Rev. David Rives: Evolution is a Religion

We haven’t had one of these for a while, and this one is worth a moment or two. It’s a new video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

The rev’s latest is titled Is Evolution Science…Or Religion? What a great question! To answer it, the rev turns to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The definition he gives is the fourth in the dictionary: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ”

To get to that, he has to skip over and ignore definitions that don’t serve his purpose, like “the service and worship of God or the supernatural,” and “commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.” He likes definition number four. And he never bothers to give a dictionary definition of science.

The rev explains that evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. You didn’t know that was part of biology, did you? The rev knows. They also believe that humans evolved over millions of years. But none of those are facts! Science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. No one witnessed those things, and we can’t reproduce the Big Bang in the lab. We can’t create life either, despite “millions” of attempts.

Believing in that stuff, says the rev, requires faith. And evolutionists hold to their faith with ardor. That fits the definition, so obviously it’s a religion. You can’t argue with the dictionary!

The video is only a minute and a half long, Go ahead and click on it — if you want to know how foolish you really are.

Afterwards, feel free to use the comments as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Rev. David Rives: Evolution is a Religion

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    I think he shot his full argument there. He really needs a definition for the word ‘believe’.

  2. Response to Rev. David Rives: Evolution is a Religion: Do pigs fly?

  3. Rev. Rives, let’s put aside our petty name calling. If you promise to stop calling Evolution a religion, I promise to never call Creationism a science.

  4. Merriam Webster also gives us this useful defintion, Rev. Rives:

    Fool: (n.) a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person

  5. So, if science is a religion, when does it start getting tax breaks?

  6. What are these “millions” of experiments?

  7. john zande asks:

    What are these “millions” of experiments?

    Oh, come on. You know. There are millions of them!

  8. Oh, those millions, the one’s over there!

  9. “The rev explains that evolutionists believe in the Big Bang.”
    OK, I am going to defend the rev. Yes, I am very sure that every single person accepting the validity of Evolution Theory also accepts the validity of the Big Bang. He is right.
    For a splitsecond.

    “No one witnessed those things”
    We don’t have eyewitness accounts of the great-great-great parents in the 30th degree giving birth to the next generation of the rev’s ancestors either. So once again I conclude that the rev is not a human being but an alien.

  10. I’ll believe evolution is a religion when scientists don’t have to pay taxes, when scientists receive taxpayer dollars through the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, when scientists get the federal pastor’s exemption (substracting housing costs from taxable income), when scientists and science labs are exempt from all zoning laws under RLUIPA, and when scientists get to molest kids for free, and the cops decide to look the other way and say, “We’ll let the scientists handle that amongst themselves.”

  11. “Science” isn’t the only word he’s using a strawman definition for; I’m no scientist, but it seems to me that he’s also taking “repeatable” out of context in suggesting that the Big Bang and evolution must be duplicated in the lab to be scientifically valid theories. It’s not the processes themselves that must be repeatable, but the tests used to support (or falsify) the theories about them.

    When Rives can come up with a test for “goddidit!” that can be universally applied under specified conditions (including falsifiability as a first principle), I’ll allow him the equality between science and religion that he’s yearning for. Until then, all he’s doing is trying to drag science down to the level of religion; which suggests that he knows the real difference between them that he’s so desperate to erase.

  12. I want to LOL at this dimwit, but I can’t because he is not dim.
    He, like Rush, is smart and knows his target audience and knows how to hit their buttons. And his audience is not dim but scarey in their gross stupidity in basic science and math and they VOTE!!!!

  13. I guess when one doesn’t have a prayer at a better explanation one has to resort to idiotic things like “evolution takes more faith.” It gets even more comical when they say more faith than what?