Is Evolution a Religion?

[chaoschristian]

From the Theistic Evolution sub-forum:

As far as the ruling that they cant teach religion in the classroom, how is it that so few people debate on wether evolution is a religion. If one were to compare evolution and creation we would see that no one here today was there to examine it and whatever we believe about how the world began is accepted by faith. I admit creationism is not science, nor should it be taught as such, but I do have a problem with the complete acceptance of evolution as fact and not what it is, a religion.

Ok, let's do it. Make your case that the theory of evolution is a religion. Or, contrary-wise, make your case that the theory of evolution is not a religion. Open to all. Have fun.

 

[Deamiter]

Here are all four definitions of "religion" from Dictionary.com:

1.a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now I don't think ANYBODY argues that evolution fits with 1... There is just no particular "supernatural power" or "creator and governor of the universe" in the theory of evolution. Theistic evolutionists ascribe TO a religion by believing in the supernatral God and his son Christ, but that's entirely aside from evolution in most cases. At least I've never HEARD a Christian say that their Christianity is based on evolution in some way!

Number two isn't really a definition of "religion" but is a descriptor of somebody who is IN a religious order. This doesn't apply to evolution unless evolution can be shown to be a "religious order" so again, we'll move on.

Number three is more vague. Does evolution point towards a particular set of beliefs and values? I argue no. Evolution has been USED as the justification for some horrible things (such as genocide) and "social darwinism" was used to suppress lower social and economic classes. However, it was never the evolutionary biologists who promoted these things! These conclusions were created by the propagandists (like Hitler) or by those who sought to perpetuate class division.

In the end, evolution is a DESCRIPTION of how populations change over time. It even describes what WILL happen in the case of genocide or some kind of misguided artificial selection. But never does it make ANY kind of value judgement about whether genocide or selection is bad OR good. In fact, evolutionary theory predicts the general outcome of a population that has few selecting factors JUST AS WELL as a population that is strongly culled.

Can people make judgements based on this information? Absolutely! Does the prediction of how a population will evolve SUGGEST one particular course of action over another? Absolutely NOT!

Thus number three is also not applicable. The values and beliefs are simply not based on the teachings of any person or more importantly on the teaching of a theory. Nowhere in the prediction of how a population will change is there any HINT of a suggestion that we should try to artificially direct this change. Perhaps more importantly, nowhere in this prediction does the theory make any judgement about what is "better" or "worse" from a moral or ethical point of view. We, as humans, might be better or worse adapted to our environment, but when has our ability to survive cold weather without clothing or survive in a desert far from water been lauded as a reason to make humans change faster by killing those least suited to the environment? Such a ridiculous suggestion, even if it were made, would be based not on evolutionary theory which PREDICTS the outcome of a certain selection. It could only be a conclusion based on the ASSUMPTION that better adaptation to dehydration is better for humanity. Evolution is a tool, not a paradigm that suggests one outcome is better than another.


Finally, definition number four is laughable. It conflates the definition of religion to anything people enjoy doing or do with a lot of energy... I've written quite enough, so I won't waste more of my time or yours explaining why it's so worthless in this context.

 

[bryandwyer]

In its form, like all things, evolution comes down to faith. At a certain point, as with any concept, evolution reaches a point beyond evidence or reason, specifically first cause. One must believe that the universe is without creation, just as one must believe that the universe is from creation. But that aside evolution is a science. It is a working theory based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. In its function evolution is a science.

 

[notto]

In its form, like all things, evolution comes down to faith. At a certain point, as with any concept, evolution reaches a point beyond evidence or reason, specifically first cause. One must believe that the universe is without creation, just as one must believe that the universe is from creation. But that aside evolution is a science. It is a working theory based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. In its function evolution is a science.

Evolution deals with the change of biological diversity over time. It has nothing to do with the cause of the universe with or without creation.

 

[billwald]

Yes, but faith/belief is a conclusion of some mental process. One doesn't control one's beliefs. "All you have to do is believe (in) Jesus, Buddha, the Earth being made from green cheese, the little people . . ." doesn't compute.

 

[Deamiter]

In its form, like all things, evolution comes down to faith. At a certain point, as with any concept, evolution reaches a point beyond evidence or reason, specifically first cause. One must believe that the universe is without creation, just as one must believe that the universe is from creation. But that aside evolution is a science. It is a working theory based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. In its function evolution is a science.

I agree with notto. I don't have ANY faith in evolution! I do question and test it weekly since it's high on my mind these days. With some of my laser research, I test my knowledge of it daily, and with stuff like gravity or relativity -- I haven't questioned it in months.

But when I'm NOT questioning the assumptions, they never become a belief. I never "believe" in evolution or gravity the way I believe in Christ. I certainly assume these things so that I can move on and avoid re-inventing the wheel at every turn, but it would be absurd to BELIEVE in gravity!

Christ is my savior, my lord and my master. I believe IN him as much as I assume that he exists. I could NEVER say that about a predictive scientific theory...

 

[shernren]

In what way does faith require a complete suspension of reason? Faith isn't irrational, it is superrational - the result of including God in the picture in one's mind.

In any case, it is important to specify exactly what we mean by evolution in this discussion. There is a form of "evolution" which is quite rightly considered religious or nearly so, and another form/part/idea under the name of "evolution" which is not.

The first is what I call "philosophical evolution". It says that evolution is a characteristic of the natural order by which self-organizing systems constantly create complex chaotic phenomena by simple rules. Crucially, it says that the creation of these phenomena have no teleological significance ("no purpose", to use contemporary popular theological terms) other than being simply the product of simple rules. It also says that ultimately humanity will self-organize into further complexity - the Singularity. That is quite rightly termed religious.

However, there is also biological evolution, the theory that natural selection over variation over immense periods of time have given rise to today's organisms. Note that it makes no teleological / value judgments regarding the significance of the organisms that have been evolved (contrary to what some believe); it just says that they have without attaching any metaphysical significance to the fact that they have. It is a set and series of objective statements, some of whose implications can indeed be tested in the present. If this is religion then what isn't?

 

[FreezBee]

....
Finally, definition number four is laughable. It conflates the definition of religion to anything people enjoy doing or do with a lot of energy... I've written quite enough, so I won't waste more of my time or yours explaining why it's so worthless in this context.

Ok, good discussion, until this point, that is

Why do you stop just, when it comes to Richard Dawkins?
Some evolutionists are very zealous, even to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a religion.

Ok, just my 0,02$


- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

In its form, like all things, evolution comes down to faith. At a certain point, as with any concept, evolution reaches a point beyond evidence or reason, specifically first cause. One must believe that the universe is without creation, just as one must believe that the universe is from creation. But that aside evolution is a science. It is a working theory based on observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. In its function evolution is a science.

Hi bryandwyer and welcome to the CF

As notto points out, there is some confusion as to what "evolution" comprises. When we refer to the "Theory of Evolution", you can usually rely on it refering to a theory of bio-diversification here on earth, with no necessary implications for cosmology or how life eventually might go around on other planets, assuming life on other planets in the first round, that is.

With that said, of course, if we talk about "abiogenesis", the spontaneous generation of life from non-lfe, or more specifically, how the first cells came around from life-less organic molecules, I will agree with you to some extent. No experiment has hitherto succeeded, but still evolutionist accept the assumption of abiogenesis. So they "faith" in that they accept something (abiogenesis) contrary to the evidence (failed attempts at provoking abiogenesis). But at least they are trying to come up with theories that may lead to new experiments, so it's still within empirical science, I would say


- FreezBee

 

[artybloke]

Why do you stop just, when it comes to Richard Dawkins?
Some evolutionists are very zealous, even to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a religion.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and a kind of Billy Graham of atheism at that, but it's not his belief in evolution that makes him so as such. Evolution is merely a scientific theory that in and of itself implies neither God nor not-God.

Crucially, it says that the creation of these phenomena have no teleological significance ("no purpose", to use contemporary popular theological terms) other than being simply the product of simple rules.

In one sense, that's also part of the philosophy of all science, which is not about ultimate purpose at all, and can't look for it (it doesn't have the tools.) If you go on to say that because we can't find it through using these tools, it doesn't exist, then you've made a philosophical leap to nihilism and atheism.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution, unlike a religion, doesn't state a position on the existence of a "higher aspect" which is beyond human reasoning.

Atheism says that there is no higher aspect or at least that the higher aspect is akin to Socrates' forms.

Agnosticism says that it is either impossible to know or that he or she doesn't know personally.

Evolution does neither of these things. It simply has no position. It is areligious, unlike Atheism and Agnosticism.

Evolution deals with the world after the higher aspect is true or false. It is completely secular (even Atheism isn't that because it does has a position on religious issues), and therefore devoid of any religiousity.

 

[Deamiter]

Ok, good discussion, until this point, that is

Why do you stop just, when it comes to Richard Dawkins?
Some evolutionists are very zealous, even to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a religion.

Ok, just my 0,02$


- FreezBee

Well... I can't say I'm much of a fan of Richard Dawkins... He seems to be more anti-Christian in his exposition than pro-evolution.

Certainly by the last definition you could call it Dawkins' religion. But by the same token, lasers are MY religion (along with Christianity, photography and sleeping). We all do SOME things with great zeal. If that is how you define "religion" then the term becomes quite meaningless! In piont of fact, we've already got a word for that: it's "passion." Many Christians are passionate for Christ. Many people are passionate about science, or knowledge. The two are very compatable! To say that "passion" equals "religion" just makes the word religion worthless to describe anything.

 

[Dannager]

This particular topic (that of exactly what religion means) has come up multiple times on both this board and the CvE board in the all-members area. It is very important to remember the following:

The more broadly something is defined, the less useful it becomes to define something by it. This, as a general rule, means that the broader the definition of religion, the less it actually tells you about something to call it religion.

 

[chaoschristian]

This particular topic (that of exactly what religion means) has come up multiple times on both this board and the CvE board in the all-members area. It is very important to remember the following:

The more broadly something is defined, the less useful it becomes to define something by it. This, as a general rule, means that the broader the definition of religion, the less it actually tells you about something to call it religion.

Exactly, which is why those who profess religion or religious beliefs and who also assert the theory of evolution (or Darwinism) is also a religion put themselves in a precarious position. They risk draining that which is most central to their identity of any real meaning.

I try to police and discipline my use of language so that I'm always using 'belief' in terms of God, and 'acceptance' in terms of scientific theory.

One can accept God and hold no belief, or faith, in Him (or whatever variation of deity one might be talking about); however there is no value in 'believing' in a scientific theory, and its a use of language that can cause confusion in the environment of a Christian forum such as this. A scientific notion can be accepted or rejected based upon reason only, with no leaps of faith being necessary. If one finds oneself in a position of taking a leap of faith in order to accept a concept not completely understood, then perhaps it is best if one remains agnostic about the subject for the time being until further illumination is found.

 

[lismore]

From the Theistic Evolution sub-forum:

Ok, let's do it. Make your case that the theory of evolution is a religion. Or, contrary-wise, make your case that the theory of evolution is not a religion. Open to all. Have fun.

Evolution has dogmas and doctrines, claims to have unassailable and absolute 'truth', requires a leap of faith to believe it, cannot be seen or tested, inspires fanatical and even pathological devotion from its followers (did you see Richard Dawking on TV 'the root of al evil'), dictates a persons world view and aims, influences how you look at the world around you, changes yet cannot be challenged, tries to gain a monopoly on media coverage and education, tries to explain everything yet proves nothing, old and still reborn, it forms a hierarchy which can persecute those who do not believe its dogmas, it is accepted by peer pressure and intimidation.

Its not a religion, its bondage. But remember JC releases the captives from their bondage.

 

[Willtor]

Evolution has dogmas and doctrines, claims to have unassailable and absolute 'truth', requires a leap of faith to believe it, cannot be seen or tested, inspires fanatical and even pathological devotion from its followers (did you see Richard Dawking on TV 'the root of al evil'), dictates a persons world view and aims, influences how you look at the world around you, changes yet cannot be challenged, tries to gain a monopoly on media coverage and education, tries to explain everything yet proves nothing, old and still reborn, it forms a hierarchy which can persecute those who do not believe its dogmas, it is accepted by peer pressure and intimidation.

Its not a religion, its bondage. But remember JC releases the captives from their bondage.

But evolution doesn't require a leap of faith to believe it, it can be seen and tested, doesn't dictate a person's world view and aims, can and is challenged, regularly, and doesn't try to explain everything (yet, proves some things). The rest of the points could apply to anything.

Here's the thing, I used evolution in my course work (when I still had courses to take), and some of my friends even used it (or are still using it) for their theses. Now, what we're doing is an abstraction from evolution, as it appears in nature, but it is still evolution. We are engineering based on this "leap of faith." And our work looks really good. We're able to come up with very good solutions to NP-Complete problems (very difficult problems) in minutes, or even seconds. Sometimes, we even get the optimal solutions.

You're pitting Evolution against Christianity, but I just don't see things the same way you do.

 

[chaoschristian]

Evolution has dogmas and doctrines, claims to have unassailable and absolute 'truth', requires a leap of faith to believe it, cannot be seen or tested, inspires fanatical and even pathological devotion from its followers (did you see Richard Dawking on TV 'the root of al evil'), dictates a persons world view and aims, influences how you look at the world around you, changes yet cannot be challenged, tries to gain a monopoly on media coverage and education, tries to explain everything yet proves nothing, old and still reborn, it forms a hierarchy which can persecute those who do not believe its dogmas, it is accepted by peer pressure and intimidation.

Its not a religion, its bondage. But remember JC releases the captives from their bondage.

Ok, you've made your assertions, now back up your claims. I like to see evidence for all that you state. Provide solid evidence with a sound analytical framework and I am open to being convinced.

 

[lismore]

, can and is challenged, regularly, and doesn't try to explain everything .
.

Well I saw Richard Dawking on a TV Programme 'The root of all evil', a Rabbi told him that creation is also taught in Jewish Schools. Dawking was incandescant with rage and said Jewish myths should not be taught as well as scinetific 'fact'. When asked for evidence he started rambling about religions and their alleged evils.

If this is not an unassailable view I dont know what is.

Evolutionists keep a monopoly on all school syllabuses and on the media for their theories and ramblings. If this is not vile control,desperation and moral poverty I dont know what is. To fear something so much that it makes you appear demented with rage when it is mentioned (like Dawking does) only gives credence to th thing you fear. What is it about creation that scares these insecure people?

The light shines in the darkness and the darkness will not overcome it. Yeshua hamasichah is the creator: evolution is either false or something the rest of us are not allowed to see any 'proof' for.

 

[Willtor]

Well I saw Richard Dawking on a TV Programme 'The root of all evil', a Rabbi told him that creation is also taught in Jewish Schools. Dawking was incandescant with rage and said Jewish myths should not be taught as well as scinetific 'fact'. When asked for evidence he started rambling about religions and their alleged evils.

If this is not an unassailable view I dont know what is.

Evolutionists keep a monopoly on all school syllabuses and on the media for their theories and ramblings. If this is not vile control,desperation and moral poverty I dont know what is. To fear something so much that it makes you appear demented with rage when it is mentioned (like Dawking does) only gives credence to th thing you fear. What is it about creation that scares these insecure people?

I think Dawkins is a bad example because he's pretty anti-religious. You can read his articles in "Free Inquiry" or the "Skeptical Enquirer" (I forget which), and he's honking rabid. But read his technical work. You'll see a substantially different tone. There's no way a reputable journal would publish the kinds of things he writes for the Atheist magazines.

The light shines in the darkness and the darkness will not overcome it. Yeshua hamasichah is the creator: evolution is either false or something the rest of us are not allowed to see any 'proof' for.

Either that or you haven't allowed yourself to see any of the proof. Maybe you should read my friend's thesis. He's defending in a couple of weeks (Feb 14, I think) and if you remind me, I'll post a link to his writeup.

 

[lismore]

Ok, you've made your assertions, now back up your claims. I like to see evidence for all that you state. Provide solid evidence with a sound analytical framework and I am open to being convinced.

I havent made assertions. I have made observations from being in a university science faculty as an undergraduate. I have been through High School Biology gettng hit with evolution theory propaganda, I have sat through lectures at uni, I have been laughed at for asking questions about the holy grails of evolution. . Now I laugh back. I have never been presented with a shred of proof, only been told just believe its a fact. Why is it a fact? Because it is .

Evolution is taught as a fact, no evidence is ever presented, all opposition is laughed at or persecuted. You just gotta believe it to get on. Not me- switched over faculty. Archaeology and Historical geography are areas where evolution theory is less prevalent and where it really takes a hammering. I dont believe anything where there is not unambiguous and tangible proof of it. Archaeological findings are extremely damning to evolution theory and are proof. Instead of the first human activity of ape men In Africa we find a large and well developed civilisation emerging in the Mid east and then spreading to Africa via Egypt. And to crown it all, many scholars say these people were in some ways MORE advanced than we are today.

When I take an evolutionist friend to the Uni library and show him the archaeological evidence from journals he either runs away or gives me a dawkings propaganda book which reads like a JW pamphlet. Evolution is true because Jericho didnt have any walls someone said to me . Not only could I produce journals of excavations from the Jericho walls in the uni library- I have been to Jericho! The arrogance of these people lecturing me on things I have seen and they haven't just because it doesnt fit their evolution religion!

If you doubt me that evolution is a religion, with a cult following and high priests trying to brainwash their followers with a fear of being rejected from the crowd- go meet some evolutionsts. Sit in an evolution dominated faculty in anything and ask questions. Even a woodwork class dominated by evolutiuonists- you will see how their propaganda and posion is even indoctrinated into young children in children's books.

The thing that put me off evolution was that I was given such a textbook aged 8- a childs book about dinosaurs. The far fetched dogmas that were given that was written in that book, with no shred of proof made me wonder who was the child. There was this diagram of a fish crawling on land and becoming a reptile of something and a half whale half cow in the sea . There are wiser folk in assylums.