The Truth About Evolution and Religion

Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.

Hi dkroemer,This type of self promotion is considered as spam here. This is why I have hidden it.You seem to be interested in discussing the evolution/creation issue. I would propose that you could write an opening post about maybe your most complete argument/point of view, and I could then promote it for discussion.

---

- EvC Administrator -Understanding through Knowledge and Discussion

Evolutionary biology concerns only the evolution of the human body, not the soul. Also, natural selection only explains the adaptation of organisms to its environment, not common descent.It is true that biology textbooks don't mention the human soul. However, science textbooks also don't mention free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings. It is understood that human rationality, the soul, God, and intelligent design are not scientific concepts and don't belong in a biology textbook.While many writers, even science writers, think natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from single-celled organisms to chimps, no professional biologist says such a thing. In my opinion, the so-called debate or "controversy" about evolution is pseudo-science and prevents people from believing in the Bible and the Koran.

---

David Roemer

Thread copied here from the The Truth About Evolution and Religion thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi dkroemer, and welcome to the fray.I understand you are inordinately proud of your youtube video.Unfortunately you are also sadly wrong about the basics of evolution, and this leads you to make some false conclusions. Evolutionary biology is concerned with the evolution of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, and from prehistory; from archaeology, paleontology, geology, physics and even astronomy; it is based on evidence and seeing how it all fits together. Human beings are only one incidental element of biology in general and evolution in particular.Curiously, you are correct that evolution in particular and biology in general (if not science as a whole) is not concerned with the evolution of non-physical non-material elements that are undefined and that have no evidence of existence. Science only deals with what can be measured and described and tested. Nor does natural selection really explain adaptation of organisms to environment, strictly speaking. It only explains the increased survival and breeding of the organisms that are already best adapted to their ecology among those in the population under selection. Adaptation comes about through the dual mechanisms of mutation and selection: mutations offer new variations, which may or may not be better adapted to a specific ecology, and natural selection then gives "preferential treatment" to those who are better adapted to their ecology among those in the population under selection by allowing them to survive and breed better than the other organisms in the breeding population. Correct, because biology textbooks in specific are not religious or philosophical texts, and science in general is not religion or philosophy. Rather science is a method of testing concepts against evidence of reality, and it involves discarding invalidated concepts. As noted above, natural selection alone is insufficient to explain even "the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from single-celled organisms to chimps" because this is just one part of the evolutionary picture. To explain "the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from single-celled organisms to chimps" you need to use all of evolution, which include many other concepts, mutation, neutral drift, among others. Because "professional biologists" (ie people with degrees in biology and who have studied what evolution is really about) know that there is more to evolution than just natural selection. Curiously, your opinion is totally irrelevant to the truth. Opinion and belief have been found to be completely incapable of altering reality in any way. Reality always seems to have the last word. This is why invalidated concepts are discarded in science: science is a process that approximates the truth, refining and moving closer to reality as new concepts are tried out and tested.Amusingly evolution is one of the best tested concepts in science. You can see evolution occurring all around you. Amazingly there are many christians and muslims that have no problem at all with their beliefs and with evolution. Incredibly there are many other religions that don't even have fundamentalist sects that disagree with evolution and that do not find that evolution "prevents" them from believing what they believe. Logically then the fault\cause of any conflict between a specific religion and evolution must lie with the religion.For example, it is readily apparent that any religion at odds with reality (ie advocating a young earth when the evidence is that the earth is old) will find themselves at odds with the science that details the evidence of reality, and yet it is not the fault of the science for detailing what the evidence shows.Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : more

---

It's too ill-defined to mention. Psychology is in fact a science. This is technically true --- the theory of evolution explains that. Anyone who says that "natural selection" explains that is using "natural selection" as a sort of shorthand for "the theory of evolution". (Or possibly they're actually mistaken.) Or from believing in biology. That's the trouble with fundies, they want to make it into a choice between the two.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The so-called "debate or 'controversy' about evolution" is indeed pseudo-science.It is brought to us by creation "scientists" who are religious apologists, but not scientists.Within science there is no such controversy. Science relies on empirical evidence, not religious belief. Science relies on that which can be observed and replicated, not the dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation that stands behind creation "science."The controversy you speak of is entirely drummed up by religious apologists to counter the unfortunate fact (for them) that their religious beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The human soul is not a poorly defined concept at all. What can't be defined is free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings. This is why humans are indefinabilities that become conscious of their own existence or embodied spirits. The human soul is a metaphysical principle that makes humans equal to one another and the body is a correlative principle that makes humans different from one another. The following is a quote from Stephen Jay Gould admitting that evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls:Catholics could believe whatever science determined about the evolution of the human body, so long as they accepted that, at some time of his choosing, God had infused the soul into such a creature. I also knew that I had no problem with this statement, for whatever my private beliefs about souls, science cannot touch such a subject and therefore cannot be threatened by any theological position on such a legitimately and intrinsically religious issue. (Stephen Jay Gould, Nonoverlapping Magisteria, Natural History, March 1997, 13th paragraph)

Your response did not deal at all with what I posted.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Care to give the definition then?

Science is only one method of inquiry and is based on sense knowledge. Metaphysics is based on logic and knowledge gained from our transcendence (e.g., humans are responsible for their actions). In both science and metaphysics you can see the truth of what you know. In revealed religion, you can't see the truth of it. You know it is true because God is telling you (e.g., there is life after death).

Hi again, dkroemer, The argument from authority doesn't mean that what is said is true, you need evidence. So (1) bygosh lets have this definition, and then see if you have any evidence for it, and (2) how does this apply to other religions.Just because you say "religion" doesn't mean you only consider one of them (and only one of them).Now, do you want to learn about evolution?Enjoy.

---

Metaphysics is the study of being as being (being in the abstract). Metaphysics doesn't address all questions (What is knowledge? What is free will?). It explains why beings change, why beings are finite, and why beings are members of a class or category of being.When a being changes in time, there is a contradiction. It is the same and is yet different. How can this be made intelligible? Ans.: A being is a metaphysical composition of substance and accidence. Likewise, a finite being is composed of essence and existence. A being that is a member of a class is composed of form and matter. For humans, the form is called the soul and the matter is called the body.

Hi again dkroemer I thought you wanted to talk about evolution, and how it interfaces with religions, not just preach your specific religion.My mistake. Have fun.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

And your evidence for all these blind assertions is what exactly?