why do religionists have to insert an unseen unproved protagonist into a proccess, ie; evolution?

Question

a proccess is just a proccess, it needs nothing.

All religions are old wives' fables, but an honest man has
nothing to fear, either in this world or the world to come.
Robert Burns, quoted by Robert Green Ingersoll in "Why I Am an Agnostic"

honest men being shot has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. It says something about the randomness of this life, and being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and that is luck and is unfortunate.
What is not luck though, is mindless violence.

Answer 1

Any process needs one thing - a point of origin. The observable order of the universe is decay, or complex to less complex. Based on what is observable, a protagonistic entity of some form is required to initiate the process. Your choice of protagonists is a statement of where you place your faith, because no matter which one you choose, faith is all you have to support your choice.

Answer 2

What do you mean ("religionists," "protagonist")?

I don't know of any rational adult that disputes the science of evolution -- and I live in the middle of the Bible Belt.

If you're inquiring regarding the determination of origins, the SCIENCE of evolution does not yet have any answer; however, the FAITH of evolution claims to have an answer that, frankly, is MUCH more incredible than the Judeo-Christian myth.

In lay language, Ockham's razor states the theory reliant on the least number of unproven intermediate steps is the more credible. Judeo-Christian mythology dominates in that regard.

Of course, if you want to believe that unicorns evolved into fire-breathing dragons that died from carbon monoxide poisoning -- well, that's your perogative. Personally, I'll stick to SCIENCE -- which acknowledges the fact that

almost everything the "origins" camp attempts to use to "prove" the modern biosphere derives ultimately from random proteins aggregated in some primordial goo (or, for the less ambitious, that man arose from lesser apes) is an unproven (and in many instances unprovable) article of faith dependent on extraordinary leaps of logic and suspension of both reason and the scientific method.

Evolution IS a settled issue in science; the subject of origins is nowhere close to scientific resolution.

Answer 3

Survival of the Fittest was not Darwins exclusively. It has been around for ages. In the last century, is was used by tyrants such as Hitler, and Pol Pot to justify genocide. Do you practice science in an ivory tower? I can see where your argument is valid; with hill-billys and sand-rats, but anyone who has read Darwins works, understands that's it's his hypothesis that people must compete in a death sport to survive that is anti-christian. Or should I say Christ is anti-death sport? How do you factor charity into the process? Have you quantified the infinity of God's love yet?

I saw an honest man shot dead once. Does that prove he was inferior, and not fit to survive? Burns was probably right about the after-life, but you are wrong about evolution being just a process. It's a moral judgement. And that is religous.

Answer 4

A process is just a process it needs nothing?
What is that like do-it-yourself proverbs?
That sucks man, sucks.

Evolution has no origin, nothing to respond to "What started it all, what started the Big Bang" This is where the concept of an infinetly uncomprehendable creative force comes in. The chances for life are so slim, that they record as 0% even when rounded to the 400TH decimal place!

Answer 5

If anything was ever unproven it is evolution.
Where did the matter originate from?
Where did the energy originate from?
How did life begin?
Why is it that in every other thing, order decays? Yet evolutionist insist that their model is somehow independent of the laws of physics?

Until you can answer these questions, you should just admit that your theory requires more FAITH than mine.

Answer 6

To answer your question:...The Same Right NON-Religionists Have The Right To Insert An Unproven Non- Existing GOD!.....this is a religious/spiritual site, if you don't like GOD and His Word, it's so easy to log onto a site that believes the same way you believe!.......Fair Enough!...

Answer 7

I may not believe in the traditional God as far as traditional religion goes. However I don't think it is scientific to believe that a cake can bake itself or that a process so complex does not have a intelligence behind it. or knowing how large this universe is, and how limited our ability to scientifically measure, it one can say there is no God.

Answer 8

Because they fear what they cannot understand.
So they attack the Facts that is the Science of Evolution.

Answer 9

That is Hell bound talk...enjoy Satan!