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
How is doubt not a belief?

You are doing it again Leonardo. I stated for the sake of this argument that this is the defintion I am using. Go back and read the OP. This is just derailing the debate. If you wish to debate the meaning of religion, then please start a new thread. For the sake of my this thread I've used a specific definition which I've quoted for you in the original post.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neognosis
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.

that's a myth perpetuated by creationists, that science is "out to prove them wrong."

The only reason that evolution gets argued by people and something like chemistry doesn't, is becasue religious groups are not trying to force chemistry teachers in high school to present a theory that says something like "water freezes becasue God ordered that there will be ice in the world" or "molecules don't really exist, matter is part of God."

But creationists are trying to get their "beliefs" taught in science class, and that is infuriating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tipsy_munchkin

the aspect of religion you appear to be reffering to is faith

faith (fth)

n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

This is the difference between religous belief and belief in science. Science does not require faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
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.

I agree with this post as well. Especially the point about ID. Thats a very good example. I differentiate as I've said several times between EVOS and Evolution as a science. I do not say that the field is motivated by proving creationists wrong. What I say is that its turning into a religious movement.

In other words you can take the idea of LIFE and how it began and create Polytheistic or Monotheistic religions around it.

You can also take Evolution as a SCIENCE and create a religion around it. That is what Evos NOT SCIENTISTS (although some scientists like Richard Dawkins are doing it) are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber

True, I have to say, every thread that seems to get derailed, is one you are apart of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Science thrives on skepticism.

I agree 100%. So I'll ask you again, as I asked in our last discussion on skepticism. Do you possess the necessary ability to be skeptical of a science? Because a second ago I thought you said:

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

Which would mean being doubtful of the science is your belief. Not skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
You are doing it again Leonardo. I stated for the sake of this argument that this is the defintion I am using. Go back and read the OP. This is just derailing the debate. If you wish to debate the meaning of religion, then please start a new thread. For the sake of my this thread I've used a specific definition which I've quoted for you in the original post.

B)

How am I derailing a topic about this...

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

...when surely, your belief that Evolution is a religion fits your definition?

When you state why you see Evolution as a religion, then post your definition, is it not pertinant to point out that, according to that definition, your accusation and belief is a religion as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
that's a myth perpetuated by creationists, that science is "out to prove them wrong."

The only reason that evolution gets argued by people and something like chemistry doesn't, is becasue religious groups are not trying to force chemistry teachers in high school to present a theory that says something like "water freezes becasue God ordered that there will be ice in the world" or "molecules don't really exist, matter is part of God."

But creationists are trying to get their "beliefs" taught in science class, and that is infuriating.

I don't think I am making myself clear although I've stated this several times.

I differentiate between SCIENTISTS and EVOS. Science is not "out to prove them wrong" Evos are. Evos responded to the ID beliefs seriously and started fighting with them.

Why is it "infuriating" that IDers want their stuff taught in schools? Who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tipsy_munchkin
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.

I agree with this post as well. Especially the point about ID. Thats a very good example. I differentiate as I've said several times between EVOS and Evolution as a science. I do not say that the field is motivated by proving creationists wrong. What I say is that its turning into a religious movement.

Can you clarify which you think as this appears to me to be a direct contradiction.

thank you

x

Edited by tipsy_munchkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
How am I derailing a topic about this...

...when surely, your belief that Evolution is a religion fits your definition?

When you state why you see Evolution as a religion, then post your definition, is it not pertinant to point out that, according to that definition, your accusation and belief is a religion as well?

Ok if you wish Leo yes than I can see that you'd say my belief of this is a religion as well.

Except that's not what I am saying. I'm saying Evolution is being practiced as a religion by EVOS not everyone.

What has that to do with the topic? You seem to delight in derailing my topics and its frustrating to me because it is difficult enough for me to explain this to people without added confusion thrown in just for the hell of it.

What is your point in asking this question? That we ALL have religious beliefs?

What is your point and what does it have to do with my OP?

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
I don't think I am making myself clear although I've stated this several times.

I differentiate between SCIENTISTS and EVOS. Science is not "out to prove them wrong" Evos are. Evos responded to the ID beliefs seriously and started fighting with them.

Why is it "infuriating" that IDers want their stuff taught in schools? Who cares?

If evo's are just another religious sect and are not associated with the field of science then why do you care about them? Do you talk about sects of Hinduism? Or Buddhists? I think the only point that you would care is because you believe "Evos" are infringing in the field of evolution. Otherwise what would be the point of even making this thread? To toot your own whistle?

And if you do indeed believe 'Evos' to be infringing upon the field of evolutionary biology, then why do you avoid any and all questions that require to provide evidence for such a claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Ok if you wish Leo yes than I can see that you'd say my belief of this is a religion as well.

Except that's not what I am saying. I'm saying Evolution is being practiced as a religion by EVOS not everyone.

What has that to do with the topic? You seem to delight in derailing my topics and its frustrating to me because it is difficult enough for me to explain this to people without added confusion thrown in just for the hell of it.

What is your point in asking this question? That we ALL have religious beliefs?

Maybe then true, you should start this in a blog? You seem to not want people to debate with you or ask you questions. Should all agree with you?

3 cheers for true!

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neognosis
Evos responded to the ID beliefs seriously and started fighting with them.

Why is it "infuriating" that IDers want their stuff taught in schools? Who cares?

Then you can count me as an "Evo." I have NO problem with people who have a belief and recognize that it is without evidence, but they just "believe." I have a HUGE problem with deception. And those who skew science and present falsehood as "science" are being deceptive. Especially when they do so in the name of their religious beliefs.

It is "infuriating" that they want it presented as another alternative in a science class. Maybe in a class on social issues or relgion, but never in science class. That cheapens actual science. I care because a democracy can not function without an educated populace, and producing a generation of ignorant people who think that there is serious question about evolutionary theory, and who believe that there is scientific proof for ID is dangerous and a threat to our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Can you clarify which you think as this appears to me to be a direct contradiction.

thank you

x

Its only a direct contradiction if you don't differentiate between EVOS and Scientists.

I am quite sure for example that there are scientists working in the field of evolution that don't give two pits what the Creationists have to say about it. The creationists are well off their radar. They are just a bunch of noise to them. As such they continue to practice their science as a science without a motivation or bias.

Now for example there was a poster here who on one thread noticed that another poster was pointing out the "code" in DNA and said something like "Ok I see where you are trying to go with this and no"

So they were responding to the fact that the Creationist was using the science to prove that there was some sort of intelligence or whatnot.

This is why I started a new thread. If you discuss evolution there should NEVER be a response to creationism in it, if indeed it is a science.

When you begin responding to Creationists then its not science any more in my opinion.

Example why does the scientist in this article care so much what Creationists think of it? Leave them to their ignorance then. Who cares.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Then you can count me as an "Evo." I have NO problem with people who have a belief and recognize that it is without evidence, but they just "believe." I have a HUGE problem with deception. And those who skew science and present falsehood as "science" are being deceptive. Especially when they do so in the name of their religious beliefs.

It is "infuriating" that they want it presented as another alternative in a science class. Maybe in a class on social issues or relgion, but never in science class. That cheapens actual science. I care because a democracy can not function without an educated populace, and producing a generation of ignorant people who think that there is serious question about evolutionary theory, and who believe that there is scientific proof for ID is dangerous and a threat to our society.

Ok so this is a valid argument and one I've addressed before. So why is it if you are concerned about deceptive science you aren't equally outraged when Scientists do it in the name of Evo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber

So your basically saying that scientists, the most qualified and knowledgable on evolution, can't defend it after blatant, unsubstantiated attacks towards it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
So your basically saying that scientists, the most qualified and knowledgable on evolution, can't defend it after blatant, unsubstantiated attacks towards it?

Please point out where I said that?

You see I've been saying this for years but the knee jerk defensiveness towards anyone who DARE question Evolution makes it nearly impossible for people to understand what I am saying.

I see for example Tom R basically saw what I was saying. But all the science people are of course outraged and suggesting that I am saying things that I am not saying.

We've got the personal insults down. The attempts to derail the thread. Etc.

As I have stated at least 5 times in this thread I differentiate between an EVO and an actual scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
This is why I started a new thread. If you discuss evolution there should NEVER be a response to creationism in it, if indeed it is a science.

When you begin responding to Creationists then its not science any more in my opinion.

You can't just say that evolution isn't a science when it is defending itself from creationist's claims. By that reasoning, when it mentions creationism, it is no longer science. How does making a statement towards creationism somehow undo statistical analysis, experiments, the fossil record, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
So your basically saying that scientists, the most qualified and knowledgable on evolution, can't defend it after blatant, unsubstantiated attacks towards it?

Please point out where I said that?

Example why does the scientist in this article care so much what Creationists think of it? Leave them to their ignorance then. Who cares.

When you begin responding to Creationists then its not science any more in my opinion.
Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neognosis
So why is it if you are concerned about deceptive science you aren't equally outraged when Scientists do it in the name of Evo?

I've not seen scientists distort facts and omit things on purpose to support evolution. I HAVE seen scientists make new discoveries and modify the theory, though. For instance, we used to believe, based on the available evidence, that the human family was more or less a straight line. Now we know, based on new evidence and new technologies, that our "family tree" is more like a vine with branches that terminate in humanoid species that died out. NOT a chain with each link touching the next.

Unfortunately, IDers like to use this to cry "see! Science was wrong about THAT, so how can you believe ANYTHING they have to say!"

And that, my dear truethat, is infuriating.

They either claim that scientists hide things and distort things to keep their theory alive, or they claim that they "don't actually know anything" when they make new discoveries that result in the theory being changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
You can't just say that evolution isn't a science when it is defending itself from creationist's claims. By that reasoning, when it mentions creationism, it is no longer science. How does making a statement towards creationism somehow undo statistical analysis, experiments, the fossil record, etc.

Because of bias. Science is supposed to be CLEAN. No bias. If someone for example WANTS to prove something that's not science.

If someone changes the definition of something because it "infuriates them" that the Creationists are using that to bolster their arguments, that's BIAS not science.

You don't throw away the statistics and what not but at the same time, if you KNOW that someone is performing an experiment with a bias in mind would you take the results as is, or would you have a bit of skepticism?

Please answer that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Ok, this is going to end now. Camlax and truethat, listen up.

1) If one is going to claim points as being valid others will question you. This is a discussion board for goodness sakes.

2) If one doesn't to want engage in debate with specific people...do not address them or their claims.

3) If you don't *like* someone leave them be.

Is this perfectly clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
I've not seen scientists distort facts and omit things on purpose to support evolution.

You haven't? Then I suggest you do a bit of research. Maybe that's why you don't understand my skepticism.

I HAVE seen scientists make new discoveries and modify the theory, though. For instance, we used to believe, based on the available evidence, that the human family was more or less a straight line. Now we know, based on new evidence and new technologies, that our "family tree" is more like a vine with branches that terminate in humanoid species that died out. NOT a chain with each link touching the next.

I have too and I find it fascinating and marvelous science when this happens.

Unfortunately, IDers like to use this to cry "see! Science was wrong about THAT, so how can you believe ANYTHING they have to say!"

They either claim that scientists hide things and distort things to keep their theory alive, or they claim that they "don't actually know anything" when they make new discoveries that result in the theory being changed.

You claim that scientists have never done any of these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Because of bias. Science is supposed to be CLEAN. No bias. If someone for example WANTS to prove something that's not science.

If someone changes the definition of something because it "infuriates them" that the Creationists are using that to bolster their arguments, that's BIAS not science.

You don't throw away the statistics and what not but at the same time, if you KNOW that someone is performing an experiment with a bias in mind would you take the results as is, or would you have a bit of skepticism?

Please answer that question.

And where are the biases? Can you please point out these experiments in evolutionary biology which should not be trusted because of Bias? If you cannot then you are "completing the circle" with no evidence. In other words, you have a belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Ok, this is going to end now. Camlax and truethat, listen up.

1) If one is going to claim points as being valid others will question you. This is a discussion board for goodness sakes.

2) If one doesn't to want engage in debate with specific people...do not address them or their claims.

3) If you don't *like* someone leave them be.

Is this perfectly clear?

*SNIP*

Do not continue to fan the flames.

Thank you for posting this.

Edited by Lilly

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.