What is more faith than religion?

What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.It can not be the case if evolution is true that it must be learned the same way as 7+5=12 because I can count to these numbers and and verify an instance. I have never been able to verify in resemblence/similarly this evolution that taugt me not this but the existence of taxogeny to which I have alluded.I assume taxa aside that the debaters simply are trying to position concepts of the environment post-Scopes. That being the extent to which GATES considers any meaning to word "ecosystem" than the transition to an object economy it seems that NOMA is really about GOUld denying that a ding an sich exists and has nothing to do with any creative difference of Catholicism and Panbiogeography (which addresses the common line in humans) and any reformed creationism the mass of catholics may be witholding.Please correct me if I am wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.

---

Assuming I’ve recovered from my didactic slough, allow me to elaborate (as you’ve also been requested by another to critique my new thread, Does only Christian ID make sense for the creationist?).Faith seems essentially a ‘super’-bias and affects mutationalists and creationists alike, despite the 'religiousness' often associated. Some would also maintain perhaps that faith also includes: ‘clinging to’, ‘cleaving to’, ‘believing in’, etc., with or without religious creeds.(I edited the above due to incoherencies)

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-07-2002]

OK, I guess I started, hear ear and percieve..."super-bias"- well, if you mean how JD Morris establishes a bias you would have to ask him. If you mean that I had typed "super" before that is true if you want -- the I guess that was eco-justice.We need distributed justice and peace but we get networks the tip of the ice-Berg trouble shooting German taps instead again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad McFall:
[b]What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.Assuming I’ve recovered from my didactic slough, allow me to elaborate (as you’ve also been requested by another to critique my new thread, Does only Christian ID make sense for the creationist?). [QUOTE][B]
So you say, "despite",yet I think that there was no other concept available to "THE CREATIONISTS" but to say they(evolutionists) had missassociated religousness, (how else could I have been committed to a mental hospital for not being ill?? (A:I had bad genes, only I was told their was something wrong with my chemicals, I was niave and young enough to try to take that opportunity to say then what I thought of "my evolution chemcials" bad idea-- dont try it. Takes years to loose the crying wolf syndrome)) on a lighter note hearing that WilL Provine tried subsequently to his approach when I was there of just letting the students say what they thought evolution was, was was his use of supernatural in the mock trial of darwin(he went from the cult of Jehova's witness to the fantasy of angelic insight but all the while did not chage his ethical ought one uGHt (is my guess).[QUOTE][B]
Faith seems essentially a ‘super’-bias and affects mutationalists and creationists alike, despite the 'religiousness' often associated. Some would also maintain perhaps that faith also includes: ‘clinging to’, ‘cleaving to’, ‘believing in’, etc., with or without religious creeds.[/QUOTE][/B] i Never found what I doubted in faith in these adjectival meanings etc while I can not deny that i did associate with IN a church where people Told me that had faith. This is not any kind of "telling" in any discussion of evolution I am aware of and is only an occult quality attached to some less well digested pieces of creation/evolution illusion IN MY OPINION. Obviouly an opinion can be in more than one place.cHRISTIANID? makes sense for elections and politicized talk in the c/e domain but for me I have likely read the plauge of frogs there. I do not know why you said that only it makes creationist sense. I made sense of Friar even before I was aware of the existence of the revial etc. This kind of talk when it reaches a more serious notes remands accusations on my name of banter and babble so unless you specifically indicated I have will move on from this.

Interesting topic here,
Hmmm, I though a religion was a set of ethical prinicples to live by and to base your life off. Evolution does not set forth ethics nor does it say how we are to live our lived by. Why? Again, we are crossing Magesterium most horribly. The questions of religion and ethics lie in the Magesterium of Religion or the Magesterium of Law, not in the Magesterium of Science. The Magesterium of Science does not answer how we should live our lives. It merely tries to answer how life came about [scientific] and places characteristics of life to things.
It is not intersted in matters of "religion"
More faith to believe in evolution. Actually, I believe that it would take more faith to believe in creation. I am answering this outside of the Magesterium of Science. To me, things are easier to believe if you can see evidence for what you believe in. I do not walk to class and see a man being "created" from the dust. But everyday, I see the way how things change over time.
7 + 5 does not always = 12. I am a math major, it only takes redefining the number system.
Interesting you mention NOMA, what do you think of it? Can you please clarify the last paragraph, I got lost. Somewhere, you jumped a lot of conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
What is the general responsibility or response to the ICR position that taught evolution is a "religion"? The only thing I can think of is that it is then some kind of horizontal ritualized pedagogy (assuming this is not a bluff for either side). I know that one can not equate teachers of evolution and a fraternity and when the next thing I hear is that it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than creation this appears fundamentally evangelistic to me.

​

It can not be the case if evolution is true that it must be learned the same way as 7+5=12 because I can count to these numbers and and verify an instance. I have never been able to verify in resemblence/similarly this evolution that taugt me not this but the existence of taxogeny to which I have alluded.

​

I assume taxa aside that the debaters simply are trying to position concepts of the environment post-Scopes. That being the extent to which GATES considers any meaning to word "ecosystem" than the transition to an object economy it seems that NOMA is really about GOUld denying that a ding an sich exists and has nothing to do with any creative difference of Catholicism and Panbiogeography (which addresses the common line in humans) and any reformed creationism the mass of catholics may be witholding.

​

Please correct me if I am wrong.

---

The ICR isn't interested in science at all, all they want is to spread their religious dogma.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Interesting topic here,
Hmmm, I though a religion was a set of ethical prinicples to live by and to base your life off. Evolution does not set forth ethics nor does it say how we are to live our lived by. Why? Again, we are crossing Magesterium most horribly. The questions of religion and ethics lie in the Magesterium of Religion or the Magesterium of Law, not in the Magesterium of Science. The Magesterium of Science does not answer how we should live our lives. It merely tries to answer how life came about [scientific] and places characteristics of life to things.
It is not intersted in matters of "religion"
More faith to believe in evolution. Actually, I believe that it would take more faith to believe in creation. I am answering this outside of the Magesterium of Science. To me, things are easier to believe if you can see evidence for what you believe in. I do not walk to class and see a man being "created" from the dust. But everyday, I see the way how things change over time.
7 + 5 does not always = 12. I am a math major, it only takes redefining the number system.
Interesting you mention NOMA, what do you think of it? Can you please clarify the last paragraph, I got lost. Somewhere, you jumped a lot of conclusions.

---

Also, there is a big difference between religious faith and normal faith. With religious faith one is expected to accept without truly questioning what one is told or without any real evidence. With normal faith one goes by previous experience of a certain event or person.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]

Hi,To clarify some terms that I used in the paper. I am well aware of the difference in normal and religious faith. I should have specified which meaning I meant. For the confusion, I apologize.To believe in creation you have to use normal faith and religious faith combined. With evolution you would take normal faith to believe in it. It is not a dogma that you live by.Thanks for catching that. Thought, I made it clear. Guess not.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

[QUOTE]Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
[B]Interesting topic here,
Hmmm, I though a religion was a set of ethical prinicples to live by and to base your life off. Evolution does not set forth ethics nor does it say how we are to live our lived by. Why? Again, we are crossing Magesterium most horribly. [/QUOTE][/B]But are we REALLY? I have been able to take what taxogeny (Croiat's X in any particular) to postulating DNA as a VESSEL wich could be Newton's *bucket* THAT IS (or in fact is not) an absolute charge bearer and that much of cytoplasm-nucleus discousings could be more profitable and less likely to lead to collapse of food webs as in the current funding of nanotechonolgy and its any inherent compoenetability. I do not think this is horrible but if true to this post and not to simple discussion of taxogeny in context of group vs individual vs geneic selectionisms then this is simply a READING that others can without andy horror of the vacuum similary read. My guess then would be that the "negative" that Shrodinger thought was a square root of One negative not the other side of O etc. [QUOTE][B]The questions of religion and ethics lie in the Magesterium of Religion or the Magesterium of Law, not in the Magesterium of Science. [/QUOTE][/B]Can my posts be taught to students or am I still a bit not, I mean to bite into a Socratic dialogue? [QUOTE][B]The Magesterium of Science does not answer how we should live our lives. It merely tries to answer how life came about [scientific] and places characteristics of life to things.
It is not intersted in matters of "religion" [/QUOTE][/B]
But if you attened Chruch/Temple/tent etc regularly then maybe you could divide a componetable infinity beyond the simple morphology Gould soft parts into a more hardend theory of biochange in morphogeny that can do away with "morphogenetic fields" in preference to emprics that give data on INERTIAL sorts that did invovle maxwells electric displacement but not necessarily only thinking of the periodic table as the only actual infinity list. Form takes on cardinality at least to the extent the undulation can be unstood beyond from it steady presentaion etc. [QUOTE][B]More faith to believe in evolution. Actually, I believe that it would take more faith to believe in creation. [/QUOTE][/B]So if you said "no" does it take "faith" to understand what I said. I think not!! [QUOTE][B]I am answering this outside of the Magesterium of Science. To me, things are easier to believe if you can see evidence for what you believe in. I do not walk to class and see a man being "created" from the dust. But everyday, I see the way how things change over time.
7 + 5 does not always = 12. I am a math major, it only takes redefining the number system.[/QUOTE][/B]Lebseque "lamented" the non-use of decimal system but he did not take more time to oridinate collections. The museum labeler needs the work basically to be done. It is not yet even been gotten into the programmers' minds who would be the ones to do this work.
[B][QUOTE] Interesting you mention NOMA, what do you think of it? Can you please clarify the last paragraph, I got lost. Somewhere, you jumped a lot of conclusions.
[/B][/QUOTE]l[B]ater- still more people to respond to/first in line [B]etc.

Interesting reply, sory so late. Have not been online for awhile. Will respond to this one tomorrow at school.You still have not responded to the last question that I have asked.Look forward to seeing your reply.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I dont know if i had this conversation with my brother and his wife's sister's husband who was becoming a YOUTH Minister in NJ from Virginia about the teaching of creation IN CHURCH but Greg was trying to say that Creation Science is not SCience and that Evolution hasnt been given a chance to "evolve" with these two other guys I was talking to KNOWING that i knew more about evolution theory than either of them and yet I still think that IT CAN NEVER be said "ICR does not interest science" etc to parapharase you. Let us even say that Scientific Creationism is primarily evangelistic (it is not the same thing as Biblical Creationism which more properly IS)this does not mean that the DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the same evidence IN THE MIX do not lead to a yielded anthropology (especially post 911)that on a properly existing sociology of science which you seem to be denying (if you want my more "fair" view send me that e-mail; I may have inadvertently deleted when trying not to read the porno spam-- use the word "herp" I wont miss that one, I doubt) could provide not only raw materials (which is all that S-Wolfram claims for HIS verison of his "own" science)but actual discoveries and like herpetology (Wayne Friar for instance has done some good work in this field ) ICR has made some (and by the way, it is the small things like finding a water snake that puts coils around fish etc that acutally make up the science we have to criticize) but that the psychology has not made a change in the change in biology since DNA with behvior is true but not all time can be critizied the way your opnion deviates from mine etc while in acutal conversation this claim AGIANST creation biology etc SUNK between both sides in this particular conversation that I had about 2 yrs ago. I do not see any difference today so far in converseing with you. ALl it seems to be is producing the fairness to both or either perspective and I BRAD MC have always been saying that THIS is an illusion. If we start to talk on a more transcendental level... then ... all bets are off.

Basically, religion is belief--by their very nature (no pun intended), creationism and evolutionism offer assumptions that have ethical implications. Both may be evaluated according to scientific considerations as well. Evolutionism (macro) is not more scientific than Creationism if the type of "science" we're talking about is comparable to the math equation parallels. I see how things change over time also--those things can be considered as scientific facts, but it is outside the "Magesterium" of ACTUAL science to CONCLUDE that the classic bait and switch strategy of the nats (naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking) is true, i.e., "Macroevolution is true. Here, let me prove it . . . see these MICROevolutionary findings" (that are, by the way, just as consistent with "creation science" as they are with "evolution science").

quote:

---

Basically, religion is belief--by their very nature (no pun intended), creationism and evolutionism offer assumptions that have ethical implications. Both may be evaluated according to scientific considerations as well. Evolutionism (macro) is not more scientific than Creationism if the type of "science" we're talking about is comparable to the math equation parallels. I see how things change over time also--those things can be considered as scientific facts, but it is outside the "Magesterium" of ACTUAL science to CONCLUDE that the classic bait and switch strategy of the nats (naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking) is true, i.e., "Macroevolution is true. Here, let me prove it . . . see these MICROevolutionary findings" (that are, by the way, just as consistent with "creation science" as they are with "evolution science").

---

A few thoughts:Biological evolution has nothing to do with moral imperatives. You can claim ethical implications from factual discoveries till you're blue in the face, but the discoveries themselves do not compel action of any kind. I, as one who is convinced by factual evidence for evolution from a common ancestor, make no ethical judgments based on the facts; nor do most who think as I do.As concerns "macro" and "micro", these are relative terms. Nobody has demonstrated a mechanism that prevents micro+micro+micro=macro. The time is there, the transitions are there (though generally lacking fine grain, due to the extremely small sampling rate of the fossil record), and the diversity of life is there.As for evolution requiring faith, consider the following.Your ear bones are descended from a reptile's jaw. The transition is clear and gradual in the fossil record, where they shrink and migrate from old reptile species to young mammal species. 98% of your genes are shared by chimpanzees. The middle of one of your chromosome pairs still contains the remnants of end sequences where two pairs fused. Those two pairs are still present in the other apes, as is the mutation that made them and us (and our common ancestor) unable to synthesize Vitamin C. The gene for synthesis is still present in all great apes, its function destroyed in the same manner by exactly the same mutation.None of this requires faith. It is known to be true. This is the tip of the iceberg of evidence, a sampling off the top of the head of a minimally educated layman. And you call evolution a religion?

Well, first of all, I should say that I apologize for not remembering how to get your response quoted so that I can section it and respond accordingly--it has been a long time since I've been active enough to do that. I can't understand the directions for this editing stuff that are offered in the helps sections here, so if you or an administrator would give me the code for quoting or sectioning off portions of texts for response, I'd appreciate it. I hope this post is next to your response, zephyr, so that it might not be entirely confusing. Anyway:You commented on ethical implications and such in your first few sentences. It doesn't matter so much that evolutionism does not compel action of any kind. It's enough that the philosophy's net result is the promotion of a totally mechanistic (purposeless, meaningless) existence. Discount the effects of this type of perspective as you may, it is relevant to the equation of the place that doctrinal positions hold in our society. The fact that it may not teach this creed in a direct sense, or according to the traditional manner that we might associate with other (or the formal practice of) "religions," is beside the point.Your next concern was, generally, that evolution is true. If evolution is true, micro+micro+micro=macro. And if that equation can't be proven to be an impossibility, then the equation must be true. OK, I think I understand now. The time is there? The 20 billion years that nats propose for the age of the universe is an incredibly brief amount of time for the miracles of chance to orchestrate everything into the present product. The transitions are there? (Only GENERALLY lacking in fine grain?!) The belief in transitional forms (proving the validity of evolution) requires that one become assumptive in the extreme at the onset that evolution has occured.You then made mention of my ear bones being descendents from a reptile's jaw. This is very . . . interesting. Help me with something here, as I am not an expert (don't feel obligated to resist a snappy comeback to this; I can take it); can you, will you reasonably explain how the intermediates managed to hear and chew while all of the necessary restructuring was taking place, and weren't these creatures that were in these certainly awkward transformational stages supposed to be the superior survivors that supplanted the competition in their environment?You also commented that 98% of my genes are shared by chimpanzees. Clouds are 100% water. Watermelons are 98% water. Watermelons missed out on being clouds by only 2%. As in the other examples you alluded to, homogeny is no evidence for evolutionism any more than it's evidence for creationism.Lastly, the only way that evolutionism doesn't require faith is for an affected one to become so convinced (socially, emotionally, etc.) that naturalistic generalizations and assumptions are gospel--religion with a capital "R."

Last time I looked at this I wasnt sure that it wasnt symmetry breaking of thymus hormones that need calcium no matter which way the bone constructs strength ( something more on the lymph system here). If that is true the lineage realtion acutually could still go either way (on the "tree"). It is funny to imagine amphibians pushing eggs up onto rocks with their "ear places" that hear but cannot.