Evolution a religion?

[Pyrotex]

...the age of the Moon's orbit cannot hold water until plate tectonics is refuted.

 

I hope you can hold your breath for a very long time, because plate tectonics has been directly measured in two different and independent ways. Both techniques give similar velocities for all major tectonic plates. For example, the India subcontinent is moving mostly North at about 5 cm per year -- about the same speed as your fingernails grow.

 

The techniques use laser reflections off Apollo mirrors on the Moon; and the Global Positioning System (GPS). You cannot (easily) refute something that can be directly observed and measured

[Pyrotex]

Most scientists believe it is premature to examine other possibilities before they are proven regardless of the questionability of the entire theoretical edifice.

 

I see you don't "hang out" with professional scientists very much.

[Pyrotex]

Thank you very much.

 

Well, you're welcome. But I was not "siding" with you. The point I was making has to do with the "inverse" of the flowers and bees phenomenon.

 

A valid scientific idea cannot be mandated or legislated. You just have to hang it out there and see if it attracts any bees. Some ideas take a while. I did some historical research last year on the fellow who first proposed the idea of continental drift. He was in his 30's I believe when he first published. He was frustrated that his ideas were either ignored or rejected, but he continued to gather evidence and build his logic. He stuck with it, and he was polite about it. He accused no one of being stupid or dogmatic. He eventually lived to see the results of core drillings in the Atlantic Ocean, along the "ridge". Without a further word from him, the majority of the geologic community came over to his side and advocated continental drift as the only extant theory that could explain the physical evidence.

 

On the other hand, the steady state theory (also known as the "Infinite Universe Theory"), a model developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle and others, attracted some initial attention, but within 50 years had no followers at all. This time the evidence went the other way. Fred Hoyle was a true scientist and a gentleman. He never accused anyone of being stupid or dogmatic. He knew that a theory lives or dies by the evidence. And if it dies--if the flowers simply do not attract the right sort of bees, well... it's dead, Jim.

[Pyrotex]

I may be pretty incoherent with my writing at times, but I don't think I made that claim. Are you sure you read me right? It's a detached statement, not a pointed accusation.

 

Ahhhh!!! A "detached statement". Yes. Well... A what? :cup:

 

The statement did appear to be firmly attached to your post. Do you mean that you make statements that, uh... should not be taken seriously? Please explain.

[Pyrotex]

There are definitely parallels between evolutionary theory and religion. I think what Southtown is alluding to is that since the claims of macro-evolution have no direct, observable evidence to support them, they are taken on the basis of faith (but under the clever guise of "science")...

 

There are definitely parallels between mental illness and religion.

There are definitely parallels between warfare and the game of chess.

There are definitely parallels between politics and sex.

There are definitely parallels between anything and anything else.

 

But that doesn't make a point. Drawing linguistic or semantic "parallels" between any two subjects is a parlor game. But trying to use this rhetorical trick on a college debate team will get you flunked out.

[Edge]

Faith on something is not always a religious faith. I have faith that my favorite soccer team will win tomorrow, is that a religion?

[Pyrotex]

Faith on something is not always a religious faith. I have faith that my favorite soccer team will win tomorrow, is that a religion?

 

It's a free country (for the time being!) and you CAN define 'faith' any way you want to. But WHY would you want to? The broader and more all-inclusive a definition you give to any word, the less powerful that word becomes. 'Faith' in your case becomes equivalent to 'hope', 'wish', 'bet on', 'feel assured' or 'have confidence in' -- take your pick(s).

 

As we have seen with the word 'religion', if you define it merely as a 'body of belief' or a 'code of behavior' then Hoyle's Book of Rules becomes a 'Bible' and playing high-stakes poker becomes a 'sacrement'.

 

Often is the case, in religion, where it becomes necessary or useful to broaden meanings. In the Unitarian Church, for example, 'salvation' takes on a very broad meaning so that even atheists (such as my own fine self) can obtain salvation!!!! No kidding :cup:

 

However, in science, it is crucial to the process of analysis, debate and explanation that most (if not all) terms have the narrowest definitions possible. 'Evolution' is used to describe a carefully defined process in the biological realm. When folks want to use the same term for political, social or philosophical processes, the results are usually nonsense.

 

This is a big reason why giants in the field, like Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould, refuse to debate creationists. The scientists find themselves totally mired down in creationist arguments or attacks upon science that depend on arbitrarily defined terms, or the "dictionary fallacy" (discussed previously) or linguistic parlor games, like "Is Evolution a Faith". These kinds of debates go nowhere. Even if the creationists are totally refuted, they often leave the room feeling like they (David with his sling) have defeated the mighty Goliath. Hallelujah!!

 

The point is, even if the subject of discussion is, say, whether to vote FOR or AGAINST same-sex marriage, or whether we should worry about global warming, or whether organic veggies are better for you than the other kind, -- if the debate degenerates into word play, parlor games, fallacies, conspiracy theories, rhetorical 'tricks' or attacks upon one's mother, then the discussion is a waste of everybody's time.

[TRoutMac]

Faith on something is not always a religious faith. I have faith that my favorite soccer team will win tomorrow, is that a religion?

 

You make a good point. I would say, however, that this deflects from the salient point in this, which is that evolutionists make a big, hairy deal about how their theory relies only on hard, scientific facts and (frequently) how silly it is for Christians (for example) to believe (on faith) anything the Bible says, particularly with respect to what it says about creation. But, it turns out that theirs is a theory which requires and immense quantity of faith and has no hard, scientific evidence to support it.

 

Again, your point is well-taken. Faith is actually the method by which we learn nearly everything as we are growing up. Is it a little over-the-top to say evolution meets every definition of "religion"? Okay… I'll concede that it is. But with respect to macro-evolution in particular, it is entirely faith-based.

[Pyrotex]

You make a good point. I would say, however, that this deflects from the salient point in this, which is that evolutionists make a big, hairy deal about how their theory relies only on hard, scientific facts and (frequently) how silly it is for Christians (for example) to believe (on faith) anything the Bible says, particularly with respect to what it says about creation. But, it turns out that theirs is a theory which requires and immense quantity of faith and has no hard, scientific evidence to support it.

 

Thank you for a well considered reply.

 

Daniel C. Dennett bravely confronted your second (hairy) point in his book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I can't give you page numbers, but essentially he says that scientists have been tip-toeing for years around faith-based interpretations of the Bible. No one has actually come out and said, "Hey you Holy Rollers, don't you get it? The Creation Story is, like, totally BOGUS, dudes!"

 

Scientists are better mannered than that. But Dennett admits that among themselves (ourselves) we have known for a long time that Evolution does in fact threaten any attempt to take literally the Creation Story. We just don't like being crude about it. It is a "dangerous" idea in the sense that it cannot be safely confined (quarantined) to just the realm of ancient biology.

 

On the other hand, the VAST MAJORITY of Christian denominations, even those who could care less about Evolution, understand that the Genesis Creation Story is basically to be taken as a metaphor -- and besides, the Hebrews stole it from the Babylonians during the Captivity. (Ask a Jew!) They have no problem doing evolutionary studies of Bird Flu virus during the week and honoring Adam and Eve on the Sabbath.

 

Do you have any comments on the fact that "Genesis Literalism" is a tiny minority within the Christian faiths?

[Edge]

Again, your point is well-taken. Faith is actually the method by which we learn nearly everything as we are growing up. Is it a little over-the-top to say evolution meets every definition of "religion"? Okay… I'll concede that it is. But with respect to macro-evolution in particular, it is entirely faith-based.

That's true. If there's indeed no hard evidence that supports speciation. It's true that they have faith that at some time speciation will be, well, totally supported and "proven" (because nothing in science is definite).

 

My point was that I don't consider believing in Evolution a religion. Just like I don't consider believing in time dilation (for the time we could travel at very high speeds [above .3c]) a religion as well.

[questor]

while arguing this subject, i think we would have to admit that if there is ID, then the being possessing the intelligence would have to be super-natural.

this being would also be the only being or force capable of creating the universe. it seems that earthlings call this being God. for the atheists, i assume they deny the possibility of a super-natural being or a creator or any super-natural occurrence in the formation of the universe. to them everything occurred in a random fashion, even though ithe universe seems to have somehow achieved order.

[BEAKER]

...to them everything occurred in a random fashion, even though the universe seems to have somehow achieved order.

:cup:

[TRoutMac]

Do you have any comments on the fact that "Genesis Literalism" is a tiny minority within the Christian faiths?

 

Yes. My comment is this: I don't care.

 

My idea of what's true is not dictated by majority vote. I don't care how many people believe that Genesis should not be taken literally. In my estimation, they have only made that concession because they've been mislead into believing that evolution is somehow "factual". In the face of this pressure, and to regain what they deem to be compromised Biblical credibility, they capitulate and try to cram evolution into the Bible. It cannot be done.

[Southtown]

Southtown, this thread isn't the place for this debate. I've sent you a private message.

-Will

Call me Southie. =P

[Pyrotex]

while arguing this subject, i think we would have to admit that if there is ID, then the being possessing the intelligence would have to be super-natural. this being would also be the only being or force capable of creating the universe.

 

"would have to be the only one"??? :cup: Why?

 

Robert Heinlein wrote a marvelous novel called, "Job, A Comedy of Justice" back in the 70's I think. One of the ideas in the novel was that ALL of the gods from our ancient religions were real to one extent or another, and could create humans, land masses, even entire planets. Then ABOVE that layer of deities was another layer of super-deities who could create entire solar systems, globular clusters, etc. And ABOVE that layer was a virtually INFINITE hierarchy of "deities"... up... up... with unimaginable powers...

 

Now, why couldn't THIS be a more plausible explanation?

 

Your theory and Heinlein's theory share one fact in common: you both have precisely zero hard evidence. :cup:

[Pyrotex]

Yes. My comment is this: I don't care. My idea of what's true is not dictated by majority vote....

 

Gosh. :cup: So I guess "consensus" is totally out of the question, hunh?

 

Too bad. Science, on the other hand, values consensus, though we don't actually produce it by "voting".

 

Maybe that is why there is only one 'Science'. And over 1400 different interpretations of 'Christianity'.

 

Indeed, maybe this is why Science is NOT a religion. Religions (as in denominations of Christianity) make no attempt to reach consensus with each other; they are content to remain divided. Most of them 'don't care' what the others believe.

 

Science strives for consensus by creating a rational 'language' that supports consensus. Science cares what people think.

[Pyrotex]

...for the atheists, i assume they deny the possibility of a super-natural being or a creator or any super-natural occurrence in the formation of the universe. to them everything occurred in a random fashion, even though ithe universe seems to have somehow achieved order.

 

There is a story (possibly apocryphal) that the famous scientist/mathematician Lagrange appeared before Napolean and explained his latest theory as to the orbits of the planets. Napolean asked him, "where does God fit in all this?" Langrange is reported to have said, "I had no need of that assumption in my theory."

 

Scientists, as a rule, don't go about denying deities any more than they go about eating babies. It's just that they have no need of deities to explain the observed properties of the world.

 

The lack of a deity does NOT imply that everything must occur in a random fashion. Order does not typically originate because an "orderer" pulled it out of his magic hat.

 

Take a "random" collection of rocks, gravel, pea gravel, sand, in a rigid container. Vibrate the container with "random" vibrations. The rocks will order themselves, with sand on the bottom, followed by pea gravel above that, with the largest rocks neatly on top. No intelligent "orderer" required.

 

And oddly enough, we have a theory for why this happens. And we have no need to assume a God in that theory either.