Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.

I had no idea that this debate was still such a hot topic...I do have some objections to previous postings:Christians using the bible as proof is rediculous: it needs to be proved first, and if one uses God to prove it then we are using circular logic.Christians saying that the existence of a creator is obvious from what they see around them. This is not an argument, it is an opinion.Evolutionists that say evolution is NOT a religion make the same mistake that christians do when they say it IS a religion. In fact, it depends entirely upon what one defines religion as. I have seen above that evolutionists encourage creationists to actually look the word up. In fact I used this argument previously to support creationism. in short - is religion a belief IN the supernatural or CONCERNING the supernatural?Yes, this point goes a lot deeper too: the argument is more concerned with whether there is PROOF for beleiving in evolution or not, and sadly I haven't seen any real meat either way here. I would appreciate somebody posting a brief of the argument without sniping - here's my take to get you started 1) evolution believes in animals changing, over many generation, from one animal to another. The causes are mutation and selection, although selection fulfills only a subtractive force.2) mutation at a basic level can be studied scientifically and objectively.3) evolution in the past, consisting of the argued human chain of evoltion cannot... Every event in the human chain of evolution was unique, every generation signifigant. The process happened only once, cannot be duplicated or studied as it happened. Therefore the origins of humanity is not science, but history. As in history, evidence can be compiled and studied and opinions stated, but no dead certainties reached. This is the case with evolution.4) therefore evolution does not have certainty for believing it, it is a belief rooted in opinion. A religion.5) I would also like to hear how the accelerating universe theory has affected this argument, can somebody tell me what is up with that?

well said, but that does not address my argument exactly.would I be correct to say that evolution is believing something without proof, and therefore a religion?After all, every man in this world who is not mad is always refining his world view based on empirical knowledge, so science in this view is nothing but a tool of the mind, just as much use to a christian as an atheist and an agnostic.If science cannot prove evolution or christianity then why not abandon it and accept that neither are believable on pure fact but on faith?I love ending with a question.Don't you?

Very good point. Vocabulary can often stop communication. According to me...a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a RELIGION is a set of BELIEFS
FAITH is belief in that RELIGION.So FAITH is the belief in a set of personal opinions.I hope this helps you understand what i said. Because you seem to detest simplification I will reword my argument in lowest terms just for spite.a BELIEF is a personal opinion.
a FACT is a TRUE BELIEF. (descarte and berkely get off here...)
TRUE BELIEFs are determined to be FACTS only by PROOF
PROOF leaves no room for DOUBT
DOUBT comes from INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.
EVOLUTION happened in the past. It is supported by INDUCTIVE and ABDUCTIVE reasoning, but NOT DEDUCTIVE reasoning.
EVOLUTION has a degree of doubt.
EVOLUTION is not proved.
EVOLUTION is not a FACT.
EVOLUTION is an opinion.
EVOLUTION is a BELIEF, or set of BELIEFs.
EVOLUTION is a RELIGION.now, when you say

quote:

---

Because your definitions are wrong. Why have you gone from 'belief' to 'religion' to 'faith' without the least hesitation? They are all differenct but you conflate them.

---

you are partly right. Of course, you wouldn't want to call my opinions 'wrong' would you? That is not the purpose of a debate!If when you debate and you keep getting stuck on incongruous definitions, why not just take the basic meaning of words and forget all the little addons?In any case the importance of debate is to argue concepts. I hope mine are clear enough to inspect and critique.and yes incidentally i DO think that believeing that your car will start in the morning is religion. Sooner or later you will leave your lights on and cause a midlife...or midday...religious crisis. Faith in things of this world will only disappoint you.------------------
-Phantom Mullet

Ouch, good points all of themWell. Cool. I guess I was misusing the terms religion and faith. OK, OK, I'll play the game.Religion: 1) A belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2)An expression of this in worship. 3)particular system of faith and worship. 4)life under monastic vows. 5) Thing that one is devoted to.Faith: 1) complete trust and confidence, 2) firm, esp religious belief 3) religion or creed 4) loyalty, trustworthyness.Source:
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English
Second Edition
Oxford University Press, 1992By religion defintion #1 Christianity is a religion, atheism is NOT a religion.But by defintion 5 an atheistical world view IS a religion. I suppose I have to define devoted too though right?Devoted: loving, loyal.I doubt that this is what the previous 115 posts have been arguing. How about somebody tells me the 'real' definitions and an argument that evolution is not a religion.

quote:

---

Yes, it [evolution] is a fact, again in the same sense that gravity is both a fact and a theory at the same time as well.

---

-from nos, previous postingI agree to that under those definitions, but at the same time isn't Christianity a scientific fact by the same reasoning? Neither can be proved with absolute certainty because they are based on probabilities and 'best solution' logic. Christianity too looks for answers and has theories about the origin of the world that are being changed to better suit observations.From above,

quote:

---

In a strict sense, yes. However, since it is supported by so much evidence it can be used as a premise for further sudies. This is where creationists lose the thread of logic. They think that a working hypothesis is necessarily assumed to be a fact. In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'. By using this scientific fact as a premise we are not only causing scientific progress, we are actualy testing the theory as well. Every day.

---

-this was from edge, back another postingI agree, but that too is a selfserving definition. Look at it this way, for a theory to become fact it needs to survive without refutation. I have never heard an argument that has destroyed my beliefs, so I feel they have not been refuted. It has been about six years personally. Is that enough time? Christianity has been around 2000 years, but at other times people believed slightly different Christianity as they believed slightly different forms of evolution. Is 2000 long enough?And yes I agree with your pragmatism, we should use the beliefs we have to cause scientific progress even though they are not absolute certainties and may be wrong in part.------------------
-Phantom Mullet

This argument doesn't use any of my funny definitions Evolution involves evidence and probabilities:

quote:

---

Science is tentative. We devise theories to explain bodies of evidence, and then we modify/replace these theories in light of new evidence or improved understanding. Science never proves anything, not in any of its many fields.

​

--Percy

---

Evolution is a scientific fact however because it has survived for a long time without refutation:

quote:

---

In the case of evolution, the theory has survived for so long without refutation that it is what we can call it a 'scientific fact'

---

(that was from edge, back a page or so)From Philosophy, Quest for Truth
by Louis P Pojman
fourth edition
Wadsworth Publishing Company

quote:

---

Argument from Ignorance This kind of argument occurs when I claim that because you cannot prove a proposition false, I am justified in believing that it is true. For example because you can't prove that God doesn't exist, I am free to believe that he does exist. Or because you can't prove that we do not have a soul, I am free to believe that we do.

---

It seems to me that the argument for evolution being true contains one of the fallacies of reasoning from my philosophy text.Evolution may be a scientific fact, but believing this scientific fact is not a result of common sense, but involves believing in an argument containing fallacy.I appreciate you guys puttin up with a newb like me. Sorry if my posts are sorta weird anyway, I have PHIL105 to cram for so l8r------------------
-Phantom Mullet