As previously explained in Part 2 of the Humanism as Religion debate, the evolutionary worldview is dependent upon humanistic faith, not science. Yet, there is a huge deception in our culture that molecules-to-man evolution is based on observable, testable, and repeatable science. Humanists PK and JD claim that evolution is a “fundamental science” and “secure fact." I respond to these claims in Part 3 of 6 of the debate, shown below. As always, names are abbreviated for privacy.
PK:
Evolution is not a by product of religion like creationism and not associated with any religion. Given that atheists believe in it does not make it atheistic. Evolution is taught as a fundamental science, any explanation given from its tenets is subject to change with accordance to newer and better information. That is why it is taught in a scientific classroom because with current tools, techniques and current understanding of workings of the world have put it better than any form of religious beliefs of creation. So No No No , if evolution is to be removed a better idea should be put forth that is more scientifically accurate than it.
JD:
Evolution is not a "foundational belief" of atheism. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't think there's enough evidence to believe a supernatural dimension exists. Evolution is a secure fact in science, and is no more a "belief" than the germ theory of disease.
Me:
PK,
“Evolution is not a by product of religion like creationism and not associated with any religion. Given that atheists believe in it does not make it atheistic.”
How do you define “religion”? I suppose there are many connotations, but regardless of how somebody defines religion, there is not a single person on this planet that is not trusting in some sort of authority or “god”…whether that is the God of the Bible, some other professed supernatural entity, or the god of self and/or human opinion. The evolutionary worldview requires faith…faith in human opinion/understanding of our origins, absent from any kind of divine revelation from a supernatural entity. That, by definition, is the religion of humanism. As the Bristol Humanist Group says, “Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone” (https://americanhumanist.org/what.../definition-of-humanism/).
“Evolution is taught as a fundamental science , any explanation given from its tenets is subject to change with accordance to newer and better information. That is why it is taught in a scientific classroom because with current tools, techniques and current understanding of workings of the world have put it better than any form of religious beliefs of creation.”
How so? How is evolution observable, repeatable, and testable? I will pose the same questions to you that I posed to BM: Can you provide observable, repeatable, and testable examples of the following? (1) Life evolving from non-life, and (2) “upward” changes in the genotype and phenotype of an organism, such as an originally-blind organism evolving eyesight, or an originally flight-less species developing the ability to fly?
“So No No No , if evolution is to be removed a better idea should be put forth that is more scientifically accurate than it.”
Yes, perhaps the science classroom should focus on concepts that are observable, repeatable, and testable. That’s called observational (or “operational”) science: https://answersingenesis.org/.../science/nature-of-science/
Me:
JD: germs are observable. You can test for germs and repeat experiments with germs. “Molecules-to-man” evolution is not observable. Can you answer the questions that I posed to BM and PK?
Me:
Have a good night guys, I will check back on the thread tomorrow night.
The next evening, I did check the thread and there were replies from several humanists, including a few who were new to the discussion thread. One humanist asks “what happens if you believe in god and believe he created man through evolution?” Moreover, BM (from Part 2) replies and simply throws a jab at Answers in Genesis. I will share their comments and my rebuttals in the next post, where I will share Part 4 of 6 of the debate.