Why do I say this?
Before I explain, let me explain why I rightly call evolution a religion and not science. Creation Ministries International's 15 Questions for evolutionists web page declares: "Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
And if you honestly read that 15 questions page along with the suggested linked pages, you cannot but come to the conclusion that evolution is a religion and pseudoscience and it is certainly not science.
The Question Evolution! Campaign features 15 Questions for evolutionists. The page featuring the 15 questions for evolutionists states: (The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the prominent past evolutionist Kerkut; see introduction to Origin of life.)
The first question of the 15 questions is:
How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
See:
This first question is actually entirely irrelevant - Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, nor has it ever attempted to do so.I clearly pointed out that the high priests of the evolutionary religion PZ Myers and Nick Matzke maintain that the origin of life is part of "evolution" and gave this citation: Origin of life
Furthermore, I gave their evolutionary priest credentials of Nick Matzke, who is very high up in the church of Darwinism (and so is the evolutionist biology professor PZ Myers who runs a very prominent atheist/evolutionist blog). See: 4 reasons why atheism and agnosticism are weak, errant, secular religions. Also, a number of academic journals now indicate that global atheism/agnosticism will be shrinking in influence
So what do the high priests of the Neo-Darwinism religion say about the origin of life being part of the evolution construct?
The evolutionist PZ Myers wrote in his blog post 15 misconceptions about evolution:
“Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don’t understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.The pro-evolution Wikipedia gives this description of Nick Matzke: "Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial."
According to Nick Matzke, the origin of life is part of evolutionary history as can be seen in his Panda Thumb blog post What critics of critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack
Furthermore, Dr. Don Batten cites this in footnote 2 of his Origin of life article: "Dawkins tries to deal with the origin of life in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, where he claims to ‘prove evolution’. See Sarfati, J., The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 13, 2010, Creation Book Publishers."
In addition, Batten writes:
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”RationalWiki editors don't understand the fundamental tenets of their evolution religion
There you have it. High priests of the evolutionary religion and their evolutionist holy books clearly contradicting the RationalWiki editor base. Given the extreme vehemence of RationalWikians constantly asserting that their evolutionary religion is true and that creationist don't understand it or willfully lie, it is rather comical that they do not understand even the fundamental tenets of their religion.
You would think they would at least know the "first chapter" of their evolutionary religion which is the origin of life. It is like a Bible believer not knowing about the Garden of Eden or the Exodus or the Sermon on the Mount. It is like a Bible believer insisting that the Book of Exodus is the first book of the Bible. And if they don't understand the first chapter of their religion, then why should I believe they understand the remaining chapters?
3 questions for RationalWiki editors
1. Will the editors of RationalWikii admit their error?
2. Why aren't followers of the evolution religion aware of major proclamations of their own high priests?
3. Will the editors of RationalWiki pick up the gauntlet thrown down to them and finally try to rebut this origin of life article? I think it will be good for you to do so. If the editors of your wiki website are honest, you will all become creationists given the vexing problem the origin of life is for the religions of evolution and atheism. The origin of life loudly testifies the existence of a Creator. That is why you are all absolutely desperate to decouple the origin of life from evolutionary "history".
I can imagine the cognitive dissonance that must be going on at RationalWiki right now. RationalWikians utterly failed to satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists. They couldn't even get past the very first question.
Other resourcesQuestion Evolution! Campaign
15 Questions for evolutionists
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15
Refuting evolutionEvolution's Achilles' Heels
