Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Erasmus00]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in theology or evolution... Anyway, a popular assertion in the Christian creation vs evolution arguments is that evolution is a religion, and those opposing biblical creation are just clinging to a different religion. I thought rather than diverting a bunch of threads off topic, we might as well start a seperate thread to discuss the issue.

 

As I see it, neither evolution OR biblical creation are religions. Both seek to be scientific models of the universe we live in, although one is undeniably religiously motivated. In that light, evolution is clearly the more viable model as it has real explanatory power. It explains, for instance, we Hawaii sports flightless birds, and it explains the general geological layout of life on this planet. It explains why human DNA is remarkably similar to that of yeast, etc, etc. Also, the specifics behind evolution change as new data is unearthed, leading to punctuated equilibrium, etc, etc. Far from being a weakness open to attack, this is the halmark of a scientific theory.

 

As a scientific model, creationism predicts nothing. It takes new data and figures out (and often increasingly complicated) explanations for how such data fits into the past flood. It also has the drawback of being impossible to adapt, and change. This inability to change forces creation "scientists" to bend data to fit, or discredit that which won't. This leads to abominations like the ICR, whose purpose is nothing more than to hoodwink scientifically illiterate people.

 

Creationists, it seems to me, wish to put evolution (and biblical creationism) on religious terms, for it is in that region where creationism is most credible.

-Will

[C1ay]

I don't understand why the argument keeps becoming creation vs evolution. Evolution is not a theory about the beginning of life like creation is. For me the theory of evolution is just that, a theory about how life evolves. It is a theory of development that could have followed creation or abiogenesis. So why isn't the debate creation vs abiogenesis?

[skuinders]

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

[Erasmus00]

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

 

At least Catholic schools require evolution be taught.

-Will

[C1ay]

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

Someone might let the church in on the fact that we are animals....

[Southtown]

The way I see it, both views are possible. And so the minute someone "believes" either creation or evolution, they choose one side over the other irrationally, and forfeit the scientific consideration of both views, their probabilities, and any investigations or testing of such. Then the person simply debates one side, right or wrong, win or lose, they hold the same view regardless... by faith now instead of reason. Hence, both are sciences to those who are willing to swing either way, and others who choose to believe one, since neither hypotheses are proven, do so by faith.

 

I'm a believer in creation, though. For me it's a battle between mind and spirit. I'll never be convinced that my consciousness is a merely a chemical process. And the world is too incredibly complex and exquisitley balanced. It's just absurd to call it an accident.

[skuinders]

... the world is too incredibly complex and exquisitley balanced. It's just absurd to call it an accident.

Evolution gives reasonable explanations for the convoluted structure of living things using observable evidence, while creationism makes the claim that something intelligent designed and created them in a pointlessly complex way without any evidence to support. Which is absurd?

[Southtown]

...creationism makes the claim that something intelligent designed and created them in a pointlessly complex way...

Just because you can't see the point doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

P.S. Are you saying it's easier to explain complexity with chance? Is that your derivative?

[Raelian1]

Evolution is junk science. All life on Earth did not evolve randomly nor were we created by a supernatural God. All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

[infamous]

Evolution is junk science. All life on Earth did not evolve randomly nor were we created by a supernatural God. All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

What evidence can you give us that these statements are fact. Science is about evidence, not about just how you feel about or suspect reality to be.

[C1ay]

Evolution is junk science. All life on Earth did not evolve randomly nor were we created by a supernatural God. All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

Proof? (BTW, testimony from Tinkerbell doesn't qualify)

[skuinders]

Are you saying it's easier to explain complexity with chance? Is that your derivative?

It is easier to explain everything as the workings of God or ghosts or UFOs etc. - because it requires no knowledge or effort. However, to be rational, one must employ theories that explain an event or process based on the workings of known, observable physical mechanisms.

[infamous]

Proof? (BTW, testimony from Tinkerbell doesn't qualify)

Geewizzz, I never thought about Tinkerbell, maybe that's where he's getting his information??

Good one C1ay!!

[purplesungirl]

All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

 

First, I congratulate you on being the only human that seems able to fathom no beginning or end.

 

If everything is just a clone of a pre-existing thing why are there so many mutations happening?

 

And why did humans start giving birth instead of just cloning themselves. It seems much less messy.

[purplesungirl]

I think creationism and evolution are flawed.

 

Creationism is a theory on how we came to be and Evolutionism is a theory on how we came to be the way we are now. Neither one is ever going to make everyone agree. The reason is because the Creationists want to believe they have a superior purpose above all other lifeforms and that they are God's children and therefore demi-gods in their own micro-universes. And Evolutionists like the fact that they can come from nothing and be something and then fade into nothing again.

 

It all comes down to what you WANT to believe. Did God create you to win his bet with Lucifer and prove that some being with free will would actually choose to love him? Or did a bunch of debris floating in space bang into each other and the reprocusions of that eventually lead to your existence?

 

Personally I don't think it matters. We are here now, let's learn as much as we can about this place before we have to go.

[Biochemist]

...So why isn't the debate creation vs abiogenesis?

This is a pretty insightful point, C1ay. But I think the issue is threefold:

 

1) Is abiogenesis reasonable? This is the question you raised, and is (by definition) unrelated to evoloution per se, since evolution tries to describe the origin of species, not the origin lf life. Any specific mechanism for abiogenesis is not strongly supported by any evidentiary model, so any debate of it is mostly conjecture. Most evolutionary biologists do not discuss abiogenesis much, because of the lack of an evidence base.

2) Is speciation by mutation reasonable? This is the element of evolution that perturbs some number of theists (including me). However, theists are not uniformly opposed or supportive of this. Further, as theists attack the notion of "Life by Chance", they usually mix up the probability issues related to abiogenesis from the probability issues related to speciation.

3) Is Man differnet than other living entities? Most theists think Man is indeed different, and draw various conclusions because of this.

 

Overall, I have always felt that the evidence for speciation by mutation is remarkably thin, and that this evidence is blindly accepteted by many of (otherwise strong) scientific ilk. My intent is not to draw a theistic overtone to it, but the general acceptance of an idea that is poorly supported by fact is fairly regarded as "faith".

 

But acceptance of natural selection, or genetic drift, or Punctuated Equilibrium does not seem like a faith position. Those positions are based on reasonable assessments of fact sets from biology, biochemistry and paleontology. Those assessments could (of course) be incorrect, but they are not primarily faith-based.

 

There is not much evidence (either way) for abiogenesis, so it sort of stands alone in this discussion.

[Biochemist]

Evolution gives reasonable explanations for the convoluted structure of living things using observable evidence, while creationism makes the claim that something intelligent designed and created them in a pointlessly complex way without any evidence to support. Which is absurd?

There really are offsetting absurdities here, but the range of opinions is far broader than one (creationism) or the other (evolution).

 

For the die-hard Naturalism-oriented evolutionsts, they believe that life is determinstic, and that we are only the biochemical resultant of previous events. This would mean that "important" things like love, meaning, free will, and beauty, are non existent, and that they are illusionary perceptions that advantage us in the process of natural selection. This is a perfectly consistent world view, and is generally consistent with the scientific method.

 

But some others think that the notion that love, free will and beauty are illusionary is silly. Although no one can demonstrate love by the scientific method, many folks think that love is real because they feel it regularly. They also think that life without love somehow would not really be "living".

 

In the Naturalism model, if it cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method, it does not exist. In the latter model, the scientific method is not the only lens to view the world, and it is a lens of lesser importance.

 

It is a bit of a stretch to call either position absurd.