Evolution is a Religious Issue

Hi randman,Just as Chrashfrog's wife, I also make a living predicated entirely on inferences from evolutionary theory. I work to solve problems in applied biology. If evolution was not a reliable model for inferences, we wouldn't be using it. We wouldn't have jobs!Farmers wouldn't go to a plant breeder (who uses many inferences from evolutionary biology) for a new variety to plant, they would go to their local priest to pray for the crop or the weather.

Why are you creationsists always trying to draw ines where there aren't any?The two amount to exactly the same thing.
If species arise from other species so you can get two where before there was one, then the one they were before they spit is a common ancestor to both. Continue the process backwards in time far enough, and all species share a common ancestor at some point. It's really not as big a stretch as you make it out to be.

I have little doubt that jar can point this out to you himself, but I would say that a half dozen disciplines of science, not just biology, have produced highly credible evidence that is uniformly INconsistent with a young earth. These include geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, etc.So even while the 'young earth' myth is not intentionally formulated so as to be testable in a scientific way, its bold conclusion is most definitely not supported by any scientific evidence at all. So it is a lot easier to substantiate that YEC cannot possibly be right, than it would be to support an argument against the existence of a god of some sort.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-29-2005 06:54 AM

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.

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

I said: "Science and Evolutionary theory don't require 'faith', they require evidence."To which you respond: Faith in presuppositions - no.
Faith in the scientific method as the best means of ferreting out falsehoods - yes.Please clarify this 'assumption of uniformatarianism'. I have never heard of it.Next, you would object to an assumption of faith in the capacity for objectivity in human reasoning ?
I sincerely hope you're not considering a career in the sciences. No, I am making a point. And I am denying that it is used in science. I challenge you to produce one significant scientific insight/theory/discovery that was predicated on the action of some unidentified supernatural force 'guiding' the process. I am sure there are a lot of us here who feel we are long overdue to hear some really concrete examples. Then suppose you provide your own context - if that will enable you to produce a definition. Because without that, we are still unable to debate the topic as to whether or not evolutionary theory can possibly conform to your definition of 'religion', should you deign to produce one.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-31-2005 09:53 PM

As Crashfrog's response implies, the best evidence is now from molecular genetics and protein chemistry. On biochemical scales, even broadly divergent taxa can be remarkably similar. It is hard to imagine a more detailed record of decent than that embodied in the structural sequences of basic functional molecules like enzymes etc.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-31-2005 10:04 PM

I have never heard it applied to evolutionary theory and I think it is an irresponsible allegation.
There is nothing 'uniformitarian' about evolutionary biology or the scientisits who use its inferences. Debate and argument are the norm in the discipline (about the details and specifics of particular evolutionary scenarios, not about the principles of evolution itself). I don't think you are qualified to educate anyone - but let's try and work with what you have presented."idealogical indoctrination" is a property of some religions and reflects the goals of some religious people with respect to others. (Actually I rather like it as a definition of religion, but had expected you to come up with something broader) But it is entirely disingenuous and fraudulent to imply that any science can be classified in this manner. Science has no such goals. Science encourages critical thinking. Science welcomes analysis and re-interpretation of data, provided this is done logically and according to the rules of logic and scientific reasoning. Science is not out to 'convince' anyone of anything, only to build increasingly precise models of nature with both descriptive and predictive power. Religions only propagate immutable dogmas that neither adequately describe the workings of the world, nor provide any useful insights into mechanisms of life. They produce nothing testable, provable or verifiable. They provide no framework for understanding mechanisms, nothing that can be built on or modified to improve precision or accuracy. They survive only by indoctrating the ignorant and pleading for 'faith'. Science survives because it works. It is not powerful because it is true, per se, but it is our best model system for approaching 'the truth' - because it is powerful - far more powerful than any religion when it comes to solving tangible, real world problems. Evolutionary theory is a very powerful tool for understanding life processes. It requires no 'indoctrination', only an open mind willing to evaluate the evidence of its power.You religious fanatics would just love to be able to argue that evolutionary theory is a religion so you could use that as a shoe horn to get your phony pseudoscience taught in the high school system of this country. Just like this nitwit Richard Thompson in Pennsylvannia who is legal defense for the Dover School board. You can read about him here An excerpt:"If the courts say the government must be religiously neutral, then they have to take out Darwin's theory of evolution because it posits an atheist or secular humanist religion," says Richard Thompson.
No U.S. court has ever said that evolution is a religion, but Thompson suggests this is because no one has tried it yet. He does not view the case as eroding the separation of church and state.But of course any scientist worth his/her salt would view it exactly that way. We can't allow evolutionary theroy to be unjustly tarred with the brush of religious dogma by those who are motivated precisely by religious dogma. It will be the beginning of the end for real science education in this country. Not that we haven't already slid a long way down that slippery slope.From the same article:A recent CBS News poll found nearly 65 percent of Americans are in favor of teaching creationism along with evolution in schools. Thirty-seven percent favor banning evolution entirely.Great. Apparently a very real ignorance about what constitutes 'science' prevails in this country already and seeks to propagate itself further by appealing to peoples 'religious indoctrination'.

You are laboring under false assumptions if you think any of this relates to evolutionary theory. It is definitively NOT thought of as 'linear'.

I would argue evolutionary theory rests on no such assumption. This is an unjustified allegation made by those who misunderstand it, or seek to debunk it without understanding it. The basic assumptions are random mutation plus differential gene survival via natural selection (non-random) and drift (random). But we can throw words back and forth without getting anywhere unless we tie down this debate to some specific examples. Why don't you pick some a *specific* example of some living phenomenon or morphology and explain :1) how you view its interpretation within the context of evolutionary theory.
2) how you would interpret it under some other conceptual framework of your own choosing.The we will have a reference point to test the relative power of our respective inferential abilites using evolutionary theory, or whatever it us you think might explain things better. Your saying so doesn't make it so.
You need to demonstrate with some concrete examples that I am wrong.
That's how a debate becomes a constructive exercise.
I submit you are unable to do that. Strange. Because I work with evolutioanry theory professionally and use its inferences every day, and I had never heard it described as 'uniformitarian' before. But then I work with other scientists, not religious quacks. I don't think you are well positioned to be condescending on these matters. You have yet to demonstrate any clear understanding of evolution in either theory or application. I would argue you are attempting to argue against the plausibility of evolution without having grasped its mechanisms. You need to take a real university course in evolutionary theory and stop swallowing all the ridiculous drivel on these creationist websites. I did not bring into question the 'arrow of time' as Penrose would call it, but rather your concept of evolution as 'linear'. It is not directed and does not lead to events in any straight line sequence. Don't think of the 'linear march of progess' of apes turning into men - it doesn't work that way. Think of evolution as a vast tree, of which most original branches have been pruned back heavily (even completely exised) to leave very few surviving points of growth that can branch further. If the tree were to grow again, chance contingencies would create an entirely different branching pattern and a different tree of life.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-01-2005 04:52 PM

Thank you Crash.
Without specific examples to debate and evidence to support them, this is all meaningless drivel. Let them continue to believe that physical laws may have been different in the past, that evolution is a religion of some sort, that there is some conspiracy of scientists to suppress recognition of ID theory, and that the rules of scientific evidence are biased against them. None of this crap belongs in a science forum and neither of us should waste any more time on it.