Lawsuit Claims Evolution ‘Is A Religion’

there’s a kansas-based group called
citizens for objective public education or CEOP cope and you guys know the general rule of
thumb for groups like this typically whatever they
call themselves you can assume that they’re in favor of
the opposite so for example groups like that have responsible government in
their title you can assume they are four irresponsible government for
non-existing government and groups that have family in the title but you can assume that they are
massively against any type a family that’s not white heterosexual women on
this so that’s the general rule of thumb for
these things and this group is no different they
promote they quote promote religious rights of
parents children and taxpayers religious rights of these
groups and they just decided to sue the state of Kansas out why because Kansas is gonna teach evolution in science
class now you’re probably thinking I simply don’t understand how was that
grounds for sewing somebody that’s like saying I’m
gonna sue the math class for teaching multiplication but there the actually explain their
argument is not the are you know the creation is really
intelligent design people for example where they say you know what sure teach
evolution but put us in their 20 please we want to
be in there too now these guys take a step further and they say but you can teach evolution at all because evolution is a religion yeah let that marinate but now I have some
quotes hear from them you’ll find them highly amusing quote
public schools promote a non the theistic religious worldview kinda contradictory
isn’t it how could you be a non PS take so a non-religious religious worldview try to wrap your
mind around that by allowing only materialistic or atheistic explanations to scientific
questions again it’s like a tautology you know
these guys the only allow scientific answers to scientific questions right and we only allow mathematical
answers to mathematical questions what’s your problem you know these guys
they only allow written answers to questions about essays when they tell you to write
an essay the only allow you to write it in in letters well what else the fuck you
want a ride in an hour minute what does that mean of course of course arm they say this state is
indoctrinating impressionable students in violation of the First
Amendment the teaching of evolution amounts to an excessive government
entanglement with religion and violates the rights well Christian
parents copes stated mission is to create quote religiously neutral schools that do not
promote pantheistic materialistic religions including atheism and religious secular
humanism I love that because there’s actually making the
argument and Bill Maher destroy this Bill Maher’s response was you’re arguing that abstinence is a sex position and that’s what
they’re saying no by not teaching religion and by
teaching science in the science class you’re actually teaching religion so I
explicitly following the establishment clause in the first amendment you are breaking the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment now get this it’s such a dumb argument and
they’re so French that dumb of course I its
advocates have called the lawsuit silly in frivolous but get this: even the baptist Joint Committee the baptist joint
committee says Coast argument quote makes no sense
at all and is like teaching no science at all when you lose up Baptist group for being
too far right-wing and too far Christian too far religious man you gone off the corner of the world you have not a shred of sanity
respectability left

  1. Keep religion in Sunday school in local churches and please leave the rest of us the hell alone.Evolution is a scientific fact as is the Big Bang. Please keep your ignorance to your churches and tax-payer supported religious schools. Thank you!

  2. Thanks! If evolution is a religion it's the only religion with evidence in its favor. That sounds like an oxymoron. Lol! Most people who deny evolution can't even accurately describe it.

  3. Lets not forget the people that science also killed.
    Faith, there are allowances in every lab experiment for "anomalies" therefore we take it on "faith" that the experiment was identical 😉 There is BS in science because humans are always on the take. There are monks credited in science. The genocide committed by the church was against the enemies of the state that they labeled witches aka protestants or wealthy land owners that they wanted to rob. I'm not defending religion 😉

  4. Don't feed the retarded troll with psychological issues 😉

    Liberal also means liberating but in America neither party are what they make out to be.

  5. You missed a fine shot sir…
    "or opposite of religion(except an antichrist or antiGospel)"

    Unless I'm very much mistaken the "antichrist" is also religion therefore not the opposite of.

  6. There's a difference between the use of the word "theory" in its colloquial sense & the scientific sense. Theories in science are not just a guess based on some vague idea someone had or a book they wrote. They are substantiated by independent evidence & peer-reviewed study. Scientific theories are constantly challenged & revised if problems are found. Creationism isn't science, it's unchanging doctrine & not subject to the same rigorous methodology. Calling it a theory in this sense is a joke.

  7. You don't know the opinion of "most atheists", you have no basis for this claim. Even if an atheist did say that to you, he/she is simply saying that science has a better method for finding out about reality than religion. That's not saying atheism = science. One can be an atheist without knowing or caring much about science at all, since all it requires is a lack of belief in theistic gods. One can also be a religious scientist, if science and atheism were the same, this would be impossible.

  8. "Marinade" is a noun; it's the liquid you soak food in, used similarly to a brine. "Marinate" is the verb form. Let that marinate.

  9. When I say "most atheists" talking about the hardcore atheists who go on forums or videos about atheism. As opposed to the atheists that don't give a fuck about any of the religion v atheism debate (and the ones who don't know anything about science).

    And I didn't say that you said "atheism=science"…im just saying theres a good portion of atheists who have said things like that.

    Its kind of offensive when they say that because I believe in Jesus and im also an electrical engineer.

  10. Your are incorrect mr. smart man…If they are describing evolution as A religion, they are not criticizing THAT religion ( even though implicitly they are)….But even if they did, they would be criticizing THAT religion but not religion.

    I am not defending them…nor do I agree with them….just correcting Mr. smart man with so many likes…lol

  11. Even with this clarification, you still have no basis to represent the majority of atheists who "go on forums or videos about atheism" as having that view. You also seem to have misunderstood what I was saying about the science = atheism comparison, I did not accuse you of saying I made it. I was referring to the statement "I don't need religion because I have science" and how that in itself does not imply that science and atheism are the same.

  12. Anyone who claims that evolution is a religion does not understand it. These 'religious' individuals are trying to make people who accept evolution just like them. The reason that I said they are criticizing religion is because it's not a religion.

  13. Religious upbringing? What gave you that idea? I grew up rather separated from the church. Thanks for assuming that though; It's always good to pre-judge people don't ya think?

    Oh and I'm assuming all the astrophysicists and other such scientists who have devoted to their lives to studying and understanding black holes feel like they are wasting their time then? They have no faith in their work because they know they'll be proven wrong at some point? I think Mr. Hawking would argue against that

  14. I'm done with churches in this country. Tax the fucking churches, treat them like businesses and at least let society get some kind of benefit from the mass delusion of so many.

  15. humm, you are worthless to have a conversation with. You don't have anything insightful to say, you don't read, you don't understand what was said, then you put words in my mouth and claim you have won the argument.
    What a worthless putts you are.

  16. I think you don't understand what faith means as a non-theist term. So here is the definition: Faith – confidence or trust in a person or thing: belief that is not based on proof.

    As you can see, science is inherently faith based. Instead of putting your faith in a deity and a book you are placing it in mankind and their ideas/writings. In order to believe science you have to have faith that it is right in the first place.

    Also, when did I put words in your mouth and claim to win the argument?

  17. I don't know why I bother with you as your arguments are so disjointed and you seem so dense but I'm listening to today podcast #129 from the thinking Atheist and at 37:30 they start talking about this subject.
    I hope this straightens your head out?


    37:30 Faith
    TTA Podcast 129: The Dogma Debate (with David Smalley)

  18. Let me get this straight. My argument is "disjointed" because you don't think that the word faith can exist outside of religion? The video you just told me to listen to LITERALLY said the exact same thing that I have been trying to get you to understand

    At aprox the 40 min mark they talk about the definition of faith and the semantics of the definition v.s. its usual use.

    So at this point we are "arguing" your definition of faith vs the dictionary's and you say only you are right.


  19. Dude having to reread something doesn't make someone stupid, your comment didn't make much since to me so it toke a little while.

  20. The problem with posting comments is sometimes the context is lost. I was being sarcastic. I didn't mean to offend you.

  21. I don't need faith because proof that it works is sitting in front of me. You too. It's called a computer. For it to function, science has to be right about how the universe works with extreme precision.

  22. Well now you're taking the conversation out of context…. or maybe you're being too specific… either way. We were talking about the science of existence. Not the science of computers. Besides that's as shallow and thoughtless as saying God exists because an house fly can fly.

  23. No, it isn't out of context. Nor is it too specific. You are searching for excuses to dismiss my argument.

    The science of existence is not different from computer science. The principles of electricity, for example, apply to circuitry just as they apply to lightning.

    I can prove that computers are the products of applied science. I can show you the relevant mathematics and build one in front of you. You cannot prove to me that flies were engineered by God.

  24. I hope the judge presiding over the hearing is secretly an atheist and destroys this group.
    Intelligent design/creationism/other religious "science" movement is NOT science.

  25. How so? Is it because I'm causing people to apply logic to their statements? And I don't mean logic as in which is right science or religion. I mean logic as true logic. If you were to take a logic class you would know that to have a sound argument you have to be able to back it with facts from other sources.

    That means no theories and no using science to prove science.

    I have never requested anyone to do more than accept the logical fallacy that the original statement contained.

  26. Actually, you ARE taking the conversation out of context. The original conversation dealt with the video which was regarding evolution. Evolution is the science of existence, or if you want to get technical, where we came from.

    The science of computers cannot explain the cosmos. Once you start drawing lines you draw them to theories which takes us back to square one.

    Oh and your circuitry/lightning analogy made no sense. You basically said computers work because electricity.

  27. just to clarify what I have been trying to say this entire time go watch "Is math a feature of the universe or is it a feature of human creation?"


  28. I don't know how to explain this to you more clearly, but there are not "different sciences". There is a single body of knowledge we've accumulated using science. What you're thinking of are different applications of it.

    If you need an example of something that wouldn't work unless evolutionary biology, specifically, were true, that's called a flu vaccine.

    A precise understanding of the characteristics of electricity at a small scale is necessary to design a working microchip.

  29. That's a little bit of an ignorant statement. It's also semantics however, so moving on.

    Also, using a virus as an example for evolutionary biology is wrong since… ya know. A virus isn't a living organism. However, again, semantics.

    My point remains that at science's core everything is based on theories and math. Show me a science that doesn't reference complex math or theories and I will concede.

    Maybe if you watch this you'll see where I'm coming from.


  30. Your video appears to be of a random internet person, not a scientist. Even so I will answer it. In the 1970s during the first controlled studies of psychedelics, many subjects witnessed "Aztec imagery" in their trips. The same geometric forms seen in Mayan, Toltec, Incan, etc. ruins. Some interpreted this as proof that those cultures had some connection with the divine. They were thinking about it backwards. Those cultures also had access to psychedelics, saw the same patterns and built them.

  31. So just because the guy isn't a "scientist" means what he says isn't valid? I'll source the information if you really want me to.

    As for your example could you explain what bearing that has on our conversation? All you did was point out an experiment with inconclusive and debated results. You saying "they were thinking about it backwards" is synonymous to saying "this is my theory." Soooo yeah. You didn't prove anything. Unless you were trying to prove my point. If you were then Kudos bro.

  32. >"So just because the guy isn't a "scientist" means what he says isn't valid?"

    That's right.

    >" I'll source the information if you really want me to."

    You have information which proves that the universe was created by God?

    >"As for your example could you explain what bearing that has on our conversation?"

    It is an example where human conventions (in this case visual patterns commonly appearing during intoxication) were misunderstood as being fundamental to the universe. As with mathematics.

  33. I never said anything about God or proving that He created the universe. Quit putting words in my mouth. What I was insinuating was that I could source the information in the video.

    Now, since it apparently requires a PHD and a job in the field to be qualified then your words are no more valid than his nor are mine. Coupled with your lack of logical argument, I give up. I'm not sure why I'm surprised by your mundane idiocy since this is the internet. You can keep any further drivel to yourself.

  34. HOW DARE THOSE LIBERALS TEACH MULTIPLICATION IN MATH CLASS!!!!! making up random numbers deserves equal teaching!!!!

  35. theory's are testable, if i'm not mistaken, so is math, complexity is in the head of the learner, i'm no mathmatician but i'm pretty sure our concept of numbers is precise enough we can broadcast worldwide and at the same time to everybody, we know numbers so well we've implemented them into our sciences, from geological occurrences to millennia of space and time, we have such a good understanding of numbers and thier place in our reality we can date ancient bones, and build beef. google it.

  36. A theory is testable in a sense yes. If that test fails then it is still a theory and if it succeeds then you have proven the theory fact. You can speculate and use complex math all you want but for the most part that never PROVES anything.

    This is because anything beyond basic algebra uses unreal and imaginary numbers. Even basic calculus does this. The problem with math is that it is used to define itself which causes a fundamental flaw in logic.

  37. (this is my second response) My statements were not saying that we don't claim understand math, nor were they that we don't know how to apply it to advance ourselves as a civilization. My point is simply that our understanding can only stretch as far as what is provable. Since math often uses math to prove more math we can't be sure any of it is correct.

    It's akin to the is light the absence of dark? Or is darkness the absence of light? If a tree falls and nobody can hear it does it make noise?

  38. you are asking philosophical questions, and they all lead to the same answer which is yes!

    it's fun to think, if nobody was here, would any of this exist (there's an idea that we may be in a VR simulation)

    light is invisible, only when it hits an object capable of reflection, refraction or interaction, can we detect its presence.

    as for math, (do this, no really) make up an object, give it a density and mass, then apply it to the 4 forces, the object WILL act as it should (feather and hammer)

  39. cause…….were off to see the wizard the wonderful wizard of (CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE WARDROBE)

    my religion is to keep you occupied!

  40. Actually those philosophical questions don't really have a real answer. This is because we can never prove one answer over the other so the answer of yes is assumed. The same thing happens with math.

    A seemingly logical formula is developed using imaginary numbers (the number i for example) and other variables we created. We assume that simply because it follows our made up rules that it is correct even though we have no way of proving it. Math is the Schrödinger's cat of science. Despite….

  41. (stupid character limits) anywho, like I was saying, despite being assumed correct numbers like i cannot be PROVEN correct (for now at least)

    Since that cannot be proven then we have to assume that we are right even though we could be terribly wrong. This same process applies to anything more advanced than our absolute numbers and basic algebra. Why? Because it makes sense, not because it has been proven.

  42. ok, i do understand where you're coming from, i really do, but the numbers are as basic as they can be, if i had in my hands a lonely apple (i'm trying to avoid counting), then that apple had a friend(another apple) come along, how many apples would there be.

    we can count atoms, but we can't locate and weigh them at the same time, it's either one or the other.

    numbers arn't just things we minipulate, the basics are good enough (apples, seeds, large things) to use as a base for anything!

  43. But the basics aren't good enough to explain the universe, black holes, quantum mechanics, a good portion of astrophysics, and a number of other things. That is the point I was trying to make. Now if you happen to know how to explain those things/prove them with only basic math then there are a TON of people who would love to talk to you.

  44. (2nd post)and with this knowledge of stopping a photon for nearly 1 minute is astounding, we can now study photons of light to better understand their properties. we don't have access to blackholes, we have seen them, but there's creatures on this earth we've never seen, ever.

    before we expect to know everything about our sciences, we will have to know everything about the earth!

    basic math is a principle starting point, not an absolute equation, we invented algebra to make basic math shorter.

  45. if it could be done with basic math, it'd be done by now.

    we can count with almost/fully absolute precision of silicone atoms.

    something that small is what helps our understanding, it takes a genius to have an idea, and even more geniuses to fine tune it.

    with blackholes, and our limited knowledge of their origin and physical properties,we have a pretty good idea about them, but without one to study, it's density and mystery will be lost into the future. quantum mechanics have stopped light.

  46. You just proved my point though. The complex stuff that people always argue about and treat as fact can't be proven as such because it uses theoretical math to explain it. You can claim it as fact as much as you want but until the unknowns and guestimates are removed from the math it will remain a theory.

    Now back to my original point, believing in a theory as if it is fact requires, by definition, some form of faith. Obviously not a religious faith but it requires it nonetheless.

  47. (2nd post) Saying otherwise is simply hypocritical and ignorant. Why? When you boil it down, believing in something scientific that can't be proven is like believing in a God that can't be proven.

    Using theories as "proof" is arguably no different than using a book like the Bible as "proof" ergo, it would require the faith that your un-provable ideals are right.

    Now when it comes to things like the Big Bang Theory, things like universal expansion and such can't be proven true (without using

  48. (3rd post) theorized math) any more than what you can prove anything nowadays to be an act of God. My entire point with the original context was to correct the original poster.

    They said science requires no faith, which is wrong. Claiming science requires no faith makes you no better than any religious zealot out there who claims they are right only on the basis that their holy text says so.

    It is also worth noting that claiming faith to only be a theist related term is asinine, as it isn't.

  49. ok, i see your stand point, you understand science as it is (i reckon you say yes) but you also question it's precision, i don't blame you, it's not that i don't have faith in science, it's that i believe the contents are as close to reality as understanding can go (right now).

    we know what 1 particle is, we know what an atom is.
    your right science will change, it will always be improved, but those original theories will always be right/interchangable

    we have reason to believe. not faith!

  50. But you're forgetting the definition of the word faith.

    Faith – confidence or trust in a person or thing: belief that is not based on proof.

    No matter how you cut it science has a faith element. If you are saying it doesn't simply because you have "reason" to believe then religion requires no faith either. "Reasons" are relative to the individual. Your reasons to believe in science most likely seem like rubbish to religious folk and vice versa.

  51. when i said reason to believe, i consider contexts like, if i was aware every plug socket could electrocute you, i avoid sticking my fingers in there, on the understanding that it will happen, the power may be cut but sometimes juice can stay a little while. it is my reason to believe falling off tall buildings is bad because i have seen gravity working and i know i could be hurt.
    religion believes things in faith, belief in heaven, angels watching, god on my side. there is no evidence 2 be tru

  52. Ah, I see what's going on. You're saying that religion vs science is an all or nothing deal? You're saying (hypothetically) that if I were religious, common sense and logic are out the window and I'm only allowed to "have faith" that I would die should I leap from a tall building?

    Its rather close-minded to assume religious folk think that way.

    And for corrections sake I'm not talking about common sense things like you've stated. I've been talking about the things that are brought up in

  53. (2nd post) science vs religion debates. When people talk about religion requiring faith and science not requiring it they are referring to the big questions. Questions like the "who, what, where, when, and how" of where humanity came from.

    They are NOT talking about whether or not playing in traffic blindfolded is gonna get you killed. You're making the mistake of assuming that religious people don't accept core sciences. Some SUPER fanatical people don't but those are the minority that

  54. (3rd post) you are often hearing about. Your average Christian, for example, wouldn't say "because God said so" if you asked them why they would die should they walk off a cliff. They would reply with something along the lines of "You'd die because you'd hit the fall and hit the ground?"

    Like I said, average religious folk don't refute core sciences. (basic chemistry, physics, etc.) Where they differ is in the complex questions that come later down the line that NOBODY can explain. Go find an

  55. (4th post) intelligent religious person (again, your average religious person, not a crazy fanatic.) and ask them what happens if they stick a fork in a wall socket. They'll most likely, to keep it simple, say you would get electrocuted. They may not know the extreme math/physics behind it or anything but they know you would get electrocuted. Those types of things aren't faith based in religions, at least not any I'm aware of. You have to realize that religions and their supporting text aren't

  56. (5th post) meant to be something that explains every aspect of life. The texts often referenced are basically just a "why and how" we are here. If they were meant to be used to explain things like electricity then religions would have died a long time ago.

    Now keep in mind I say this as your "average Joe" if you will. lol. I am by no means an expert on world religions. Like I said, they aren't meant to explain that. If they were I'm sure Jesus could be quoted saying don't impale yourself. 😛

  57. very well said, i'm not assuming religious people are stupid, but in the context of understanding versus belief, we understand the basics of almost everything, the 4 main forces and the bits between& i mean everyone, whereas faith makes you think a crime can be forgiven with confession, and when you die there's a pearly gate, we got here because the bible says so, and so on. these are practically required of a faithful person, but science is an understanding, not belief/faith. (that make sense?)

  58. (2nd) those forces can only be understood with numbers, no matter how basic or complicated, we don't know why we use MPH/KPH in cars but we know those numbers are reliable on measuring all senses of things from speed, to weight to position on the globe, we don't use numbers because they are easy we use them because relying on them is as simple as knowing what's right and wrong, we may survive a long fall, but chances and numbers say we are likely to die. numbers are trustworthy and repeatable.

  59. I think we are arguing apples vs pumpkins right now. Lol. You're talking everyday aspects of life and science. (electricity, speed, gravity, etc) Things that are, by most everyone despite beliefs, accepted as they are regardless if they understand the applicable science behind them.

    As for all that stuff you're absolutely right, that stuff requires no faith. It just IS so we know it all to work. My original comment on this video was in response to someone claiming science as a whole requires

  60. (2nd) ZERO faith. Which is both false and ignorant. He was claiming that if a theory is proven wrong it gets dropped like a bad habit. That is also wrong and if you think it isn't then do some research on Hawking and his Black Hole Theory… Anywho, you seem to be talking "simple" science where as I am talking "complex" science.

  61. regardless of how it started, i have enjoyed our chat, and just to be clear i was including other theory aspects, (music theory, ordriving theory) a theory has practical applications and can be demonstrated regardless of complexity. science is of no exception, otherwise we may need to revise our understanding of "complex" and "theory". the two seem to have a conflict. i see what your getting at, and have had fun, i think i will try to see things in the same light as you, and once again, thanks!

  62. There are some evidence for the evolution there whereas there are no evidence for the god hypothesis. Evolution fossil evidence beats superstitions and fairy tales hands down.

    There are no evidence for god the god hypothesis besides superstitions and arrogance to fill the evolution gaps with and evidence-less god.

    In this day and age, denying evolution is just a sign of being a sore creatard loser.

    Religion has got the naive by the balls.

  63. I have a lawsuit pending against my local school district and the PE classes to grant equal time to sitting on the couch and eating a whole tube of cookie dough. But the Physical Education teachers are acting like a bunch of Stalinists. Their religion of exercise can't be questioned at all or they freak out. Why not teach both sides? What are they so afraid of?

  64. Why is it that our courts including the Supreme Court in a number cases have ruled that creationism is not science – it is religion. In every single related case the courts have ruled against creationists and in favor of evolution. Here are a few related court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Dover v. Kitzmiller, Edwards v. Aguillard.

    As far as the scientific community, reputable educational institutions and the courts are concerned, the argument has long been settled. What is left is just chatter on internet and trade publication usually by ill-informed folks

  65. The Bill of Rights – Article 1 states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you have proof that evolution is religion, why dont you go to court and have the public schools banned from teaching the theory of evolution?

  66. Its time for some of you to look in the dictionary.

    religion (noun)
    1  the belief in a god or in a group of gods
    2.  an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

    The Theory of Evolution does not promote (or deny ) the existence of God.
    Therefore it is not a religion.

    If you are claiming that its a religion because it has no proof, then aren't you shooting yourself in the foot. Why should we believe your "religion" if you have no proof?

  67. Evolution can't be a religion. I can not think of a way in which some one who accepts Evolution as fact could interfere with children and then get the whole of Science to cover it up. 

    You can't turn Evolution into a religion until you get all the day to day practicality's  sorted out.

    If you don't believe in Evolution, how do you get punished for your non belief? Do we hit you over the head with "the origin of the species" or something?

    I don't know how you turn a theory that basically says "Random mutation plus natural selection equals Evolution" into a reason to discriminate against people who like to read comic books, or whatever.

    Charles Darwin died a natural death. I can't think of a way to put a spin on that to guilt trip you into accepting Evolution.

    If any body reading this can suggest some good ways to sort out all this stuff, then let me know. May be I can become the Evolutionary version of Jesus or something. Oh but of course, we have Dawkins!  Why hasn't someone found a prostitute to wash his feet yet? You see we are missing so many of those small details.

  68. I had a biology teacher in college who referred to evolution as scientific dogma (this was a pro evolution argument from a biologist who's work is based on evolutionary principles). That language bothers me to this day. Still not as messed up as this lawsuit though.

  69. Saying that you can't teach evolution in science class because it is a religion is like saying you can't teach algebra in math class because it is English.

  70. this dude is living proof to how insane atheist are. all of his retarded vids proves how dumb and brain dead and retarded he is. evolution is a religion deal with you lying scum.

  71. Of course Evolution is not a religion. It is simply a term to describe the ever changing and constant development of the human(and other) species. It's a theory being tested and studied everyday and in every way. Every respectable book of world history uses the evolutionary model to chronicle the beginnings of human life. That's just the facts.

  72. i promise i know more about evolution then you. and give me a call if you ever want to debate on your show. evolution is a religion.

  73. From Wikipedia, Pantheism: "-the belief that the Universe is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God"; Atheism: "-specifically the position that there are no deities." Okay, so…how does the two being together work?

    I'd say it's possible from that piece of their argument, that they (the people making the lawsuit) genuinely don't get that atheism really means what it says it does, no god or gods at all, so to them, believing in nature being able to follow an observable system of development which is pretty much a proven fact is synonymous to believing that the Universe is God. They're so religious, they don't fully understand that anybody else couldn't be in some way…

  74. I think the people are stupid for suing anyone over this but Evolutionism IS a religion. It is not a fact based system. It is not science!! Idiots!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *