Evolution is a Religious Issue

Shraf, do you beat your wife?Are the reports concerning you true?I am not going to get into inappropiate baiting discussions with you designed to divert the topic of the thread. If you have something to say, then say it.

quote:

---

I think in some ways YEC presents the most testable model out there

---

I will ask again - in what way is it testable?

Probably the last person at the forum you would want to ask that question, even though you worded it incorrectly we know what you mean!

An example, please. Give us the textbook the time and the place where speciation have been given as proof of evolution. I can say, yes, it is used as evidence, but not proof. I think I speak for every evolutionist here in saying that science is not about proof.By the way, it is also incorrect that we use microevolution as proof of evolution. Evolutionists almost never even use this term. Sure, let's redefine all of the terms we use, just to satisfy randman and the YECs. Sorry, but I think we all know what we mean when we talk about evolution.

We do? Please document this statement from someone here. Please quote Schraf or someone saying, 'this proves evolution!'. I know of no such instance. Please give a concrete example. Rand, you are very adept at making assertions, but you have yet to support them. Well, what do you think we are discussing here? You are simply playing semantics: the last refuge of a YEC. Is there an echo in here? I think I read this once before. I am still waiting for documentation. Until then, this is simply substance-free rhetoric. I'm glad you are so well-informed of evolutionist motivations. Too bad that you are incorrect. In fact, most evolutionist don't really care what you believe. They do, however, believe in teaching what is the best known and supported science on the issue. If you don't like it there are alternatives. Well, that cop-out tells us nothing. Come on, be honest. Tell us what you really believe. So you are willing to take gratuitous shots at someone else's ideas, but you won't put your own up for review. I find that intellectually cowardly."...we don't really know yet..." Face it Rand, there will never be enough information for you to make an explanation of the data. But don't worry, you are completely safe that way. Don't worry, we understand. You don't have to explain yourself here. I don't either. But you have told us exactly nothing over the last three paragraphs, except some lame excuses for not having a viewpoint.

Edge, are you stating that speciation by itself is not conclusive evidence for evolution?Moreover, would you say the fact speciation occurs does not equate that evolution is true?Also, you claim that people here and elsewhere do not claim that evolution is proven, that to suggest something can be proven is not scientific, and not proper science, correct? So in the quote above you say that "science" is not about proof, and that "every evolutionist here" agrees that science is not about proof. You rebuke me for using the "proof" terminology and are claiming no evolutionist speaks in these terms.But is that true? Let's look at a quote from another thread. http://EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt... -->EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...The truth is evolutionists try to have it both ways, in general, at least from what I have seen. They want to be able to, ad nauseum, assert that evolution is "proven" even beyond all reasonable doubt, even asserting at times that it is the most proven and verifiable and most successful theory in the history of science. That was said this past week on this forum, and in general, such wild overstatements and attributions of glory are ascribed to evolution all the time. Heck, the tone, language, arguments suggest more of someone describing a religious experience at times than a scientific theory.But then, they will often insist that speaking of proof shows a level of ignorance or some such. I mean why, hey, you must be a provincial chap not understanding that science does not speak in terms of proof or some such.But your words and thoughts show otherwise, that evolutionists do think and argue in terms of proof of evolution, and so I quit with such pretense and speak in honest language.Heck, Thor even followed up his comment of evolution being proven beyond all reasonable doubt with: http://EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt... -->EvC Forum: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...I am not trying to single Thor out because I don't see his attitude as isolated, but mainstream thought for evolutionists, but frankly, that doesn't pass the smell test. If you believe something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, you do not and perhaps cannot make room for any hypotheses that challenge that assertion, and you are highly unlikely to ever give alternative views a fair hearing to see if they are truly valid.If you are holding to the scientific method, then you have to always think that something is not proven beyond all doubt, and there can always be a chance that another hypothesis or theory could be more correct and replace the old one.I don't believe most evolutionists I have seen that argue for evolution in print and on the web do that. I don't see them holding to the scientific method, and ironically, the ones I think hold to it the least tend to the be the ones most likely to lecture others on how they are not following the scientific method, or speaking in language that follows the scientific method, etc...It comes off as hypocrisy and indoctrination to me.This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 02:32 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 02:35 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 02:37 AM

quote:

---

You cannot claim speciation is proof of common descent when it could just as easily be proof of YEC. If you want to say YEC is wrong because the earth is old, fine, but the whole argument that speciation proves common descent is totally specious on the face of it, and one reason I have to laugh.

​

Maybe the fundies are winning over large segments of the population not because they are brainwashing them but because the methods and approach and claims of evolutionists in arguing for evolution are unsound, illogical, and are based on wild overstatements!

---

You mentioned evidence of common descent in the above post, did you not? And you are appearing to doubt that evidence for common descent is reliable or strong, correct?By asking if you accept the accuracy of DNA paternity testing, I am attempting to learn if you generally accept the technology and Evolutionary theory used to determine genetic similarity and disimilarity in individuals.My next question, if you had answered in the affirmative, was to ask if you knew of any reason the same theory and technology couldn't be applied to the species level....and if it can be applied to the species level, it can be applied to the genus level....and if it can be applied to the genus level, it can be applied to the family level, and so on through suborder, order, and phylum.So, do you accept the accuracy of DNA paternity tests?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-31-2005 08:23 AM

Schraf, genetic research certainly is finally some stronger evidence for evolution, but the fact that evolutionists claimed it was virtually proven prior to that does not help your case, and this is the problem, evolutionists are always overstating the evidence.You are probably familiar with some arguments countering what you are suggesting. In the case of a paternity suit, we have an observable process that DNA studies sheds light on.But in the case of linking all of life back together, there are problems with that since there could well be alternative explanations for the genetic similarities. For example, one could claim that the similarities are due to similar authorship and not evolution.Take the works of a painter. His work seems to evolve over time, and you can see distinct patterns, colors, brush-strokes, subject matter, etc,....evolve over time, and you tend to see that works usually closer together in time appear to be more similar.But we know the paintings themselves do not evolve one from another, but exhibit similar traits (similar DNA forming those traits) because we have observed the process of creation in paintings. Same authorship thus explains the similarities, not evolution, for the paintings. Thus, genetic similarities can also just be evidence for monotheism or a single Creator instead of a multiple of gods.Another aspect to the DNA argument you put forth is whether genetic research shows the number, frequency, type, etc,...of mutations sufficient to produce, along with natural selection, the evolution of all of life, including in such degrees as to create seemingly irreducibly complex systems without some other force or unknown acting on the biological system to assist that development.I have read that the available data does not indicate that observable mutations are sufficient for this, but then again, I am not actually educated sufficiently in the field of genetics to be able to independently determine who is right in their claims here.My weight goes to the IDers, in part, because of the way I see evolutionists make claims in areas I do think I am able to assess. I have already made my observations known, but evolutionism seems to depend on indoctrination, from what I can tell.It may need not rely on indoctrination, that is true, but that is not what I have seen in the literature addressing this issue, in textbooks, on the web, in publications such as books, etc,...This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 01:31 PM

quote:

---

I think in some ways YEC presents the most testable model out there

---

How is this model testable? Please present examples. You have edged around the subject but never actually answered the questions.Two examples would be fine.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-May-2005 01:44 PM

I can support the question of the YEC model being testable.For example:

if it were true
• all of the stars would be within 6000 light years from the Earth. That has been tested and shown to be false.
• all of radiometric testing would show age under 6000 years. That has been tested and shown to be false.
• we would not find objects created more than 6000 years ago. That has been tested and shown to be false.
• we would not find examples of erosion that would take more than 600 years. That has been tested and shown to be false.
  

So the YEC model is certainly testable, has been tested and has been falsified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Don't confuse evolutionists on the web with the scienitists who do the science. While there are practising biologists on this board, many of the "evolutionists" here are interested and informed lay people.Nobody on this board is practising science when they talk about the evidence for evolution. They are describing it.The people who do the science are not necessarily the most adept at describing science. Hence the occaisional gaffe, such as use of the word "proof".And if I may digress slightly, the word "proof" can also be used in the sense of "tested". For example, an 80-proof liquor has been tested for an alcohol content of 40%. So, if it is occaisionally said that evolution is "proven", that can also mean that it has been "tested".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

There is no equating a 'belief' in evolutionary theory to a religion. And it doesn't matter whether you define this 'belief' as 'a theory that works' or 'the most likely scenario', or 'something that has to be true'. And there are two reasons.1. Evoutionary theory does not involve or require the existence of any deity, something shared by all religions.2. Evolution is not a directed process in any way - the theory rejects all inferences of teleology and works perfectly well without any. Teleology is another universal property of religions - the idea that there is a 'final purpose' for our lives and our actions and that everything plays out according to some master plan. In contrast, evolution is a highly contingent process, with chance playing such a large role that, if you could 'wind back the clock', pretty much nothing on earth would evolve the same way twice.The idea that evolution is some sort of religion is reactionary drivel from theists whose beliefs have been contradicted by particular inferences from evolutionary theory. They would love to get evolution on the same footing as religion so they could have a go at showing how spiritually unsatisfying it is as a religion. And we are all familiar with the most offending inferences:The importance of stochastic (chance) processes in evolution (denies teleology and the 'hand of God' in all things).Humans charing common ancestors with primates (denies man created in God's image).Finally, you can use inferences from evolutionary theory to address countless problems in applied biology and still be free to believe in any religion you wish - or none at all.

Ringo, I think "proved beyond all reasonable doubt" is not a gaffe, but an indication of the mind-set of evolutionists, which is why they are so hostile to even the concept of ID.EZscience, many religions do not require a belief in a deity. Pure Buddhism and Confucianism, for example, do not involve beleif in a deity, and some religions have forces, gods, and powers, but do not entail worship of a Creator (Voodoo/Santeria, witchcraft, Satanism, some forms of New Age, etc,..)You are just incorrect to assert religion requires beleif in a deity, especially in belief of a Creator. One could argue that atheist evolution though does believe in a creator, and that the physical universe itself created all things. I realize, of course, one can be a theistic evolutionists as well and think otherwise.Can you substantiate that teleology is theb exclusive property of religion. Teleology has been used in science. You are just wrong in your assertion here.But if you wish to deny evolution as religious, by use of redefining words, then substiture ideological indoctrination for religious to get the same effect.This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 04:43 PM

Perhaps, but they all require 'faith' in something don't they, whether it is an implicit or explicit deity or just some 'spiritual belief structure'. Science and Evolutionary theory don't require 'faith', they require evidence. And they are not above criticism, as you often imply, they welcome it, thrive on it, and improve as a function of it. But only if it is *valid* criticisn, not the unfounded type leveled by ID-theorists. It may not be exclusive to religion, but it is surely a recurrent phenemonon in most of the religions I know. But since religions are so variable, maybe we should rightly juxtapose evolution against Christianity specifically, since it is the Christian fundies and creationists that seem to have the big problems accepting the inferences of evolution and view it as some sort of 'counter-religion' (which it isn't). It is certain that Christianity espouses teleology and is centered around a deity. These are two big contrasts with evolutionary theory. This is another myth of ID theory.
Many early scientists who made valuable contributions also espoused teleological wrold views, no doubt, but that falls a long way short of teleology making a useful contribution to their science.
I venture that their scientific discoveries / contributions all have validity without the need for any teleological interpretations. I am not redefining evolution, rather trying to change your flawed perespective on it. Do you really think it constitutes 'ideological indoctrination' ? Evolutionary theory is testable on many levels, and provides falsifiable hyptotheses, neither of which can be said for any religion. Don't you think that there are millions of scientists out there ready to make a name for themselves 'debunking evolution' if it were possible to do so within the scientific method? Those who claim it to be false do so with disingenuous and underhanded arguments that hold no weight in the scientific arena. You need to accept that.But back to religion and definitions. Since you say I am 'redefining words', why don't you give me a clear and concise definition of 'religion' and from there I will endeavor to show you how evolution cannot be one ?This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-31-2005 04:10 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-31-2005 04:11 PM

If you take "proved" in the sense of "tested", as I said, then evolution certainly is tested beyond all reasonable doubt.As for hostility, the only hostility that I see is against evolution.ID remains only a concept until it actually does some science.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.