The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof

from the meriam webster online
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
)

quote:

---

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (

​

2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

​

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

---

Can we agree that we are not talking about definition 1 at all?If all it takes to say that one has faith is to believe with stong convitions then faith is easy isn't it? So maybe, in this context we are not talking about 3 in the general way.It comes down to definition 2 then.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof and
complete trustSince we have "proof" in the sense of evidence for evolution we aren't just taking it on faith and since it is examined, changed and reexamined over and over it is obviously not taken on complete trust. It is just trusted very highly.What is it about science which is taken on faith? For the bejillionth time there is {bNO SUCH PRESUPPOSITION[/b]. Try reading that sentence very slowly to see if you get it. Science can not deal with the supernatural because the supernatural is by definition not something you can touch with any of the tools of science. Science only deals with the natural. It has no assumptions about things it doesn't deal with. Who is this "they"? Haven't you already been told more than once that many scientists are believers? "They", whoever the heck they are, don't proclaim any such thing. Some individuals who happen to be scientists may but then they aren't doing science. You don't know what the origin of the universe involves. You have no clue about any of the physics. You never will have. You have nothing to say on the topic that makes any sense at all.Besides the topic is the religious nature of evolution not cosmology. Stay on topic. Oh, do "they"? Care to spell out what the presupposition and framework is? No it isn't "likewise". The conclusions have to take in all the evidence available. When some of the evidence demonstrates that your ideas are wrong you can give up on the evidence that is in support. Once it's thouroughly wrong it is wrong.Creationists don't do that. And who was there for the flood? How will that be repeated? This also has been gone over before. We make decisions without haveing "been there" all the time. To suggest otherwise is silly and makes the person using that argument look both foolish and desparate.When something happens for which there were no direct eyewitnesses it is perfectly normal, natural and accepted to use the evidence left to draw conclusions about what happened. There is evidence it is not simply taken on faith.

(deleted duplicate post -- even if it was worth saying twice )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-16-2004 12:38 AM

Thanks for the tip. Hard to know who around here has been spouting the same stuff for ages without listening to refutations, and who hasn't...
Always worth mentioning once though I reckon.

---

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

quote:

---

A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals. It can be anything thats a belief system.

---

Then, out of curiosity, would you call adherence to the theory of gravity a religion? Copernicus's heliocentric theory? Perhaps the idea that the earth is round? Or, to move from scientific realms, adherence to the old "cult of domesticity"? Support of, say, mercantilism, or Marxism, under the belief that it is the best system? Pacifism? Insanity, even (or at least a form which causes someone to believe they see/hear things that aren't there)?

quote:

---

Since evolutionists do not accept creation evidence (Not because its not evidence they found the same evidence remember just interpreted differently) but because it does not fit there ideology.

---

Without going to much into the inbalance of evidence as I am limited on time and want to avoid going off-topic (there are plenty of topics on the subject anyway)... It's not simply that scientists don't accept creationist "evidence" - it's also that even with all the evidence in the world creationism still wouldn't fit the basic requirement of scientific theory that it be falsifiable.The simplest way to explain falsification (the way that made most sense to me, at least, when I first learned about it), is the example provided by Douglas Theobald here. Search for "solipsism" on the page to find what I'm talking about. Basically, solipsism is the idea that reality is the product of one's mind and that the self is the only truly existent thing. While it could be true, form-fitting all evidence no matter what, it would not be considered scientific because no evidence that anyone could ever find would be capable of disproving it.By the way, I don't think that it's the theory of evolution that requires that something arose from nothing - it simply explains how, once something was there, it became another something.{Edit: Was busy in another window, didn't even think to check if anyone else had posted yet... Bah, you see what happens when you type slow? }This message has been edited by Morte, 05-16-2004 01:08 AM

Hello, almeyda.I was hoping to get a response from someone such as yourself. I think you won't be surprised that I don't agree with your points. I have written my reasons in my original post why I don't believe that evolution is a religion. You really haven't commented on anything that I said. However, I do have some comments on some of your statements.

quote:

---

A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals.

---

But then what is a religion? I guess you answer it here:

quote:

---

It can be anything thats a belief system.

---

What do you mean by "belief system"? I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Is that a belief system? Does that make it a religion? If so, then what isn't a religion? If every belief is a religion, then why have the word? If it means the same as "belief" then is seems superfulous. I don't believe this is what you mean to say.

quote:

---

Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists.

---

Science is the study of the natural world through the verification of hypotheses by comparing predictions of the hypotheses with observations made in the real world. Is it possible to study the supernatural with this method? What do you mean by the supernatural? I have some more question in this regard, but I need you to clarify before I ask them.

quote:

---

Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?

---

Who proclaims that God does not exist as a fact? It is true that I don't believe in God, and in fact it is true that I believe that it is a fact that God does not exist. But where have I ever claimed this is more than a belief on my part? Who proclaims as a fact that God does not exist? More to the point, who offers evolution as evidence that God does not exist?Also, where does it say in the theory of evolution that there is no God? You are aware, aren't you, that there are many people who believe in God and accept the theory of evolution as a correct description of the real world?

quote:

---

There [sic] presupposition.

---

My presupposition? I used to be a fundamentalist Christian and a creationist. My presupposition was toward creationism. But the logic of evolution and the evidence managed to work itself through my prejudiced mind to convinve me that creationism is factually wrong.

SIDELINED -

quote:

---

Faith is the maintenance of a position regardless of the lack of evidence.

---

Actually this is blind faith. Your getting the two mixed up. Evolution is blind faith as they cannot explain or repeat the so called big bang origin. Creation is well passed all this as they are basing it on Gods word. And you say how can it be faith if you can abandon it? Well that isnt neccesarily true. I religion/belief system can be abandoned anytime you want there are no rules saying you must not abandon your faith no matter what evidence there is. I and all other creation scientist would no doubt drop creation if it was not making sense and evolution was fact and had overwhelming evidence. Unfortunately the fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory fact. So once again there is faith involved. It is a religion that evolutionary scientist have adopted. It is a form of historical science where the world is a natural world therefore things have evolved. This is their belief their supposition their theology their framework. They use the evidence to build upon there belief. Just as creation build upon there belief. It is not science vs religion it is one form of science vs another form of science.JAR - Yes you are right science does not require faith. Particularly practical science. Unfortunately evolution is not general science but a form of historical science. Where evolutionary scientist must observe the present and give hypothesis,theories,opinions,evidence interpretation and discover what an evolutionary world would have been in the past and how could it have evolved, is there evidence for it etc. This is there belief and it requires faith because it is not all based on emperical evidence (As puntuated equilibrium has shown)and several other evolutionary opinions which are still just theory & based on assumptions & opinions of evolutionary scientist. Yes of course it is based on observation. Observation of the present that is. For example - Evolution (not general science but evolution, a form of historical science) suggests life evolved from a primordial soup at some point in time billions/millions of yrs ago. But such an event is beyond scientific proof. Scientist believe making life evolve from non life would prove evolution but this would only prove that intelligence is needed to make life. So in essence the theory of evolution has yet to leave the first stage. It has yet to make such an advancement. Once life has evolved it is very simple to progress using natural selection and evolution. So it is very clear that at the "very least" the origin of evolution is still shrouded in mystery therefore requires blind faith and chance against all odds.CRASHFROG - I can almost promise you that no matter what evidence evolution finds it will never abandon the theory of evolution. It is the backbone of humanism and humanistic philosophy. This theory has given the world an alternative to God sets the rules. It has taken over our schools,universities,media etc. And any alternative is outlawed by the rules. This is just my opinion of course but i do not believe evolution will ever be abandoned no matter what the evidence. The fossil record was a problem well now we have puntuacted equilibrium etc. Many evolutionists today and there theories "breakdown" darwins original theory and other evolutionary ideas in order to make some form of evolution fit the facts. Evolution is a foundation to many people as the Bible is for christians this again is more evidence for the religious nature of evolution (Again not undermining the theory of evolution). This foundation becomes the only foundation for ideas about theology,philosophy,ethics. And although evolution may not be directly responsible for this is a different issue. Humanist and evolutionists adopt the theory as there own belief and religion. You say religion by definition is supernatural but this is definately not true.

quote:

---

Science isn't a part of the supernatural debate. That's why it can't ever be religion

---

Only your willingness to refuse to accept the religious nature of evolution will stop you from calling it a religion as it is not true that religion has only things to do with God but is anything in which you believe. Evolution speaks on origins,history etc. Therefore is a foundation to the belief of an evolutionist,humanist,athiest etc.KENT -

quote:

---

The theory that we all evolved from a common ancestor, is in itself scientific, because it is potentially falsifiable, and lends itself to testing.
Again, no faith required, only trust in the scientific method.
The evidence for this theory is ample, and again, I require no faith to accept this as evidence, only trust in science

---

If this has not been proven. If the missing link is still missing how can you not require faith?. Since its not proven what are you basing your belief on? The evolutionists who says dont worry one day we will find the proof?. This is faith! More over it may even be blind faith. Evolution is a theory but you are getting it confused with modern practical science that we can use in the present using our 5 senses. Evolution is a theory about the past. If these theories have so much evidence that would not be theory but fact. So to this point you may have some evidence but not all. Your comment on gravity again you are confused with practical operational science. We can jump of cliffs in the present to prove our theory to be fact. Can we make nothing become everything in the present? Can we see animals evolving into different kinds? can we observe the missing link? All this is based on the theory of evolution. Your evolutionary theory requires faith and your willingness to accept it into your life as your belief. If you are an athiest than this is your religion this is what you believe. Evolution is your foundation and only foundation to back up your claim that the world is natural and no supernatural exists. (Yes there are christian evolutionists but this is a whole other story).

quote:

---

The closest I can come to this "Nothing Becoming Something" you speak of is the Big Bang, and the Big Bang has no connection to the theory of evolution whatsoever.
So again, no faith required for evolution. We could of course discuss the possibility that believing in the Big Bang is a religion, but that's a whole other topic alltogether

---

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution? Without it evolution cannot occur!.How can your theory survive when the big bang or origins have not yet been established or proven? You have jumped ahead a little bit here and saying it has no connection to evolution is very illogical in my mind as it is just as important for the theory of evolution than anything else. You mention the possiblity of big bang being a religion well you are getting very close to the truth.NOSYNED - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" <<< There it is!. Thats what ive been trying to say. Since so many evolutionary opinion and theories are still unproven they classify as a religion. Once again this does not undermine your theory just proves that it is a belief system which one can continue to build his evidence upon. No different to creation scientist (same credentials same degrees same Phds same science) Just different frameworks. Unfortuantely the majority has now very much evolutionized and therefore it is played to the full extent as fact,pure general science,creation is not science. All this simply is not true. "THEY" is evolutionists. You asked what the presupposition is? Well its the fact that the world is natural therefore evolved somehow. This is the foundation to build upon. No supernaturalism exists. Species gave rise by natural selection, survival of the fittest,evolution etc. This is there theory and belief. This is the framework they begin with. Creation start with a different framework. Exactly no difference between the 2. Except for the biased man who accepts only evolution as real science and creation as just religion. When they are both science and both are religious. Creationists do not accept evolutionary ideas as evolutionary scientist do not accept creationists ideas. They are both very biased. But we must understand that EVOLUTION HAS NOT PROVED CREATION WRONG. Even with the billions of yrs compared to the 6,000yrs creation still stands tall among evolution. As evolution also stands tall. But why are they so inline when there theories totally contradicting each other? Well the truth is the both found the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE! All they did was interpret it to there framework as i explained before. The advantage creation has is they are already passed origins and they also have Gods word on it. So it really is a matter on which one is truth. Not is creation science is evolution religion bla bla bla. We all should be way passed this stage. You asked who was there for the flood. Well we have Gods word on it. We have the countless great flood stories around the world and of course we have the overwhelming flood evidence from real scientist using real science just a different framework. This evidence must not be proved wrong because of what evolution has proven they are both theories. Except one is basing it on opinion while the other is Gods word.MORTE - The theory of gravity is not a religion (unless someone out there really really belives in this as there religion???) because it can be tested in the present. Millions of people have experience the power of gravity. It can be proven fact. Evolution which is based on assumptions about the past cannot be proven therefore to some degree (Yes they have evidence but it is not fact) must rely on faith. There is no limit to what a religion can be..Nosyneds example>> belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs". You dont think this plays a little relevance to the theory of evolution????.And you say creation evidence is not accepted as it does not fit the scientific criteria. Actually it does not fit the evolutionary criteria which is today the only theory to the origins of the world in todays mainstream. Every child is now indoctrinated through school and university in evolution is fact, it is the only science, creation is not science & cannot be proven & does not fit the criteria. These rules have risen from evolution and the rules of the game.NO SUPERNATURALISM! not the rules of science.

quote:

---

By the way, I don't think that it's the theory of evolution that requires that something arose from nothing - it simply explains how, once something was there, it became another something.

---

Yes and if the big bang did not happen would evolution have happened? probably not and if the chances of life arising from nothing are slim and the evidence for big bang speculative? Well then it makes theory of evolution very very unstable. Therefore again requires faith."Something that is believed especially with strong conviction = Evolution. "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof = Evolution (Yes there is proof but it is a theory only.CHIROPTERA - Technically yes all those things can be religion. Its an individual choice. Noone is going to tell you what your religion or belief must be. Star wars is a religion to some people. As is a sport. There really is no limit. It can get riduculous of course but its an individual choice to make what to believe in. And i dont know why we have the word. Its just a word.

quote:

---

Science is the study of the natural world through the verification of hypotheses by comparing predictions of the hypotheses with observations made in the real world. Is it possible to study the supernatural with this method? What do you mean by the supernatural? I have some more question in this regard, but I need you to clarify before I ask them

---

This is the science of evolution not the general science. Creation scientist can use the evidence and check if it is consistant with what God says. If it is (for example evidence of a flood,animals stay in there own kind,design in nature and animals,no evolutionary heritage evidence etc etc etc) consistant with what God says we can say yes just like God said therefore we can trust in God inwhatever he says. This is science using the supernatural. It does not prove his existence but if it proves we can trust every word he says than its proof we can trust in God. This is the science of creation. Its normal real science observing the present using Gods word as a bases. Any theory about science only dealing with natural worlds has derived from the rules of evolution which rules almost all scientific communities and education systems worldwide. If evolution is fact this can very strongly contradict Gods word. If the earth evolved on its own there is no need for God or his rules. The theory of evolution can prove god does not exist to a degree. You asked who uses evolution to prove god does not exist. Well we can start with humanism. They believe man is just a continuation of biological evolution. Theres also athiest who believe no god exists. There is any other belief that uses evolution as a foundation and say proudly that there is no deity!.

Nonsense. Not everybody's like you, Almeyda. Not everybody takes a position of rabid dogmatic acceptance, like you do.I've given you examples of what would falsify evolution in other threads. If anyone could provide examples of those things we'd have to abandon the theory, and we would. Who cares? The humanists will find another theory, I'm sure. They'll get over it. In the meantime us scientists will do science, and that means rejecting positions that have been falsified by observations. Again, nonsense. There are plenty of scientific alternatives to evolution. We just don't what they are, yet.What you get all sore about is that the rules are about rejecting unscientific alternatives, of which creationism is one. Sorry, chief. If you're going to do science you gotta play by the rules. If you refuse to make creationism scientific, then it's never going to be science. Like I said, not everybody is like you, Almeyda. The rest of us are scientifically honest. Says you. The people who write dictionaries, who would be presumed to know what words mean, say otherwise.Sorry but I'm going with them on this one. Religions are inherently referential to the supernatural. Otherwise "religion" can mean anything, and I'm not about to let you redefine words as you see fit.

I suggest that you take a step back and try to state and make your case. Most importantly you need to go back to the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread since it is clear that your arguments here stand or fall by your ability to answer the points raised there. If you cannot support the specifics discussed there then you have no grounds for the more general claims you make here.Some points you need to take into account:1) Many christians accept evolution as scientific - including the vast majority of those who are scientists working in relevant fields.2) The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution - as should be quite obvious the high energy physics relating to cosmology has very little to do with Earthly biology. To insist that biological evolution relies on the Big Bang is to say that the ONLY two ways that the Universe could come into existence are the conventional scientific view or the YEC 6-day creation view. While the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is such that there is no widely-accepted alterantive within science there are numerous possiblities for Divine creation (including views which accept the Big Bang).3) The beginning of life is also not properly part of evolution. Since evolution requires certain characeristics - notable replication - the origin of those characteristics is outside of evolutionary theory. And even if God did create the first life, exolution could still proceed from there. Unless you wish to insist that God is incapable of creating life with the capacisty to evolve.4) Evolution is not the foundation of humanism and never was. Evolution offers a scientific explanation for the biological life we see but it has little relevance to humanist ethics (perhaps the most important thing it can offer on that ground is the simple affirmation that all humanity is a single species).5) evolution can be and is being tested in the present. While the changes we can see are relatively small (not surprising given that we have only a few decades of limited observation) there is no doubt that natural selection works, that mutations can and do increase the range of potentially useful variation within a species and that populations can become incapable of interbreeding.6) "Evolving into different kinds" is not a useful criterion. By the only available definition of "kind" all related species are the same "kind".7) I strongly advise looking into the history of science. The Young Earth Creation view had completely collapsed as a scientific proposition by the start of the 19th Century because the evidence was so strongly against it. The mainstream scientific view on the other hand was built up based on the evidence.

Relgion cannot be taught in US schools, science can.The US court system has repeatedly found Evolution to be science and Creationism to be religion.McLean v. Arkansas Board of EducationThe only people who claim that Evolution is religion and that Creationsim is science are fundamentalist Christians, and they are wrong.

Please submit any documented evidence (from a non-creationist source, since "they" tend to make up definitions for words "they" don't understand) that supports that the big bang is in any way connected with ToE. How do we know that the bible is god's word? What does god have to do with common descent with modification? Chiroptera said in post 20 that:

quote:

---

Also, where does it say in the theory of evolution that there is no God? You are aware, aren't you, that there are many people who believe in God and accept the theory of evolution as a correct description of the real world?

---

I am one of those people. So are many others; evolution no more affects my faith than observed weather patterns. Interesting. You speak for ALL other creation scientists? Do they know that you speak for them? If so, and all you need is evidence, then what is the problem? Care to elaborate? What do you expect to find in the fossil record? I spoke to a guy that told me if the Earth was old, and fossils were 'real', then we the ground should be nothing but fossils; that they should be erupting out of the ground! lol! That one gave me a brain cramp. I asked him and I ask you, can you define in layman's terms the conditions that need to exist before something dead can become fossilized? {Sorry about topic drift, but I am not sure almeyda understands the definitions of the very subjects he is refuting} Are you saying that the world is not a natural world? What is it, a supernatural world(whatever that means)? If so, and we are living in world that is full of science-violating-miracles, what are they? I'd really, really like to see them. What then, is the point of science? Wait; you started this by saying evolution is not science but a religion. You then state that the bible (god's word to you) is science AND that evolution is also, science .
Which is it? What does "another form of science" mean? Can science take on different forms?

A religion can be defined as a worldview. And a world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement that provides an understanding of the world, God, mans understanding of the world etc. This also applies for worldviews that understand that the world is natural and no God exists. For the naturalist, evolutionist, athiest, humanist etc. Evolution is the ultimate means of perception so therefore the means of gaining knowledge is in the theory of origins, why are we here, what purpose, social and moral issues etc. Evolution is the foundation of the religion of the people involved with such thinking. Why has modern day scientific communities ruled out creation? The truth is what many of you have already said. Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it. But by this definition science cannot render judgement on the theory of evolution either. One time only historical events that seem impossible in the present fall outside the parameters of scientific methods then they cannot be observed, tested, or falsified. So accordingly neither creation or evolution is strictly "scientific". They are both forms of historical science which weve discussed are based heavily on presuppositions about the past,biasness and a theology or framework to build upon. Still many of you continue to call evolution science and creation just religion. All evolutionists who believe evolution is fact and science have clinged dogmatically to a numberof ideas and theories that are not grounded in scientific fact (spontaneous generation, natural selection, puntuacted equilibrium, big bang, mutations & adaptations etc). All these falls into the hands of a belief system. A religion. Alot of you seem willing to refuse to accept the religous nature of evolution. (And you said science can only be taught in school well since evolution is natural and since there is no other alternative then supernaturalism creation cannot be taught). And evolution is taught frequently as fact & the only form of historical science which is just not the case.

Almeyda,A religion may very well be a world-view. But a world-view isn't necessarily a religion, a world-view is more accurately described as a philosophy that may include religion. Therefore religion cannot be defined as a world-view, rendering the rest of your post moot.Your basic tactic is to attempt to expand the definition of religion so far that it encompasses evolution. In which case electrons, atoms, electricity etc. are religious icons as well. You have rendered the word "religion" in such a way that it has no meaning that is consistent with any recognised definition.If you think explaining rainbows via differential speeds of light relative to their frequencies in different media is religion, go for it. But even other creationists are beginning to look at you in a funny way. Science doesn't have to directly observe, it has to have evidence. Your definition is incorrect, not that it's a defintion, of course.Science cannot TEST NOR FALSIFY the supernatural. But it can do the same for evolution. I've given you a whopping post to read regarding cladistics & stratigraphy that tests the very thing you say can't be.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No, it can't.Certainly a religion can inform a worldview, or provide one. But it's possible to have a worldview that has no relationship to any religion.Science is such a worldview. The method it provides for examining the world is the scientific methodology, which is not religious in nature. For the same reason we've been telling you we rule it out - it's not true. It's false. We know that because it's contradicted by the evidence. Right, that's because that's what they are, as we've shown. It's you who keeps repeating the contrary without support. You're confused again - it's you who's doing that. You can't seem to distinguish between the way you believe something and the way we believe something.You believe stuff because it's what you want to believe. We believe in the things the evidence supports. I honestly can't believe you don't understand that, so I don't see why you keep lying about us.As evolutionists, we only have belief in the model as far as the evidence shows. If the evidence showed evolution to be false, we'd abandon it in a heartbeat. We'll even tell you what it would take to prove that.On the other hand, you refuse to tell us what would cause you to believe creationism is false. I can only believe it's because nothing would. That's why we're honest science-minded folks, and you're a liar who keeps saying we believe the same way you do. Right. We refuse to accept that which is not true.Evolution is a fact. It's also a theory. At such time as the evidence proves otherwise, we'll change our minds.What evidence would disprove creationism for you, Almeyda?

Almeyda, you wanted this thread because supposedly you had points that you needed to make for the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread. But so far all you are doing is making assertions - many of them highly questionable - and without offering anything in the way of support.In contrast the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread was - eventually - actually getting down to discussing evidence.It seems to me that you've got it quite the wrong way around. If you can come up with some specific points that you can actually support in the other thread then you can use those to support your claims in this thread. As it stands it looks like you were either hoping to evade a discussion which you are not equipped for - which also means that you have no sound basis for your assertions in this thread either - or you were simply hoping to hector us into accepting your opinions.I strongly suggest that you pick some specific relevant point and support it - going back to the "Peer Review Conspiracy" thread would be a good idea since there are substantive posts awaiting your reply there. You have to go beyond repeating your opinions and then expressing surprise that people don't automatically agree with you.

There is no such thing as Historical Science except in the minds of the AIG folks. That is straight from Cliff. Even Coach won't buy that one.By the way, have you ever been down into a deep canyon?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion