Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
truethat

Why I see Evolution as a Religion

753 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

truethat

Ok I've had this conversation in the past and its gotten taken wrong and I think that's because I normally try to discuss it in the midst of Evolution as being debated by Creationists and so any argument or criticism I make of Evolution automatically casts me as a supporter of Creationism.

For me I think in both cases the ideology of God theory and the purity of science have gotten corrupted by the similar need of feeling like "THIS" is the answer; when the truth is we really don't know enough to say one way or another.

Now for me I've basically drawn it down into a simplistic rendering. I wish to discuss this in a philosophical way rather than a scientific way because A. I am not a scientist and thus can't debate the science obviously. B. The science is irrelevant. So all you science people who use forums to beat up on people because you can't in real life, save it. That's not what this is about.

What this is about is how or why Evolution is turning into a new religion. I call the followers of this religion Evos. I do not call anyone on this site an EVO. Its not about derogatory name calling but rather its about specifying the difference between a scientist and a Evolutionist as a religious experience.

As such Evos can come in all walks of life, its not exclusive to the science field to be an Evo.

One of the indicators to me is when I hear someone say "Well Evolution makes more sense than Creationism so I'm gonna go with that." In this way its being compared to a religion and as such it comes across to me as a religion in and of itself. But Evolution is also a science. When it remains a science I have great admiration for it. But when it morphs into a religion I reject it as no longer a science.

Additionally and more important, it promotes the idea that its an either/or situation. As if its EITHER Creationism OR Evolution as it is presented. You can only choose ONE there is no room for anything else.

The definition of religion is something that is hard to pin down. For all intents and purposes this is what I consider a religion:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

Here is an interesting discussion about religion if you are interested in thinking further.

<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm</a>

As to that definition that is how I see Evo's treating the theory of Evolution. As if THIS is the answer by jove and we "know" what the answer is and so we need to just figure out or find or decode the rest of the puzzle to prove it.

This by definition is NOT a science. Rather its more akin to the Gnostics pouring through the Bible in some sort of lab coated version of the da Vinci Code only its the Genetic Code this time.

Here is a definition for a child's science fair festival that I think is pretty simple

The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions, just like you will use the Scientific Method in your science fair project. You will think through the various possibilities using the Scientific Method to eventually come to an answer to your original question.

<a href="http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html</a>

I'm sure there are more sophisticate definitions feel free to peruse the choices. I chose this because its simple and one of the first ones I found.

So what is the difference between Hypothesis and Assumption? A hypothesis is a question of sorts, although it might be an idea that the presenter has presumptions about, it is open to those being the wrong presumptions. It often hopes that the experiment will take the scientist on a journey of sorts.

An assumption though is the desire or thought that what one thinks is true IS true. And that is not science. It is in this way that Evolution has taken its first steps towards becoming a religion.

Let us for the sake of discussion use illustration to describe how I see the field of Evolution.

At the onset Evolution basically had this to go on:

Please ignore the bump on the shape I couldn't erase it without messing up the line.

linked-image

Now this could be anything at this point. But Science began experimenting and working and came to the conclusion that this incomplete shape might indeed be a circle. So they completed the circle and decided to see what came of that. What came of that completed circle was amazing. All sorts of things came out of it.

linked-image

If this is indeed the completed shape then we have unlocked all sorts of mathematical equations not limited to Pi and the concept of infinity. The possibilities are endless. As such we have created many devotees to the idea that the Circle is the answer.

Along comes a Creationist however and they say (not really but for the philosophical part of my argument) that this is not the right shape. The shape is actually this shape. They know this because this book they have from God says that that's all she wrote. There isn't more to the shape, the shape is ALL there, that's it.

linked-image

Now of course what's gonna happen is that the Evos are going to quickly realize that if this really IS the shape then obviously all the other theories that came of their research is going to go where? Its preposterous that this would be the shape. Its silly that these Creationists are so limited in what they think that they actually want to take a step BACKWARDS and ruin everything by ignoring the beautiful development of the circle.

And so the debate rages. Is it a circle or that wedge shape? And guess what!!?? There are "scientists" that are Creationists that have come up with some of their own mathematical equations from the half circle shape. Wow. They aren't as sophisticated nor are they as beautiful as the circle theories but they want them to be taught in school as well. But the Evo's say "that's not a real shape, its based on what a fairy tale told you! You can't teach that in school its not real."

And so it goes. And so the original scientists cleave themselves to the idea of the Circle forgetting that its just a theory.

The truth is we didn't KNOW and don't KNOW what the rest of the shape is.

What if, the rest of the shape is actually this

linked-image

It seems to me that Evos have forgotten that they don't really KNOW the answers. That much of their conclusions are based on assumptions and ideas based on the theory that the circle is the answer.

My skepticism towards Evolution being presented as THE answer, is that even though the idea that the circle COULD be the answer, looks likely etc, its based on limited human understanding based on a couple of hundred of years of scientific research.

To me, the hubris in suggesting that mankind can unlock the mysteries of the universe is silly. We can only figure out how it relates to US and what it means to US. Its not the actual answer. None of what we think we know is the actual true answer. That is something altogether outside our comprehension.

One of my favorite movies is the movie Contact with Jodie Foster. Two things in the movie stood out to me as examples oh how human intelligence can get in our own way.

One is the way people didn't think to fold the map.

The other is the chair they put inside the sphere to protect her by strapping her in that wound up causing so much friction and confusion and stress. And when she just got out she realized that it was the chair. That the answer was something else. That's kind of how I see the Evolutionary theory now.

And so it makes me skeptical about the whole raging fight. I don't think I'm the only one.

</a> Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
As such Evos can come in all walks of life, its not exclusive to the science field to be an Evo.

One of the indicators to me is when I hear someone say "Well Evolution makes more sense than Creationism so I'm gonna go with that." In this way its being compared to a religion and as such it comes across to me as a religion in and of itself. But Evolution is also a science. When it remains a science I have great admiration for it. But when it morphs into a religion I reject it as no longer a science

So who then do you consider evos, the public which believes in evolution but does not have the most current scientific knowledge of evolution, or the scientists who study evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
So who then do you consider evos, the public which believes in evolution but does not have the most current scientific knowledge of evolution, or the scientists who study evolution?

A mixture of both. I see Richard Dawkins for example as an Evo. I would also see a person who doesn't question the theory but just accepts it on the blind faith that "the scientists know what they are doing and wouldn't lie to us"

I would see for example producers of tv shows on the Discovery Channel as we mentioned before as Evos pushing the agenda (some of them) and the scientists on the Nova show.

I'd see an atheist who doesn't like religion who just "goes with Evolution" because of it being the opposite of Creationism?

Does that make sense? When it becomes about blind faith, or laziness in thinking, then I'd consider it a religion.

I do not suggest that ALL Evolutionists are Evos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick

Why does evolution and creationism have to be put in the same category to begin with? They are both totally different things.

I'm assuming you are using the term "Evos" as people that use evolution as a means to prove creationism wrong.

This does serve to be a problem, because real science does not include creationism in any of it's studies on evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
The truth is we didn't KNOW and don't KNOW what the rest of the shape is.

How much do you think we do know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
A mixture of both. I see Richard Dawkins for example as an Evo. I would also see a person who doesn't question the theory but just accepts it on the blind faith that "the scientists know what they are doing and wouldn't lie to us"

I would see for example producers of tv shows on the Discovery Channel as we mentioned before as Evos pushing the agenda (some of them) and the scientists on the Nova show.

I'd see an atheist who doesn't like religion who just "goes with Evolution" because of it being the opposite of Creationism?

Does that make sense? When it becomes about blind faith, or laziness in thinking, then I'd consider it a religion.

I do not suggest that ALL Evolutionists are Evos.

I see, So what then do you consider of the overwhelming majority of religious people who are not theological scholars yet follow a religion? Another way of saying it maybe, those that just "go with religion"?

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Why does evolution and creationism have to be put in the same category to begin with? They are both totally different things.

I'm assuming you are using the term "Evos" as people that use evolution as a means to prove creationism wrong.

This does serve to be a problem, because real science does not include creationism in any of it's studies on evolution.

Exactly. Whenever I see someone who says they are a scientist bringing up creationism I can't comprehend why in the world they would?

If you are a scientist positioning Evolution as the "answer" to creationism is like someone saying that a Doctor is the answer to an "Exorcism." I don't know of a single doctor that would want to have his name in any way associated with Exorcisms or Voodoo for that matter.

A Doctor that would say "I am the answer to Voo Doo" would be treated as some sort of witch doctor not a scientist.

Raptor you ask how much do you think we know?

I think we know a lot but its based on the theory that its the "circle" if you know what I mean. To me, what came out of the equation of the circle created a lot of good science. Its not garbage if something else comes along. Much of that circle equation will likely contribute to the actual answer.

I think though, that we need to separate what we KNOW that is applied science or useful to us, from theoretical science or just ideas that we can't prove.

I also think that taking chaos and sorting out the pattern or "code" as it has been called doesn't mean that its all ordered or patterned.

Its hard for me to explain this point but what I mean is just because we SEE a pattern, doesn't really mean there IS a pattern. If you step back far enough from something a pattern will emerge. But that is based entirely on OUR perspective. Its not a "truth"

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne

Fair enough. You wish to beleive that those who lean towards the scientific explaination as being adherents of some sort of religious belief.

If thats what it takes to get you through your day, then more power to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

oops double post sorry

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
I see, So what then do you consider of the overwhelming majority of religious people who are not theological scholars yet follow a religion? Another way of saying it maybe, those that just "go with religion"?

See camlax you are making the topic about religion for Creationists. This is why I don't chose to discuss with you. I gave it a go. But you are stuck on this so its not going to work.

I see those overwhelming majority of religious people who are not theological scholars yet follow a religion blindly RELIGIOUS.

As I see the overwhelming majority of Evos who are not scientists yet follow Evolution blindly RELIGIOUS.

But back to EVOLUTION. This isn't about traditional religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick

I suppose people that follow evolution without having any basic knowledge of what it promotes, could seem to have a some religious aspects to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax

I would agree with you, anyone making this jump:

linked-image

Would be doing so in faith.

Fortunately, that is not how science works. You are saying that science makes jumps to the complete circle with no factual basis, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Science (even evolution) would be more like this

linked-image

This is why numerous people have asked "which parts" you feel are "blind leaps of faith". And you decline based upon the reasoning you are not scientifically equipped to answer the questions. In reality, we don't make blind leaps in science. Sure you may feel that way, because you lack the scientific understanding to see that "jump" to the circle was actually supported by all those little pieces of evidence (the dotted lines).

If what gets you through your day is feeling we (in science) have gone from the half-complete circle to the complete one (like in the first picture), then so be it. There is no arguing with faith I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
See camlax you are making the topic about religion for Creationists. This is why I don't chose to discuss with you. I gave it a go. But you are stuck on this so its not going to work.

I see those overwhelming majority of religious people who are not theological scholars yet follow a religion blindly RELIGIOUS.

As I see the overwhelming majority of Evos who are not scientists yet follow Evolution blindly RELIGIOUS.

But back to EVOLUTION. This isn't about traditional religion.

I suppose people that follow evolution without having any basic knowledge of what it promotes, could seem to have a some religious aspects to it.

I agree, but then what level of education does one need to have for their beliefs not to be based on religion and who can judge that?

I disagree with you True, that the "field of evolution" is rife with religious followers and I contend that it is very scientific field. But how can we judge that unless our knowledge of the field is equal? No offense, you have not shown that you know very much about evolutionary biology. So why then should we listen to you as to what problems there are with evolutionary biology.

If you can't answer the questions of what is "fact" and what is "fiction", then you are doing of what you are accusing "Evos" of doing. That is, completing your circle without evidence to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

If I could ask a question about this, true?

You see the acceptance of Evolution - without the knowledge of knowing that it is the truth - as being akin to religion. But could the same not be said of the rejection of Evolution, not knowing that it is the truth?

You are arguing for any kind of knowledge, without that knowledge being absolute in it's determination, as being 'religion'. One could then argue, based on this line of rationalisation, that EVERYTHING we think and have an opinoin about is religion. All knowledge, all science, all thought is religion - including your thoughts on Evolution as a religion.

Thoughts??? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neognosis
For me I think in both cases the ideology of God theory and the purity of science have gotten corrupted by the similar need of feeling like "THIS" is the answer; when the truth is we really don't know enough to say one way or another.

We are relatively certain about evolution. We can never prove a past event, because you can not go back and observe the past. But we are relatively certain about evolution. We have observed evolution today first hand, evolution is not a theory, we know how it happens and that it does happen. However, we can not observe that it happened in the past. We can observe evidence that it occurred in the past, hence: theory.

Now for me I've basically drawn it down into a simplistic rendering. I wish to discuss this in a philosophical way rather than a scientific way because A. I am not a scientist and thus can't debate the science obviously. B. The science is irrelevant.

If you form an opinion based on the science, then of course science is relevant.

I object to the idea that evolution somehow is akin to religion because it is a "belief." A belief doesn't have to be based on evidence. The theory of evolution is based on evidence.

Calling it a religion implies that there is no evidence and seems like an attempt of some, not necessarily the OP, to pull evolution down to the level of religion, that is to say to minimize it to a set of "beliefs" that have no proof and are based on no evidence. It seems to seek to present "evos" as havine a faith of some kind, when they do not. all they have and need is evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Well yes they have camlax. When you say for example you know what the condition of the planet was a million years ago that's not provable. Its going on the presumption that the answer is a circle.

If you say that you know what the behaviors of animals a million years ago was, that's not provable that's going on the presumption that the answer is a circle.

The Phylogenetic trees that you say are locked in a vault that only scientists can see, are based on the circle not on what is provable.

When you assemble a skeleton of an animal and you don't really know what the animal looked like that's basing it on the circle.

Its why for so long the t rex was depicted as dragging its tail on the ground.

We as the public generally do not hear too much about the changes in other fields of science and its because those sciences are not pushed on the public. And the public is not as interested in the findings.

Perhaps because public attention leads to more funding that's part of why.

But yes indeed this field is the opposite of most sciences probably because it actually takes creationists seriously and addresses their complaints rather than ignoring them because Creationism is a fairy tale not science.

Perhaps that's really what we are seeing, what happens to science when it is motivated by proving religion wrong, it becomes its own sort of religion. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Whatever evolution is ,it is certainly popular, I have counted at least seven threads running at present ,

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
If I could ask a question about this, true?

You see the acceptance of Evolution - without the knowledge of knowing that it is the truth - as being akin to religion. But could the same not be said of the rejection of Evolution, not knowing that it is the truth?

You are arguing for any kind of knowledge, without that knowledge being absolute in it's determination, as being 'religion'. One could then argue, based on this line of rationalisation, that EVERYTHING we think and have an opinoin about is religion. All knowledge, all science, all thought is religion - including your thoughts on Evolution as a religion.

Thoughts??? :P

That is exactly what I was thinking.

If one must have a certain absolute knowledge of a subject for it to not be "religion" how then is anything not religion? Gravity, Electricity, Chemistry, etc are all religions. And who gets to judge if ones knowledge is sufficient to make their rational "not religious". Will it be True? Who has even said herself,

I am not a scientist and thus can't debate the science obviously.

So how then does someone who can't debate the science of the subject, determine whether it is science or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
If I could ask a question about this, true?

You see the acceptance of Evolution - without the knowledge of knowing that it is the truth - as being akin to religion. But could the same not be said of the rejection of Evolution, not knowing that it is the truth?

You are arguing for any kind of knowledge, without that knowledge being absolute in it's determination, as being 'religion'. One could then argue, based on this line of rationalisation, that EVERYTHING we think and have an opinoin about is religion. All knowledge, all science, all thought is religion - including your thoughts on Evolution as a religion.

Thoughts??? :P

Not really. I posted the definition of religion in the original OP and offered a link for you to peruse because its difficult to decide the definition of religion. Why would you even ask me this question if you read my post?

Rejection of Evolution AS A CAUSE could be held as a religion but only if you replaced it with something else. In other words saying

"I reject Evolution and I think the Spaghetti monster did it" is a religion.

Saying

"I think that there is not enough information for me to be confident in this answer, in addition I see quite a bit of lying, manipulation and fraud in the efforts to prove this as the answer"

That's just skepticism. Its not religious. How is doubting something a religion? Religion is a belief not a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
I agree, but then what level of education does one need to have for their beliefs not to be based on religion and who can judge that?

I disagree with you True, that the "field of evolution" is rife with religious followers and I contend that it is very scientific field. But how can we judge that unless our knowledge of the field is equal? No offense, you have not shown that you know very much about evolutionary biology. So why then should we listen to you as to what problems there are with evolutionary biology.

If you can't answer the questions of what is "fact" and what is "fiction", then you are doing of what you are accusing "Evos" of doing. That is, completing your circle without evidence to support it.

Camlax I will not respond to your questions again. I did not say that the field of evolution is rife with religious followers.

Part of why I don't bother responding to you is you have that circle going in your head about me. You think you KNOW what I mean and respond to me as such. I didn't say that in response toyou. What I said to you was quite specific.

If you wish to say that the reason I feel this way is because I am ignorant in the field then by all means. More power to you.

But quite obviously there are a few other people who understand what I am saying whether they agree with me or not.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tipsy_munchkin

But yes indeed this field is the opposite of most sciences probably because it actually takes creationists seriously and addresses their complaints rather than ignoring them because Creationism is a fairy tale not science.

Perhaps that's really what we are seeing, what happens to science when it is motivated by proving religion wrong, it becomes its own sort of religion. :hmm:

This statement simply isn't true. Some debates on forums may end up appearing this way but it is not the motivation behind the science at all.

The theory of evolution was not developed in order to disprove religion. Creationism and ID stepped forward and attempted to disprove evolution and some people have stepped forward to refute this claim, mainly due to the desire to teach ID in schools. It is ID that is based on disproving evolution not vice versa and it is the school issue and the debate surrounding it that has bought forth the scientific community to state the facts as they are currently known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Not really. I posted the definition of religion in the original OP and offered a link for you to peruse because its difficult to decide the definition of religion. Why would you even ask me this question if you read my post?

Rejection of Evolution AS A CAUSE could be held as a religion but only if you replaced it with something else. In other words saying

"I reject Evolution and I think the Spaghetti monster did it" is a religion.

Saying

"I think that there is not enough information for me to be confident in this answer, in addition I see quite a bit of lying, manipulation and fraud in the efforts to prove this as the answer"

That's just skepticism. Its not religious. How is doubting something a religion? Religion is a belief not a doubt.

How is doubt not a belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Well yes they have camlax. When you say for example you know what the condition of the planet was a million years ago that's not provable. Its going on the presumption that the answer is a circle.

I disagree, Fossils fauna, corona theory, Mineral deposits, sedimentary coring etc all are evidence on what the conditions were millions of years ago. So the circle, is not a simple half circle but rather more like the one I redrew. That you are not aware of these things does not change the reality of it.

If you say that you know what the behaviors of animals a million years ago was, that's not provable that's going on the presumption that the answer is a circle.

Are you familiar with physiology? With comparative anatomy? With site artifacts? All of these again, give us an idea of what animals were likely up too. There is on half circle here either, only something you do not understand so contend it is a half circle.

The Phylogenetic trees that you say are locked in a vault that only scientists can see, are based on the circle not on what is provable.

When you assemble a skeleton of an animal and you don't really know what the animal looked like that's basing it on the circle.

Its why for so long the t rex was depicted as dragging its tail on the ground.

So because one fossil was put together incorrectly it invalidates all others? This is where you seem mistaken (again). The way T-Rex fits together, is based on so many pieces of evidence, we have the dotted circle. One minor blank spot would be equivalent too "the incorrect T-Rex tail".

We as the public generally do not hear too much about the changes in other fields of science and its because those sciences are not pushed on the public. And the public is not as interested in the findings.

Perhaps because public attention leads to more funding that's part of why.

But yes indeed this field is the opposite of most sciences probably because it actually takes creationists seriously and addresses their complaints rather than ignoring them because Creationism is a fairy tale not science.

Perhaps that's really what we are seeing, what happens to science when it is motivated by proving religion wrong, it becomes its own sort of religion. :hmm:

I stick by my statement that you have never read a biosci scientific journal. I have to see one address creationism. People, are allowed to have opinions on things outside of their work. Unless of course, you are not ok with people having their opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
We are relatively certain about evolution. We can never prove a past event, because you can not go back and observe the past. But we are relatively certain about evolution. We have observed evolution today first hand, evolution is not a theory, we know how it happens and that it does happen. However, we can not observe that it happened in the past. We can observe evidence that it occurred in the past, hence: theory.

If you form an opinion based on the science, then of course science is relevant.

I object to the idea that evolution somehow is akin to religion because it is a "belief." A belief doesn't have to be based on evidence. The theory of evolution is based on evidence.

Calling it a religion implies that there is no evidence and seems like an attempt of some, not necessarily the OP, to pull evolution down to the level of religion, that is to say to minimize it to a set of "beliefs" that have no proof and are based on no evidence. It seems to seek to present "evos" as havine a faith of some kind, when they do not. all they have and need is evidence.

I agree with everything you have posted. However EVOLUTION and EVO are two different thngs. This is why I am differentiating and using the term EVO.

This is why I stated that EVOLUTION AS A SCIENCE I admire. What I don't admire are people who have turned it into a religion. The Evos. The evos for example will say that you are wrong to say that you don't really for sure know what the conditions of the earth millions and billions of years ago was. An evo acts as though things that can't be proven are TRUE and FACT. When they are just theory, as you said.

In other words true science always retains a bit of skepticism. When someone is getting angry and emotional when you discuss evolution that's not science. When someone brings up Creationism in discussing evolution, that's not science. When someone says that you are wrong for doubting that scientists are right about their theories of the planet in the past, that's not science.

Science thrives on skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
That's just skepticism. Its not religious. How is doubting something a religion? Religion is a belief not a doubt.

And cannot a belief be something unsupported by evidence? Say something like saying "evolution is a religion"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.