Evolution — A Substitute Religion
Many of us have heard or read numerous times about people who made a pretense at Christianity, then fell away and then professed atheism or agnosticism. It is a fact that atheists are very religious, and evolution is a cornerstone for atheism. However, particles-to-parole-officer evolution can also be a religion.
Dr. Michael Ruse discovered the false joy of Darwinism and rejected his superficial knowledge of Christianity and became a trafficker in evoporn. He has made bold statements that evolution is used as a replacement religion for Christianity. Ruse was used as an expert against creation science, but he blatantly misrepresented it and disparaged creation scientists as not being credible.
On a side note, have you ever noticed that when atheists and evolutionists demand evidence for God and miracles, they want them explained in naturalistic terms? That is illogical. Also, they are inconsistent because they believe in their own miracles such as the Big Bang, evolution, and so on. They varnish them with naturalism to obtain an imprimatur of Scientism, but they are still secular miracles, pardner.
In a recent debate, Dr. James R. White made an impromptu comment in a different context that applies here: "Your arguments are not against Christianity, they're against a straw man — and that says you don't have a value of truth!", heard here at the 2 hr. 12 min. 25 sec mark. That works well with many things that I have said over the years.
Claiming to have researched the subject, his bias is obvious in that he neglected to mention that creation scientists are indeed credentialed. Ultimately, his commitment to naturalism and rebellion against the Creator contaminated his statements. It is reasonable to conclude that he did not honestly examine creation science, nor was he opposed to using numerous logical fallacies.
 |
| Pixabay / Gerd Altmann |
On a side note, have you ever noticed that when atheists and evolutionists demand evidence for God and miracles, they want them explained in naturalistic terms? That is illogical. Also, they are inconsistent because they believe in their own miracles such as the Big Bang, evolution, and so on. They varnish them with naturalism to obtain an imprimatur of Scientism, but they are still secular miracles, pardner.
In a recent debate, Dr. James R. White made an impromptu comment in a different context that applies here: "Your arguments are not against Christianity, they're against a straw man — and that says you don't have a value of truth!", heard here at the 2 hr. 12 min. 25 sec mark. That works well with many things that I have said over the years.
Claiming to have researched the subject, his bias is obvious in that he neglected to mention that creation scientists are indeed credentialed. Ultimately, his commitment to naturalism and rebellion against the Creator contaminated his statements. It is reasonable to conclude that he did not honestly examine creation science, nor was he opposed to using numerous logical fallacies.
Well-known Darwinist Michael Ruse in his 2016 book, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution, documents that a social revolution occurred in the 18th century. Ruse is no minor figure in the scientific world. He is the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, at Florida State University. Ruse has written or edited more than fifty books published by Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, and other prestigious university publishers.
Raised as a devout ‘Christian,’ he says at age 20 his faith faded in college, never to return. He was so enamored with Darwin that he became a philosopher of science specializing in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He talks a lot about “our opponents, Christians, often the more evangelical kind.” Ruse admits that evolutionists are in a war against Christians and brags that the evolutionists are winning, partly due to his testimony in the most well-known creation court case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). Part of Ruse’s testimony is as follows:To read the rest, click on "Religion of Evolution Is a Big Ruse". Also, I highly recommend reading an article responding to the apostatizing of comedians “Rhett and Link” at "An open letter to Rhett McLaughlin — and anyone else on the road to unbelief".