Believing things based on evidence is different to believing them based on blind faith and religious indoctrination. I know the best you can do is to try and equate the two (as your belief system is unsupported by any evidence), but you must realise by now what a pathetic waste of time it is.
Are such beliefs as I listed really "based on evidence":
As I stated previously, "Are things such as "life coming from non-life" really "backed by evidence" or instead beliefs held by faith about the unobserved past (and even held against much evidence)? Well written criticism of such beliefs are available, and well documented. Persons who believe such things would do well to examine their beliefs from such resources, keeping in mind the claim (made by most non-theists) that the "burden of proof" is on the advocate of any belief system), not on the critic. One can then determine (perhaps) if the non-theistic belief system advocates have really proven their beliefs beyond a reasonable doubt, or if they are instead speculative, or even against the evidence."
The following are some of the resources:
The Book The Biotic Message:
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
Preface
1. Evolution vs. the Biotic Message
- Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
- Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
- Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
- Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
- Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
- Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.
2. Naturalism vs. Science
- Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
- Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
- Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
- Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
- Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
- Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
- Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
- Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
- Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection. more: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
A critique of the RNA hypothesis by former prominent evolutionist author Dean Kenyon:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
by Kevin L. Anderson
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm
The book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome" (written by a Cornell professor)
http://www.creationresearch.org
"The central axiom of evolution is that natural selection acts upon mutations to provide the genetic mechanism for common descent. However, Dr. Sanford, a former researcher at Cornell University, challenges that there are many reasons why this axiom is not a reasonable mechanism for evolution. He demonstrates that various phenomena, such as Haldane’s dilemma, show that mutations create a genetic burden that natural selection cannot compensate. Furthermore, because there are many more mutations than previously thought, the health of organisms is steadily declining, not evolving. This well written book is geared toward the educated layman and deals with many current aspects of genetics."
