The last interaction in the Humanism as Religion debate was actually a continuation of a discussion that occurred earlier in the thread. I captured this particular discussion in Part 3 of the Humanism as Religion debate. Recall the following interaction between me and humanist 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.
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 flightless 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/
Fast forward to day 2 of the debate. After I posted my response to JD, as shown in Part 5, I noticed that PK followed up with a response. PK claims that I missed the point of his/her earlier comment. Moreover, PK makes an interesting admission regarding the fact that scientists can “scrap off” a scientific theory for a “better one.” Below is the sixth and final part of the Humanism as Religion debate that shows PK’s comment along with my response.
You clearly missed my point that science is not an all knowing understanding . Science is use of explanation of things according to the "current understanding" of mankind's knowledge of the subject at that time. At this moment abiogenesis in evolution is not the most absolute we think happened in the first formation of life, but that is the best we have at this time. If there comes a better one I am sure the scientific community as it has done many times before would scrap off if does not hold true and adopt the better one.
Like Newtonian law's was undisputed in explanation of macro objects but when micro objects were put into place they did not hold up . Thus quantum mechanics were brought up.
PK, if “science” (and I assume you are really referring to the evolutionary worldview) is not an all-knowing understanding, and if evolutionary ideas can be “scrapped,” for “better” ones, then do you admit that evolution is not really an established fact? In other words, that evolution might be based upon faith in a specific philosophy?
I checked the debate thread up to two days later and did not see any further comments/responses from PK or any of the other humanists.
PK seemed to be okay with “scrapping” specific aspects of the evolutionary worldview for “better” theories, but was not willing to completely scrap the evolutionary worldview altogether. My prayer is that more and more evolutionists come to understand that the entire evolutionary worldview is built upon blind faith, and then decide to “scrap” the entire worldview altogether. Along with that, my prayer is that they will place their faith in the absolute authority of God’s Word, which is by no means a blind faith. Everything we observe in the world is consistent with God's Word.[i]
[i] To learn more, I recommend https://answersingenesis.org/.