interbreed’ and evolution is true.” An unbiased person would just change the wrong classification into one species, since by definition and classification of species, these are of the same species, but you would rather call this “evolution”. This leads us back to your problem with the Law of Biogenesis affirming that organisms only produce after their own “kind”, which refers to animals that cannot interbreed and can only produce after their own kind, which would make them by definition a species that is contingent upon our current knowledge that they cannot breed. Now add to this that you haven’t proved spontaneous generation and the Law of Biogenesis continues to stand.

    When I speak of Creationists’ arguments, I do not always speak of myself. I’m comfortable with the fact that atheists and skeptics will be proved wrong and dishonest again and again from peppered moths to finches, but many Creationists like Theistic Evolutionists will certainly conform the so-called “facts” of evolution, which in arguing your case against Creationism by using Evolution will not work with most Creationists.


Comments Wanted:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s