Evolution: Religion or Science?

[C1ay]

The taking the 10 commandments down from public buildings. what is that for? I see it as the world religion forcing itself upon the society. There is a God, because without God there is chaos. Morality is everything, and without it, this Nation, this world will become wicked. Everyone has the law (knowlege of good and evil) written inside their very selves automatically. Is this for no reason that that would happen axidently?

 

Evolution is a religion, Atheism is a religion...this world is full of religion..you are not defending science, science defends itself, and I suport the study of science, to learn better things and ways to do things, what you are doing is defenting your beliefs, your religion, weather it be doing nothing or believing in a God, it is what you believe in. God placed the laws of science in order to sustain life..and when you are talking evolution, you are playing with science. if you would only look further than what you notice with your five sences, you don't even go that far sometimes. You go as far as you can safely so that you will not believe, if an area looks suspicious of possible "brainwashing" you go no further, and say it's not evidence.

 

Darwin went to class for 2-3 weeks (or months) before he went off into the field, which was of a new type of science at that time, and wrote his first book (which I think was a hit) his teacher was a creationist. and Darwin died an agnostic.

 

It seems our software has a shortcoming, I cannot figure out how to move an individual post to the "Strange Claims Forum" :D

[Biochemist]

...While this absence is certainly not an argument for abiogenesis it is very certainly not an argument for creationism.......Your statement is not a proof of creationism (You could thoroughly disprove evolution and you would not have advanced one step closer to proving evolution. What is difficult for you to understand here?) ..

I am a little confused by your argument here. The topic is whether evolution is religion or science. Specifically, do folks that hold to evolution do so as a matter of science or as a matter of faith.

 

The arguments that Southtown noted (whcih you are welcome to critique) were not, in my view, meant to defend creationism, but to underline the holes in some of the elements of the several theories related to evolution.

 

It is not necessary to "prove" creationism to identify holes in evolutionary assumptions. You don't need to prove an opposing theory to critique a theory. Why would you leap to that position?

[C1ay]

The topic is whether evolution is religion or science.

Evolution is a scientific theory without question. Just because some people have faith that it is true does not make it a religion, it just means they are poor scientists.

[Southtown]

First, the 10 commandments are taken out of public buildings because, like it or not, the United States was founded with the ideas of the seperation of Church and state.

No, it was founded with the idea of "freedom of religion" in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof... "Seperation of Church and State" was penned by Thomas Jefferson to reassure the Baptists that their rights were not going to be threatened by the government. In my mind, removing the ten commandments would be in violation of both of these.

 

You claim to support science, but if abiogenesis or macro evolution were established beyond a doubt, you'd still question it.

That's not fair.

[Erasmus00]

No, it was founded with the idea of "freedom of religion" in the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof... "Seperation of Church and State" was penned by Thomas Jefferson to reassure the Baptists that their rights were not going to be threatened by the government. In my mind, removing the ten commandments would be in violation of both of these.

 

Yes, it might be true that freedom of religion might not be written in the first ammendment, however it is deeply ingrained in our legal system. It might not hold the weight of the constitution, but there is many years of precedent behind it, which is almost as strong.

 

Also, how does removing religious commandments from a public building violate the seperation of church and state?

 

Lastly, in regards to abiogensis and macro evolution, I'd like to point out that there is loads of credible evidence for speciation, there are transition fossils, etc, etc. See http://www.talkorigins.org/ for scientific rebuttal to nearly every "scientific" argument creationists throw out.

 

And I would say that most creationists would deny even the most absolute of demonstrations of an evolutionary model. It doesn't fit their world view, so no amount of evidence will sway them.

-Will

[Boerseun]

Southtown, I struggled through that mammoth post of yours, coming to the conclusion that most of it is hogwash.

 

The whole thing is cut and pasted from that beacon of objectivity, http://www.creationscience.com. Now do me a favour and either support your viewpoint by yourself, or come up with better links.

 

I can refute every single point you have mentioned there, but I don't like posting such huge refutations that roughly only 1% of the members will actually read.

 

eMTee - the reason the Ten Commandments are about to disappear from US public buildings, is, like it or not, there are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, heck - give it a name - US citizens who are also taxpayers, paying for the upkeep of said buildings. They also have rights. The easiest, most consistent method for Uncle Sam in applying his purse (funded by ALL citizens) without discriminating against anybody, would be for the State not to recognize any religion officially at all. Which is actually part of your hallowed Constitution.

[Eclogite]

Your tendency to assess the validity of people over the validity of ideas is hardly rare in my experience.

Perhaps Harzburgite is assessing your validity based upon the irrelevance and ill founded character of your ideas. (Though I note from Boerson's comments that they aren't even your ideas.)

 

Turning to the OPs question. Evolution is definitively not a religion. The fact that evolution occurs is established beyond any reasonable (and indeed most unreasonable) doubt. The mechanism of evolution is still in question in detail and will continue to provide a rich ground for extending our knowledge an understanding via research.

Do some individual scientists handle evolution as if it were a religion? Yes, certainly, but this is a reflection on them as poor scientists, not upon the science itself.

[Gurdur]

I've been busy yesterday and today, so I haven't answered anything, but a few quick comments, and I'll be back later.

For the die-hard Naturalism-oriented evolutionsts, they believe that life is determinstic,

Actually, no.

Determinism is a minority position among those who accept naturalism -- it's just a very vocal position.

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,

Actually, no yet again.

No person with good science and a good knowledge of philosophy, who accepts naturalism, would defend such impoverished positions.

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.

Actually, it's not consistant with the "scientific method" at all --- it's counterposed to it.

The "scientific method", if one single one exists (amazingly doubtful), makes very clear the domain of science --- and recognizes which questions cannot be answered by "science". No person worth his or her salt accepting naturalism would be so shallow in evolutionary biology or general philosophy.

In the Naturalism model, if it cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method, it does not exist.

Again, not true; that would be a position of impoverished ideologues, not those genuinely into science and into commonsense.

[Eclogite]

not those genuinely into science and into commonsense.

Gurdur, while I found myself in general agreement with the rest of your post I must drift off topic for a moment: common sense, in my view, is neither common (if we mean application of good sense) nor anything to do with science (if we mean commonsense).

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, while I found myself in general agreement with the rest of your post I must drift off topic for a moment: common sense, in my view, is neither common (if we mean application of good sense) nor anything to do with science (if we mean commonsense).

heh. I see what you mean, or at least I think I do, yet allow me to mildly disagree.

Science can be described as being built up on "commonsensical" positions; I will detail them, but I may do it in a new thread, since this thread is 13 pages long for most people already (since I use "40 posts per page" it's only 4 pages for me, but most seem to use "25 per page").

 

Possibly where you could make your criticism the strongest is in pointing out the counterintuitiveness of much important scientific results; yet I would respond that the original basis for that counterintuitive science still rests upon well-developed commonsense (or good sense if you prefer).

 

I will be back later, and I may well start that new thread, since I want to zero in on these issues, and keep the focus on them; thanks for pointing out another area that does indeed need a response and discussion.

[eMTee]

In one's view, creation is a faith, and possibly a religous belief.

 

Atheism is a religous belief, and evolution is it's explanation to creation of the world, just as intelligent design is the explanation for the theist.

 

It is vanity to say that there is no absolutes.

[Biochemist]

Evolution is a scientific theory without question. Just because some people have faith that it is true does not make it a religion, it just means they are poor scientists.

Outstanding point, C1ay.

 

I think the element of this discussion that is irritating to some theists is that the faith portions are often not acknowledged. This does seem to squelch the valid discussion/disagreement over elements of the theory that are poorly supported.

 

When otherwise intellgent, communicative scientists say something like "Evolution is a fact" (I am thinking of Isaac Asimov, who often engaged in this debate) I find it really irritating. Parts of the theory are fact. Parts are certainly not. Poiliticizing the discussion by false association does not add clarity.

[C1ay]

Atheism is a religous belief...

No it's not, it's the lack of religious belief. Religious belief requires faith in the supernatural and atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural.

[Biochemist]

...Actually, no.

Determinism is a minority position among those who accept naturalism -- it's just a very vocal position.

This is a little odd. I do recognize that there are variances around the edges of determinism, largely because of the impact of the randomness of quantum mechanics, but determinism is broadly held. The import of determinism is reflected in the scientific method itself. We assume reproducibility and falsifiability are gold standards of evidence because we expect that cause and effect are consistent. This is the heart of determinism.

 

The more insidious problem is that those elements that are not demonstrable by the scientific method (e.g., love, purpose) are often held in lower regard. Ergo, my post above.

 

It is a bit of a stretch to call determinism a minority position when it is the foundation of the scientific method.

[eMTee]

No it's not, it's the lack of religious belief. Religious belief requires faith in the supernatural and atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural.

 

actualy not.

 

it doesn't have to be supernatural to have faith in, in order to be religous.

 

It just has to be believed in and practiced.

[C1ay]

It just has to be believed in and practiced.

And atheists do not believe in any gods. It is not a religion.

[eMTee]

The atheists believe in no God or gods.

 

I would explain why it is a religion....but there is no guarenties that i would be understood.