Why I see Evolution as a Religion

[camlax]

You haven't? Then I suggest you do a bit of research.

Why should anyone have to do research on your belief? Why would it be so hard to provide the evidence to begin with?

[drakonwick]

Lets take a step back to the beginning here!

Evolution:

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Creationism:

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Throughout history not everyone has believed in a (One god creating man.) These are the people that have gone on to find different reasons as to why we are here!

These scientists have in no way included any kind of religious creationism in there studies. Creationism/Evolution are two totally different aspects as to the "WHY"

we are here. Creationism requires a belief, where evolution is based upon facts through studies of how a species has developed over time.

Any person with an understanding of this, can see the differentiation between the two.

People who use evolution to prove creationism wrong is not being scientific, and should not be regarded as such. Using this terminology to say that evolution is a religion, is just a terminology, and is nothing more than an opinion.

Regards,

Tom

Edited December 2, 2007 by Tom R

[camlax]

People who use evolution to prove creationism wrong is not being scientific, and should not be regarded as such. Using this terminology to say that evolution is a religion, is just a terminology, and is nothing more than an opinion.

Regards,

Tom

I agree Tom, but what about using science to prove "creationist scientific arguments wrong". For instance, the argument one may make that "soft tissue invalidates radiometric dating" or "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics". These creationist arguments can only be addressed scientifically.

As far as evolution being a religion, I couldn't agree with you there more. That is an opinion or a belief as its unsupported by any evidence provided thus far.

[truethat]

People who use evolution to prove creationism wrong is not being scientific, and should not be regarded as such. Using this terminology to say that evolution is a religion, is just a terminology, and is nothing more than an opinion.

Regards,

Tom

Exactly. So this is why I regard those who attempt to try to use Evolution to prove Creationism wrong as religious believers rather than Scientists.

Unfortunately more and more people are showing up like this. Richard Dawkins might be a brilliant scientist but he's also an Evo.

ETA Dawkins is a good example. If we know that Dawkins is positively angry towards religious believers which is easily demonstrated, and we hear Dawkins with his own words position evolution as the answer to creationism, then we have a clear example of bias.

Edited December 2, 2007 by truethat

[camlax]

Exactly. So this is why I regard those who attempt to try to use Evolution to prove Creationism wrong as religious believers rather than Scientists.

And how do you prove "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" wrong without the use of science? I think the bigger problem here is science education amongst people. I think that people correcting someone's science (such as soft tissue invalidates or is a reason to be skeptical of radiometric dating), is scientific. It is the same thing as teaching a class in organic chemistry and a student answering a question incorrectly.

The problem is, you want to give the teacher a bad review because you did not understand the science in the first place (you is not referring to just you True). One cannot argue about the correctness of evolutionary biology, when they do not understand the underlying science to begin with.

[Leonardo]

Exactly. So this is why I regard those who attempt to try to use Evolution to prove Creationism wrong as religious believers rather than Scientists.

Unfortunately more and more people are showing up like this. Richard Dawkins might be a brilliant scientist but he's also an Evo.

ETA Dawkins is a good example. If we know that Dawkins is positively angry towards religious believers which is easily demonstrated, and we hear Dawkins with his own words position evolution as the answer to creationism, then we have a clear example of bias.

Where Creationism steps on the toes of Evolution we can only expect there to be a 'turf war'. That you don't approve doesn't make it wrong or Evolution a religion.

[truethat]

Where Creationism steps on the toes of Evolution we can only expect there to be a 'turf war'. That you don't approve doesn't make it wrong or Evolution a religion.

Why is there a turf war? That suggests equal footing.

If a Voo Doo witch doctor told people that Exorcism cured their ails would you as a doctor engage in a Turf war with him or would you just continue practicing medicine?

[Raptor]

Why is there a turf war? That suggests equal footing.

If a Voo Doo witch doctor told people that Exorcism cured their ails would you as a doctor engage in a Turf war with him or would you just continue practicing medicine?

So you're asking whether we would intervene or let a doctor continue to practice bad medicine and endanger the lives of patients? Intervention, obviously.

Really that's the same situation with evolution, just substitute it for people teaching bad science that are endangering the education of students.

[camlax]

Why is there a turf war? That suggests equal footing.

If a Voo Doo witch doctor told people that Exorcism cured their ails would you as a doctor engage in a Turf war with him or would you just continue practicing medicine?

Actually there is a "turf war" going on in this country about medicine. The medical community has been outspoken of homeopathy and other "voodoo" get fixed quick schemes advertised on television, for years.

Does this then make the medical community a religion?

I am part of the "physics community" of scientist (being a physicist). We have been outspoken against people still propagating "the aether" for almost a century now. Does that make me and my fellow physicists followers of a religion?

I guess by your chain of though, any member of a "scientific community" who speaks against teaching that science incorrectly is a follower of a religion?

Edited December 2, 2007 by camlax

[Cimber]

So you're asking whether we would intervene or let a doctor continue to practice bad medicine and endanger the lives of patients? Intervention, obviously.

Really that's the same situation with evolution, just substitute it for people teaching bad science that are endangering the education of students.

I agree with this statement by Raptor, and this is a concept I tried to convey in a previous post. What exactly are you trying to get at True? That we as scientists are unable to do this?

[Leonardo]

Why is there a turf war? That suggests equal footing.

If a Voo Doo witch doctor told people that Exorcism cured their ails would you as a doctor engage in a Turf war with him or would you just continue practicing medicine?

Of course the doctor would continue practicing medicine, as the scientists are continuing to practice science. That does not mean the doctor would not try to educate his patients about medicine and how it is effective (not saying the mind is not an effective healing agent, it is). If the patients stopped going to the doctor, seeing only the Voodoo shaman and never got any better, would the doctor try to intevene? I'd bet he/she would.

Why are you disapproving of scientists defending their theory against attack from religion?

[truethat]

So you're asking whether we would intervene or let a doctor continue to practice bad medicine and endanger the lives of patients? Intervention, obviously.

Really that's the same situation with evolution, just substitute it for people teaching bad science that are endangering the education of students.

Ah that's a different question. Bad science endangers a student how? And why is it only considered "dangerous" and "bad science" when a creationist does it.

When Nova makes a tv show aimed at Non science people filled with renowned scientists who basically talk off the top of their heads, its what? Not "bad science because......?"

"

[camlax]

Richard Dawkins might be a brilliant scientist but he's also an Evo.

Dawkins does not use evolution to disprove religious belief. Dawkins uses science to disprove religious belief that wants to be construed as science. This is how science works, if you want something to be considered science, then it will be open to the critique of those in the field. ID/creation science however, does not want to be open to scientific critique, it wants to use the court to be considered science.

There is nothing wrong with correcting or critiquing science, that is what we do in science.

[truethat]

Of course the doctor would continue practicing medicine, as the scientists are continuing to practice science. That does not mean the doctor would not try to educate his patients about medicine and how it is effective (not saying the mind is not an effective healing agent, it is). If the patients stopped going to the doctor, seeing only the Voodoo shaman and never got any better, would the doctor try to intevene? I'd bet he/she would.

Why are you disapproving of scientists defending their theory against attack from religion?

Because its not science. That's why. That's a good question and a good example. And its at the heart of the point I am making.

You see the "circle" here. The theory is still a theory. There is plenty that we can educate the public about but in general the Education goes beyond what is known in a lot of ways.

We don't KNOW about the past. The past is the circle. Some things we know. But most we can't prove. Yet it is presented to the public as if it IS true.

[Raptor]

Ah that's a different question. Bad science endangers a student how? And why is it only considered "dangerous" and "bad science" when a creationist does it.

When Nova makes a tv show aimed at Non science people filled with renowned scientists who basically talk off the top of their heads, its what? Not "bad science because......?"

"

Read my post again, I didn't mention the word creationism at all. I'm entirely neutal on the subject of religion, all I care about is correcting people who teach bad science.

[truethat]

Read my post again, I didn't mention the word creationism at all. I'm entirely neutal on the subject of religion, all I care about is correcting people who teach bad science.

Oh my bad. Well I don't regard you as an Evo by any stretch. You are one of the people who made me see the difference in the Scientific approach and the ham handed angry and defensive Evo approach.

[camlax]

If a Voo Doo witch doctor told people that Exorcism cured their ails would you as a doctor engage in a Turf war with him or would you just continue practicing medicine?

Since I always ask you for evidence, I will provide mine.

Most observers from outside the fields of alternative or unconventional medicine find no common or unifying theory or basis for its use; indeed, it may be that the variety of treatments in itself enhances their popularity. Many such therapies are characterized by a charismatic leader or proponent, and are driven by ideology; some spring from folk practices or quasi-religious groups, while others are recognized elements of religions such as those practiced by Native Americans.

Many alternative practitioners are unlicensed (except for chiropractic, and in some states, acupuncturists, naturopaths, and homeopathic therapists) and unregulated, particularly those dealing in alternative nutritional therapy.

A snippet taken from the American Medical Association on alternative forms of medicine. Sounds to me something like scientific community would issue about id/creationism as science. Does then mean that the AMA is a religious institution?

I think it should be quite clear at this point, that your statement (evolution is religion) is incorrect, unless you are willing to concede all sciences as religion of course.

Edited December 2, 2007 by camlax

[camlax]

Because its not science. That's why. That's a good question and a good example. And its at the heart of the point I am making.

You see the "circle" here. The theory is still a theory. There is plenty that we can educate the public about but in general the Education goes beyond what is known in a lot of ways.

We don't KNOW about the past. The past is the circle. Some things we know. But most we can't prove. Yet it is presented to the public as if it IS true.

It seems the point you are making is, that is not ok for scientists in a particular field, to correct incorrect statements about the field. There is plenty we can educate the public about, and in general the education goes far beyond what most are willing to learn. So how then do we determine when one has learned enough for their thoughts on a science to not be considered belief? I had asked you that before and you did not answer.

[IamsSon]

So you're asking whether we would intervene or let a doctor continue to practice bad medicine and endanger the lives of patients? Intervention, obviously.

Really that's the same situation with evolution, just substitute it for people teaching bad science that are endangering the education of students.

So, then to teach that, based on a couple of pieces of fossilized bone (which may not even all be from the same creature), we know how a particular creature looked, walked, mated, reproduced, ate, and reared it's young in a certain way is perfectly proper, but to teach that science is absolutely INCAPABLE by it's very nature of determining HOW life actually came about and to present ideas based on other valid forms of human study is sacrilege?

Do you not see the bias? Really?

[camlax]

So, then to teach that, based on a couple of pieces of fossilized bone (which may not even all be from the same creature), we know how a particular creature looked, walked, mated, reproduced, ate, and reared it's young in a certain way is perfectly proper, but to teach that science is absolutely INCAPABLE by it's very nature of determining HOW life actually came about and to present ideas based on other valid forms of human study is sacrilege?

Do you not see the bias? Really?

Your mistake is the assumption that all we have are "a couple of pieces of fossilized bone". The bias lies in that line of thinking.

[camlax]

So, then to teach that, based on a couple of pieces of fossilized bone (which may not even all be from the same creature), we know how a particular creature looked, walked, mated, reproduced, ate, and reared it's young in a certain way is perfectly proper, but to teach that science is absolutely INCAPABLE by it's very nature of determining HOW life actually came about and to present ideas based on other valid forms of human study is sacrilege?

Do you not see the bias? Really?

Could you provide and example of a scientific study where "how a particular creature looked, walked, mated, reproduced, ate, and reared it's young in a certain way" is extrapolated from a few pieces of bone?

[Leonardo]

Because its not science. That's why. That's a good question and a good example. And its at the heart of the point I am making.

You see the "circle" here. The theory is still a theory. There is plenty that we can educate the public about but in general the Education goes beyond what is known in a lot of ways.

We don't KNOW about the past. The past is the circle. Some things we know. But most we can't prove. Yet it is presented to the public as if it IS true.

The 'theory' contains a lot of facts supported by a lot of directly observed evidence. This [the evidence] is taught and so the general public accept the theory at face value - often having witnessed the observed evidence in labs or in exhibits/scientific papers. That we can actually witness this support of Evolution means it is more 'real' to us than some etheric sky entity breathing our life into us after having moulded us from dust where the only evidence of this comes from a 2000+year old translation of a translation.

Defending a scientific theory is science. If it was a rival scientific theory attacking Evolution would you be so up in arms?

Scientists use the evidence gathered in support of Evolution to point out claims made by Creationists aren't correct. This evidence then says Evolution is probably correct unless a rival theory can be found to replace it. That rival theory will come from science, not religion.

To be honest, true, it sounds like you are arguing over the semantics of how scientists address laypeople. If someone is that interested in learning what Evolution is or isn't they will make the effort and learn that. We can't all know everything, people pick and choose what they wish to learn proficiently and accept that they will be guided by other specialists with regard the rest. Some are guided by religious specialists and some by science specialists (and some by a bit of both). Some appear to be guided by neither and end up expressing their frustration that others are so guided. Why?

[truethat]

So, then to teach that, based on a couple of pieces of fossilized bone (which may not even all be from the same creature), we know how a particular creature looked, walked, mated, reproduced, ate, and reared it's young in a certain way is perfectly proper, but to teach that science is absolutely INCAPABLE by it's very nature of determining HOW life actually came about and to present ideas based on other valid forms of human study is sacrilege?

Do you not see the bias? Really?

Interesting use of the word sacrilege. That's quite appropriate.

[camlax]

Interesting use of the word sacrilege. That's quite appropriate.

I disagree. Iams has said himself that "An omnipotent god would be capable of preforming the acts described in genesis". So to him, he needs to undermine the evidence for evolution to persist in his belief. If one way he can undermine it, is by reasoning that the "science is flawed and actually a religion" he will. And indeed we have seen him go to great lengths to try and undermine science (though I would say he has failed at every turn, but that is only my humble opinion). Actually, taking the time to understand the science he is always claiming to be a fan of, might upset his world views (and we wouldn't want that would we!)

Now I would agree sacrilege would be a great word to use here if either of you could provide evidence of evolution being a religion (as opposed to simply stating your belief).

Edited December 2, 2007 by camlax

[Raptor]

...but to teach that science is absolutely INCAPABLE by it's very nature of determining HOW life actually came about and to present ideas based on other valid forms of human study is sacrilege?

What?