Why I see Evolution as a Religion

[Leonardo]

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?

As cam has already addressed the 'couple of pieces of fossilised bone' part of your post I'll concentrate on the latter portion.

Where does 'science' say that presenting ideas based on other forms of study is 'sacrilege'? Where is it taught so?

You are, I presume, referring to the efforts to show how abiogenesis could explain how life arose on Earth? What's wrong with curiosity and a thirst for knowledge? Why does this endeavour mean that theological explanations (and again, I'm assuming those are the ones you are referring to in 'other valid forms of human study') are sacrilege? It may mean they're wrong, but that's not sacrilege. Sacrilege implies religion, which science is not.

Can I ask if you and true are agreeing your strategy via PM?

[MissMelsWell]

I guess I can come to this thread and say that while I like some of the evolutionary theories, and even believe in a form of evolution, science hasn't nailed it all down yet, they have yet to prove that there isn't some kind of intelligent force behind it all.

I take bits and peices of the evolutionary theory and either accept or reject it like any logical person would. It's a dispassionate process.

I'm also a church goer, yes, a believer in God, a christian maybe. I still have yet to figure out what science and theology have to do with each other at all!? And why EVO's are so seemingly concerned about theology. Just stick to the science and quit trying to use science to disprove theology. It's ridiculous.

Let's face it... Evo's (as truethat defines them) have their head stuck in the sand, creationists have their stuck in the clouds. Whatever. It makes no difference in the end anyway.

[camlax]

Can I ask if you and true are agreeing your strategy via PM?

Ha, you know I had kind of got that feeling myself.

[Lt_Ripley]

ah ha. I had skimmed over this and thought naw ............ but my 2 cents ? ok

I believe in Evolution theory. I also believe in God but have no proof of God other than a 'feeling' which is not proof at all. But I figure , like love only being a feeling , it must have some sort of validity if only to myself.

Is Evolution a religion? like other religions ? no.

Whereas religions , all , are based on feeling with no proof to back up a claim of God. Evolution can be seen in various forms , like viruses for example. we can date the earth well. huge dinosaurs like the t Rex and man didn't co exist. ect......

Now , I do believe God had Gods' hand in it. Maybe God started the 'Big Bang' . and let it all unfold , being a all knowing being knew what was going to happen - evolution. 7 days could be 70 billion years to God. Time is irrelevant.

Evolution theory is the unraveling of the process. Nothing to do with God or religion , but plain old curiosity. As with all theories, it evolves , changes to fit the evidence. Religion doesn't ( or it drags it's heels and buries it's head when it comes to evidence.)

Religion is born of fear. the need to explain why we exist not how.

[camlax]

I'm also a church goer, yes, a believer in God, a christian maybe. I still have yet to figure out what science and theology have to do with each other at all!? And why EVO's are so seemingly concerned about theology. Just stick to the science and quit trying to use science to disprove theology. It's ridiculous.

Maybe you can answer this question for me Miss Mels, since True declined.

When "theology" attempts to use science (like creation science and ID), why then are they not allowed to be criticized scientifically? That is how science works after all, and if certain groups wish to put their "theology" in the realm of science, are scientists not allowed to treat at such because it involves their religious beliefs as well?

For instance, Creation scientists often make the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is a scientific argument, how would this not be addressed by scientists?

[MissMelsWell]

Camlax, how in the hell would I know? Did you miss the part where I said I'm largely an evolutionist? Did you really get that hung-up on the fact that I said I was a church goer and a Christian?

This is what makes you an EVO... Why would you even ask me that question? You completely took my post out of context with your quote... you removed the part where I said I was mostly an evolutionist and you removed the part where I said that I thought most Evo's had their head in the sand and creationists have their head in the clouds.

You just did what Dawkins if famous for doing.

Edited December 2, 2007 by MissMelsWell

[camlax]

Camlax, how in the hell would I know? Did you miss the part where I said I'm largely an evolutionist? Did you really get that hung-up on the fact that I said I was a church goer and a Christian?

This is what makes you an EVO... Why would you even ask me that question? You completely took my post out of context with your quote... you removed the part where I said I was mostly an evolutionist and you removed the part where I said that I thought most Evo's had their head in the sand and creationists have their head in the clouds.

Sheesh, The hostility here. Is there a problem with ask your thoughts on a subject?

(by the way, I removed the other parts so you knew which part I was specifically addressing. There is not need to copy someones entire post if you are only asking a question about one specific part).

Edited December 2, 2007 by camlax

[truethat]

ah ha. I had skimmed over this and thought naw ............ but my 2 cents ? ok

I believe in Evolution theory. I also believe in God but have no proof of God other than a 'feeling' which is not proof at all. But I figure , like love only being a feeling , it must have some sort of validity if only to myself.

Is Evolution a religion? like other religions ? no.

Whereas religions , all , are based on feeling with no proof to back up a claim of God. Evolution can be seen in various forms , like viruses for example. we can date the earth well. huge dinosaurs like the t Rex and man didn't co exist. ect......

Now , I do believe God had Gods' hand in it. Maybe God started the 'Big Bang' . and let it all unfold , being a all knowing being knew what was going to happen - evolution. 7 days could be 70 billion years to God. Time is irrelevant.

Evolution theory is the unraveling of the process. Nothing to do with God or religion , but plain old curiosity. As with all theories, it evolves , changes to fit the evidence. Religion doesn't ( or it drags it's heels and buries it's head when it comes to evidence.)

Religion is born of fear. the need to explain why we exist not how.

You said two things I agree with. One is that religion is born out of fear. The need to explain but I disagree that its about the why and not the how. I think that when a person chooses Evolution as an "answer" OVER creation, then their motivations show what the reason for their belief is.

I think Tom hit on this a few times and although this thread is being attempted to be derailed into the science of it, I'd like to keep it on the philosophy of it because I think that this is what is at the heart of the problem.

The other thing I agree with is that Religion is born of fear. And its interesting to me as well to see Evos bring up how they fear that its infuriating that children are being taught bad science.

This huge elaboration that somehow its this devastating detriment to the children NOT to be taught this theory. That the Creationists are COMING to take over. Etc etc

This fear is used a lot by EVOs to promote the idea that we need to STOP them. Etc. Take a look at Dawkins, (my favorite Evo) documentary on religion where he uses 911 as an idication that religion is hurting us and Evolution is the saving grace.

Its this aspect of evolution I am discussing. This is not about the SCIENCE of evolution. Its about the knee jerk panic, emotional reaction and bias that stems from this.

As Leo pointed out earlier MANY things can be turned into religion by the fervor with which they are regarded. Evolution is no exception.

[MissMelsWell]

Sheesh, The hostility here. Is there a problem with ask your thoughts on a subject?

No, it's not hostility, my friend, it's irritation.

You asked for my thoughts on a subject I clearly know nothing about, and you asked me because I said I was a church goer and a Christian. Then you took my post out of context when it was clear via the original post I had no opinion or care for which theory is correct because in the end, it makes no difference.

What's your agenda? I clearly don't have one.

[camlax]

No, it's not hostility, my friend, it's irritation.

You asked for my thoughts on a subject I clearly know nothing about, and you asked me because I said I was a church goer and a Christian. Then you took my post out of context when it was clear via the original post I had no opinion or care for which theory is correct because in the end, it makes no difference.

What's your agenda? I clearly don't have one.

You know a simple "I dont want to answer the question would be sufficient".

I have an agenda, Do I?

[IamsSon]

As cam has already addressed the 'couple of pieces of fossilised bone' part of your post I'll concentrate on the latter portion.

Where does 'science' say that presenting ideas based on other forms of study is 'sacrilege'? Where is it taught so?

Science doesn't say this, Leo, but the people true refers to as Evos do.

You are, I presume, referring to the efforts to show how abiogenesis could explain how life arose on Earth? What's wrong with curiosity and a thirst for knowledge? Why does this endeavour mean that theological explanations (and again, I'm assuming those are the ones you are referring to in 'other valid forms of human study') are sacrilege? It may mean they're wrong, but that's not sacrilege. Sacrilege implies religion, which science is not.

There is nothing wrong with it Leo, nothing at all, I enjoy the thirst for knowledge. What I am pointing out is that by it's nature science is not able to study the beginning of life. It is very likely that we will never be able to use science to determine whether God really is out there or not, because science is confined to nature, and by definition, God is not part of nature.

Part of the issue in these discussions seems to be the idea that a Christian NEEDS evolution to be wrong so that his faith will not be shaken. This, at least for me, could not be further from the truth. See how God set up the universe does not impact my need for Salvation, His call on me to love Him with all that I am and to love others as myself. Unless and until someone can prove to me that the personal relationship I have with Him is not real, nothing science does or does not find shakes my relationship with Him in the least.

Can I ask if you and true are agreeing your strategy via PM?

Yes, we are and you are all dancing to our tune Bwahahaha. But we're not communicating by PM, we're sitting next to each other scheming and planning.

[MissMelsWell]

You know a simple "I dont want to answer the question would be sufficient".

I have an agenda, Do I?

I did you one better ... I said I CAN'T answer a question I know nothing about. And I was clear on that well before you asked the question. You're twisting it around again. It's not that I don't want to answer, it's that I can't answer. Big difference.

[truethat]

Slaps Joe,

Get your god speak outta my thread man, and stop hogging the chair.

[Lilly]

When "theology" attempts to use science (like creation science and ID), why then are they not allowed to be criticized scientifically? That is how science works after all, and if certain groups wish to put their "theology" in the realm of science, are scientists not allowed to treat at such because it involves their religious beliefs as well?

For instance, Creation scientists often make the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is a scientific argument, how would this not be addressed by scientists?

Well, I'd like to try and answer this one. If anyone (be they advocates of any particular religion, philosophy, or creed) chose to utilize science in support of their argument then they have to accept that this can then go both ways. Science simply doesn't care what beliefs are being supported or refuted. Science is evidence driven, empirical by it's very nature. Therefore, when one enters into the realm of discussing something from a scientific perspective it has to be expected that scientists will treat it as such.

[camlax]

Science doesn't say this, Leo, but the people true refers to as Evos do.

That is interesting, since you guys have termed me an "Evo" could you please provide a reference to where I said this?

There is nothing wrong with it Leo, nothing at all, I enjoy the thirst for knowledge. What I am pointing out is that by it's nature science is not able to study the beginning of life. It is very likely that we will never be able to use science to determine whether God really is out there or not, because science is confined to nature, and by definition, God is not part of nature.

Actually that is incorrect. You make the assumptions that A) Science will never be able to study the beging of life and God is responsible for that beginning. If life started naturally, there is nothing (besides our current technological capabilities) stopping us from studying it.

Part of the issue in these discussions seems to be the idea that a Christian NEEDS evolution to be wrong so that his faith will not be shaken. This, at least for me, could not be further from the truth. See how God set up the universe does not impact my need for Salvation, His call on me to love Him with all that I am and to love others as myself. Unless and until someone can prove to me that the personal relationship I have with Him is not real, nothing science does or does not find shakes my relationship with Him in the least.

So if you do not need evolution to be wrong, why spread lies about what evolution is?

[truethat]

I did you one better ... I said I CAN'T answer a question I know nothing about. And I was clear on that well before you asked the question. You're twisting it around again. It's not that I don't want to answer, it's that I can't answer. Big difference.

This is an excellent point. The bullying of people by suggesting they WON'T answer a question when they simply can't because they don't have the knowledge is important.

This is another part of religion to me that you see that in ye olden days only the "Divine" were allowed to have say. Only those with the complete knowledge were allowed to participate.

The others were expected to follow without question. Those that did question were regarded as heretics. How DARE you question the mighty.....Wizard of OZ.

With regard to Evolution I see people like Dawkins suggest that we mere mortals aren't allowed to question unless we have academic standing.

Its the same deal really.

[Leonardo]

Yes, we are and you are all dancing to our tune Bwahahaha. But we're not communicating by PM, we're sitting next to each other scheming and planning.

I'm a terrible dancer!!!!

[camlax]

I did you one better ... I said I CAN'T answer a question I know nothing about. And I was clear on that well before you asked the question. You're twisting it around again. It's not that I don't want to answer, it's that I can't answer. Big difference.

Ok so you can't answer the question. My apologies for asking.

[IamsSon]

I'm a terrible dancer!!!!

OK, well then, you're out!

[Lt_Ripley]

You said two things I agree with. One is that religion is born out of fear. The need to explain but I disagree that its about the why and not the how. I think that when a person chooses Evolution as an "answer" OVER creation, then their motivations show what the reason for their belief is.

I think Tom hit on this a few times and although this thread is being attempted to be derailed into the science of it, I'd like to keep it on the philosophy of it because I think that this is what is at the heart of the problem.

The other thing I agree with is that Religion is born of fear. And its interesting to me as well to see Evos bring up how they fear that its infuriating that children are being taught bad science.

This huge elaboration that somehow its this devastating detriment to the children NOT to be taught this theory. That the Creationists are COMING to take over. Etc etc

This fear is used a lot by EVOs to promote the idea that we need to STOP them. Etc. Take a look at Dawkins, (my favorite Evo) documentary on religion where he uses 911 as an idication that religion is hurting us and Evolution is the saving grace.

Its this aspect of evolution I am discussing. This is not about the SCIENCE of evolution. Its about the knee jerk panic, emotional reaction and bias that stems from this.

As Leo pointed out earlier MANY things can be turned into religion by the fervor with which they are regarded. Evolution is no exception.

I find I'm caught. As much as I believe in God I don't believe in the creation story which actually comes from the Sumerians first ( about 1000 years before the bible was written) - not the Hebrews. It's fantasy . pure fantasy.

and I think it is a step backwards into a dark age to teach Creationism as fact. might as well tell kids monkey fly out of our rears too. and I think this is what science is upset about. You start with one area and if you keep down that road you end up where Christianity was when it was found that the earth revolved around the sun - being called a heretic.

It's the fact that religion has been known to go off the deep end. I see this as a denial of facts in order to hold on to it's identity in a time where science and society are moving faster forward than the religion wants to keep up. Think of it in a part from The Wizard of Oz. they ( Dorthy and crew ) thought the wizard was a powerful being but come to find out it was an illusion. The illusion of religion is falling away from it's old out of date description from a society that wrote donkeys could talk and the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Where the 'world' was the radius of say 1000 miles.

It's akin to teaching in med school that you can use chemo to treat cancer OR just as effectively use a rattle and chant. Which would you choose for you kid ?

I think that is the evolutionists panic. that religion is trying to turn back science and education in order to keep itself viable. that religion is the one actually panicking at the loss of it's validity as time goes on. that redefinition scares it .

While I think it's wrong to downplay a belief in God by evolutionists , one has to admit the fact or evidence that there is no proof of God other than a feeling. While evolutionists have very measurable evidence. I don't think evolutionists believe evolution is a 'religion' either , but a measurable process.

[Jodie.Lynne]

.... snip.....

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.

Yes, a clear example of bias....by RICHARD DAWKINS. Not "science", "scientists", "evolutionary scientists", or the scientific community as a whole.

If I am reading you correctly truethat, you are having issue with people who are embracing evolution as

A - a counter arguement to creationists

B - folks who do not have the scientific background to argue evolution

and

C - Richard Dawkins.

Citing RD as the spokesman for all scientists and those who have interest in evolutionary theory is like citing the nutjob who runs the WBC as the spokesman for all christians.

Now, how do you propose pro-evolutionists respond on these threads to beleivers who tout creationism? Should the 7 days of creation crowd be ignored when they post their faithful diatribes against evolution? Or should Pro-evolutionists try to argue the point?

Should Pro-evolutionists respond with "Evol is NOT out to 'disprove' god" (as has been said many, many times on these boards). Or what? what is it that is driving your anger and your zeal to class "EVO's" as religious?

Editted to add one little ( but very important) word.

Edited December 2, 2007 by JMPD1

[camlax]

Well, I'd like to try and answer this one. If anyone (be they advocates of any particular religion, philosophy, or creed) chose to utilize science in support of their argument then they have to accept that this can then go both ways. Science simply doesn't care what beliefs are being supported or refuted. Science is evidence driven, empirical by it's very nature. Therefore, when one enters into the realm of discussing something from a scientific perspective it has to be expected that scientists will treat it as such.

I appreciate the answer Lilly, it is a very good answer. So how then does one, (by the standards of the thread) address anything in a scientific manner without making the jump to a religion. Meaning, The OP contends that evolution is a religion because they (evolutionists) address creationist points. How is it possible to address something like "The second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution" in an unscientific manner. Should we (the people of the scientific community) no be obligated to correct incorrect science such as that argument.

How is that any different than answering a test question incorrectly in a science class? Are all science teachers "perpetuates of religion" because they correct incorrect science?

Very interesting dilemma.

[truethat]

Well, I'd like to try and answer this one. If anyone (be they advocates of any particular religion, philosophy, or creed) chose to utilize science in support of their argument then they have to accept that this can then go both ways. Science simply doesn't care what beliefs are being supported or refuted. Science is evidence driven, empirical by it's very nature. Therefore, when one enters into the realm of discussing something from a scientific perspective it has to be expected that scientists will treat it as such.

This post made me think because it sums up one point for me. That is that when science is used by religion it has to be expected to be responded to BY SCIENCE. And this p***es off a lot of IDers because they tend to want to blurr the edges a little.

So too, perhaps for me, this is the problem I have with Science discussing Creationism. Its a no go. There is no scientific way to discuss God. If a scientist is discussing God in the name of Evolution then by definition he is no longer a scientist. He is a religious man.

[MissMelsWell]

I don't think "religious" is meant as a "theological" term here, but more of a zealotry... I'm a religious and in fact zealotous housekeeper... I even have my housekeeping doctrine in the form of Hints from Heloise. LOL

[Lt_Ripley]

here's a big difference between the two that also makes me a Evolutionist rather than a Creationist.

science can admit when it's wrong . Religion doesn't.