Evolution: A Religion

[RedSquirrel]

O.k. on the record: I am a theist. If evolution is a religion, it's the religion with the most proof. Evolution is the best working model available.

Off the record: Dude, it works, it's been proven time and again and my faith (nor any other, that I am aware of) has even ten percent of the proof.

[JGirl]

All evolution means to religion, if you are a believer, is that the act of creation was a lot more complicated than just abracadabra, and allakazam.

yes, there was also hokus pokus allemagokus, for example

[karmakazi]

Even if evolution were a religion, I'd still take it over the alternatives.

But one of the many things Tyson pointed out in Cosmos was that scientists question everything, even their own theories. It's a huge motivating factor in the advancement of our scientific understanding...always question because there is always more to learn...and most questions are answered with more questions.

Most of the arguments wouldn't happen if it wasn't for selective hearing. Ugh.

[Guest]

All I can say is HA.

If you get dragged into another "factual" discussion of this, then i say get a better hobby.

Br Cornelius

[spacecowboy342]

So, Science is true.....until we discover that it's not. For a scientist, Tyson spouts off a lot. Besides, I was rather fond of Pluto, too.

You can still be fond of Pluto. It's still the same loveable iceball it always was

[spacecowboy342]

Evolution is observed fact. Religion not so much

[Grandpa Greenman]

Well, except for little bumps in the road like Piltdown Man and Steady State Theory.

Unlike religion, science can change as more facts and evidence are uncovered. Science is an on going exploration of reality.

[White Crane Feather]

Non of the arguments in the op are valid. There are huge differences in the way physicists define things and the way the words are used in common knowledge. It's so bad it even throws off young physicists. Creationists hear one thing but not being physicists rarely know what the physicist is actuall talking about. The generalizations are made and strawmen created.

Just a fe subjects that bear this problem.

1. The nature of time

2. Quantum mechanics

3. Thermo dynamics and its relationship to QN

4. Relativity

The list goes on. We do have a mechanism that can creat universes, there most likely was a "time" before the Big Bang, Qm rules govern the very small, relativity the large. And yes thermodynamics fails at the quantum level and things can and go spear out if "nothing" all the time. It's testable. Only problem is that nothing isn't really nothing.

With all that said for the creationist, non of it rules out god that set it all into motion it only pushes the envelope back a bit. The crusade creationists have on varified science is not helping their cause. In fact it pushes more and more potential members away.

[grendals_bane]

Evolution is based more on blind faith rather than on solid evidence of science.

There is so much evidence on the side of evolution it is only someone who is willfully ignorant to the facts who would state something like the above.

Edited July 17, 2014 by grendals_bane

[Emma_Acid]

So, Science is true.....until we discover that it's not.

"I don't understand science" would have been quicker.

[+Hammerclaw]

Yes, true, in the "in accordance with facts" way. When we discover it is no longer in accordance with the facts, it is considered obsolete. Being that we cannot ever determine whether we are absolutely correct in regards to anything, this is the next best thing.

It would be arrogance to ever claim that we are incapable of making mistakes. Science is not about 100% accuracy. Science is about validity and probability, not correctness.

A rose by any other name. I' ve grandfathered Pluto in with the rest of the planets myself.

Very good. Science is the method by which we examine, explore and slowly accrue knowlege of the Universe. Science is an active process, not a static body of knowledge. Edited July 17, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[+Hammerclaw]

"I don't understand science" would have been quicker.

Oh hush, darling. There's a method to my madness.

[willowdreams]

well, I can accept evolution as a religion. In accepting that, then I must accept factual history as a religion. I must accept Math as a religion. I must accept All scientific facts as a religion (this would include medical science, anthropology, archeology,..) I think you get the idea.

I reckon anything that has been proven a fact, and is believed in by others, such as if i flip on a light switch the light comes on.. if I have four cats and open a can then meowing chaos will happen,.. anything I believe in as fact, will be known as a religion, I can live with that.

[+Hammerclaw]

Evolution as religion! I'm surprised this thread hasn't taken on a more Humanist flavor. Greg M. Epstein states that, "modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God".

[aquatus1]

Oh hush, darling. There's a method to my madness.

You may not want to be so subtle. There are many here who would comment as you did based solely on not understanding science.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Science, IIRC, the word "science" means "to understand" in Greek.

Sometimes, that understanding can be wrong, and the first people (nine times out of ten) to say "we was wrong" will be the scientists themselves.

[Doug1029]

If one believes evolution without actually looking into it - that is, on "faith" - then it could be regarded as a religion. On the other hand, if one looks into it, studies it a little, then accepts it based on evidence, then it is not a religion.

Same applies to Christianity. If you believe it on "faith," it is a religion. But if you investigate it in depth, carefully ruling out the mythical parts, then you realize, based on evidence, that it didn't actually happen that way, then your belief is based on evidence and does not qualify as religion.

Doug

[+Hammerclaw]

You may not want to be so subtle. There are many here who would comment as you did based solely on not understanding science.

Yes. There certainly are, aren't they? I try to draw people out and gauge their depth of understanding. Some people surprise you with their sophistcation. Others think science is something factual they read on line or in a book, and has to be true. Some people, however, understand the difference between knowledge and the method with which it is acquired. They understand how it progresses, evolves and changes as an on going process. They have that extra level of awareness and can think outside the box Edited July 18, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[psyche101]

Very good. Science is the method by which we examine, explore and slowly accrue knowlege of the Universe. Science is an active process, not a static body of knowledge.

Yes, science writes new stories all the time, religion only wrote one.

Edited July 18, 2014 by psyche101

[danielost]

Sigh....

.

He also said science cannot make absolute statements, you know like the one you posted.

[aquatus1]

Yes, science writes new stories all the time, religion only wrote one.

But there's tons of fanfiction about it.

[danielost]

Yes, science writes new stories all the time, religion only wrote one.

No science is only rewriting the story that religion wrote, the abrimic faiths that is.

[psyche101]

No science is only rewriting the story that religion wrote, the abrimic faiths that is.

Really? Where does it mention Higgs Bosun?

He also said science cannot make absolute statements, you know like the one you posted.

Science is fluid, so that determination is subject to change upon better information.

[danielost]

Really? Where does it mention Higgs Bosun?

Science is fluid, so that determination is subject to change upon better information.

Then stop saying there is no god.

Religion tells the story of the beginning of the universe. Science keeps trying to rewrite that story. But their story requires far too many accidents to hold water.

[+Hammerclaw]

Science is about the physical Universe; matter, energy and all that. Religion addresses the Metaphysical, and Metaphysics is not a science. Science tries to answer the how of existence; religion tries to answer the why of existence. The Scientific Method is useless pertaining to that which can not be detected. Religion does itself a great disservice when it intrudes on the realm of logic and reason and knowledge. Religion is based on Faith. Faith is absolute belief in the complete absence of certain knowledge. What is a soul? Does one have a soul? Does it persist after the flesh has returned to wormy earth? Very unscientific concepts for which science has no answer.

Edited July 18, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd