I am not a creationist. But I do believe a higher deity (in my case, God) created evolution and now we have our world.

That would still be creationism, just not along the "six days, 6000 years ago" narrative.

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles^{1, 2} from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.³

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.⁴

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.⁵

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.⁶

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.⁷

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ⁸

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.⁹

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.¹⁰

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.¹¹

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.¹²

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.¹³

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.¹⁴

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,¹⁵ I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.¹⁶

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.^"17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."¹⁸

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

If you still don't believe evolution is a religion after this then there is nothing I can do that will change your mind

That article certainly didn't convince me that evolution is a religion.

Do you know why?

1: It says that Scientists are afraid of arguing with creationsits/intelligent design activits. Which isn't true considering in several court cases such as "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" courts ruled against the intelligent design movement.

2: The assertion that Science should reject God is a logical choice. Science is about the natural world. God cannot be proven and measured and supposedly exists in a heigher plane or beyond the physical world or however you'd like to describe it. If God was considered the being that controlled unexplained phenomina then we wouldn't be where we are today as we'd never need to look into why things happen, because God did it!

3: "As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."

Ahh so thats the real problem. Many people that subscribe to the view that evolution is a valid thoery discard their belief in God. And anyone who thinks that they aren't incompatible is basically an Atheist aswell! Thats simply not the case, many people in the world are both Christian and think Evolution is a valid theory. Even the vatican, a notoriously conservative organisation has no problem with evolution.

"“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Pope Benedict XVI Do you really think the pope is an Atheist?

The conflict may be too difficult for some, but it isn't for the Pope. So this absolutism is just silly.

Again. Injecting something from outside of the physical testable world just simply isn't something that Science will ever do as it simply isn't something that Science deals with.

Were I supposed to change my mind after an article with such pearls as:

And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

Really? That's simply silly on the epistemologic and logic level.

Let's substitute god with invisible unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster or Osiris. Would not believing in the existence of any of them be an act of religion?

1) Absence of proof is not proof of absence

Dawkins is simply saying that you can't prove the inesistence of something described in abstract as god is, because he's described as an omnipotent being that might escape from all experimental research. Just like you can't prove that the world isn't filled with invisible, immaterial unicorns that never interact with matter or energy in any way. It's an obvious logical assertion. So why don't we need a proof of absence?

2) Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Occam's razor. Postulating the existence of something because we don't have proofs about its existence or inexistence would populate our reasoning with all kinds of invisible and useless entities.So when is an entity scientifically useless?

It's since Popper - almost a century, guys - that the best value of theories in science is found in how much they are falsifiable. The more experiments you can conduct to try and disprove a theory, the more truth value it can provide. The value in this sense of the invisible god hypothesis is equal to the value of the invisible unicorns one, and that is zero.

Thus, not believing in something complicated, unneeded and unproven is not religion - at best it's a stance about ideas that others tackle with religion.

It's simply a clean, baseline scientific phylosophical position. I really wish you'd have answered the gist of the matter instead of quoting that jumbled mess.

How did Georges Lamaitre come up with his hypothesis and how was it that expansion overcame solid-state as the predominant theory?

No offence, but in my experience atheists are some of the biggest assholes in the universe. The rest of the asshole population is primarily made up of Right Wing Conservatives, with the remainder being comprised of Muslim Extremists, racists, Zionists and the like.

Coincidence? I think not. Extremism in any direction leads to hate, or at the very least makes you an asshole (but far more often leads to hate). People need to take a damn chill pill and recognize that none of us have existence figured out. Maybe if we all sat down and listened to each other instead of yelling at each other to STFU we might actually get somewhere.

Oh, and perpetually referring to someone's beliefs as a "fairy tale" simply because you disagree with them is some seriously hateful bigotry. There's a reason we have laws that defend against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability or religion.

Well said, people need to open up there mind and be less hateful to each other.

I've bolded the parts I thought particularly interesting.  Perhaps you were prediposed to finding these guys out to be assholes because they didn't agree with your point of view.  Just a thought.

While I would never discriminate against someone because he doesn't know calculus, I would certainly not respect a religion-based opinion of his about integrals. How is creationism different? Respect for people doesn't imply respect or aquiescence for each and every of their opinions and stances.

Thus, out of respect I'll never go knocking at doors on a sunday morning to call people's religious beliefs a fairy tale, because that could be important and dear to them and quite uncalled on my part.

But if on the contrary they enter of their own will a debate about scientific theories, then what they bring to the plate is fair game. If they square up a theory and the related evidence with an apodictic quotes from the bible, then I would feel free to use a similitude to fairy tales to underline my point about fantastic narrations with a symbolic meaning, but ultimately no supporting hard evidence.

If they get offended by seeing their opinions demeaned under the lens of scientific dissection, they should not bring them to a scientific debate. No scientist ever threw a fit in seeing other scientists trying to take his/her theory apart. That's harsh, but that's how science works.