Is evolution a religion?

[simplyg123]

Of course most will say no....However

where a creationist would say "God" did it

The evolutionist says "Time" or "A long period of time" di it.

So they rely or have faith in "time" to do Gods miracles

Ok, I asked for it, i know most will try and tear me apart on this but im ready, so....what ya think

 

[Mallon]

Are you able to support your claim any further?
Are you able to show that evolutionists worship time?
Are you able to demonstrate that evolutionists appeal to the supernatural?
Are you able to show that the basic tenets of evolution are not founded on solid, natural evidence?

I've heard this soundbite repeated before by people like Kent Hovind. Truly, it amounts to nothing more than a soundbite, though. It is not a fleshed-out argument. It is just an ad hom attempt to equate solid science with religion.

 

[simplyg123]

Are you able to support your claim any further?
Are you able to show that evolutionists worship time?
Are you able to demonstrate that evolutionists appeal to the supernatural?
Are you able to show that the basic tenets of evolution are not founded on solid, natural evidence?

I've heard this soundbite repeated before by people like Kent Hovind. Truly, it amounts to nothing more than a soundbite, though. It is not a fleshed-out argument. It is just an ad hom attempt to equate solid science with religion.

i believe my cliam supports itself, God is replaced by Time

Im not claiming you worship time, Scentology is a religion yet requires no worship or faith

No.

Your evidence is theoretical at most, far from solid.

Yes Kent Hovind is actually who brought this to my attention, and as far as equating science with religion, no science is observed, you do not observe evolution, you believe it

i equate evolution to religion, i do not accept evolution as a solid science

 

[grimbly]

Nope, it's just like any other provisional scientific theory. It's simply the best explanation for a whole bunch of observations we have made concerning past and present life. It is not a way of life, it answers no great questions and it says absolutely nothing (like all scientific theories) about God. It just explains a whole ton of stuff we have observed. Thats it, kinda anti-climatic. No different than atomic theory, germ theory or general relativity.

Now there are (IMO) two groups of people that really muddy the waters and cause a great deal of strife and both of them are equally wrong.

Religious fundamentalists because they feel that the theory conflicts with what they want to believe. Tough, reality doesn't care what you or I want to believe, it just is. It's what I call bad religion.

Atheists claiming that the theory of evolution disproves God. WRONG!!!!! No scientific theory says anything about God. None , nada, zip. Bad science at it's worst..

You can judge who is more wrong. Looks to me like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[keltoi]

From Wiki: "In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief."

Evolutionist belief is that evoltion is the responsible cause of life as we know it. TEs apparently believe God set evolution in place and decided to commune with Homo Sapien Sapiens while ignoring all other of his creations that evolutionist class as Human.

In the light of the above quote from Wikipeadia yes evolution is a religion as it is a communal system, and it is a belief system. This is because there are many evolutionists and they believe it is true.

Communism is also a religion as is capitalism and democracy. Anything that people believe in and base their life upon in a recognisably communal way (that is many people believe the same and behave the same) then it is a religion.

 

[keltoi]

Are you able to show that the basic tenets of evolution are not founded on solid, natural evidence?

Please enlighten us with teh evidence that shows that an Ardepithicus gave birth to an Australopithicene and that the Australopithecines gave birth to a Homo. There is no evidence of this at all.

 

[random_guy]

I'll use my same post to reply to your other post:

Only in the same way that gravity could be considered a religion. Anywhere a creationist would say, "God" did it, a gravitationalist would say, "a mass" did it.

Do you see how absurd your arguments are? Why not learn what the theories actually say instead of making up strawmen versions of it. It might actually cause people to take your arguments seriously. Of course, the easier way to figure out if evolution is religion or not is to check with the people who actually study science instead of the people who've probably never had a upper division science course in their entire life. Nearly every single university, every single biologist, every single court decision all agree that evolution is a science, not a religion. The only ones that argue otherwise are the ones that have no biological background. Who should I trust, those that actually study science or those that don't understand it?

 

[random_guy]

From Wiki: "In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief."

Evolutionist belief is that evoltion is the responsible cause of life as we know it. TEs apparently believe God set evolution in place and decided to commune with Homo Sapien Sapiens while ignoring all other of his creations that evolutionist class as Human.

In the light of the above quote from Wikipeadia yes evolution is a religion as it is a communal system, and it is a belief system. This is because there are many evolutionists and they believe it is true.

Communism is also a religion as is capitalism and democracy. Anything that people believe in and base their life upon in a recognisably communal way (that is many people believe the same and behave the same) then it is a religion.

That's one silly definition of a religion. I would hardly call communism or capitalism a religion. It only cheapens both capitalism and religion. I also wouldn't call forms of government religions, either. Why is it Creationists allways try to make out everything into a religion, as if it would bring it down a peg? Using your exact same definition, gravity would be a religion since no one has ever observed a gravitational wave or particle.

 

[random_guy]

Please enlighten us with teh evidence that shows that an Ardepithicus gave birth to an Australopithicene and that the Australopithecines gave birth to a Homo. There is no evidence of this at all.

Except evolution doesn't state that, and if the bolded part happened, it would falsify evolution. Please try learning what evolution actually says (as well as how science works) before arguing against it. You'll do a much better job.

 

[imind]

i believe my cliam supports itself, God is replaced by Time

evolution is a bit more complicated than simply 'time' and, no, your statement does not support itself, as 'evolutionists' (whatever that means) have not replaced god with time, nor do atheists, for that matter.

Your evidence is theoretical at most, far from solid.

you need to understand that theory, within the scientific community, is a means of explaining facts, and is much different than our everyday usage.

and as far as equating science with religion, no science is observed, you do not observe evolution, you believe it

again, your understanding is severely lacking. we have and do observe evolution...

observed instances of speciation

In the light of the above quote from Wikipeadia yes evolution is a religion as it is a communal system, and it is a belief system. This is because there are many evolutionists and they believe it is true.

Communism is also a religion as is capitalism and democracy. Anything that people believe in and base their life upon in a recognisably communal way (that is many people believe the same and behave the same) then it is a religion.

evolution is in no way a communal system for the coherence of belief, and your suggestion that it is simply because many people believe it is absurd. i do not need to be rude, but this sort of stretching of definitions to suit our arguements borders dishonesty.

 

[Dannager]

Please enlighten us with teh evidence that shows that an Ardepithicus gave birth to an Australopithicene and that the Australopithecines gave birth to a Homo. There is no evidence of this at all.

And it's a good thing, too. If any of that genus-hopping had actually taken place, we'd have to throw evolutionary theory out. Of course, you thought the opposite was true, because you don't actually know what the theory of evolution states.

 

[keltoi]

Except evolution doesn't state that, and if the bolded part happened, it would falsify evolution. Please try learning what evolution actually says (as well as how science works) before arguing against it. You'll do a much better job.

Please enlighten us oh master of evolutionary science. Have you ever heard of Mike Morwood and Peter Brown? I have and I have worked with them both and studied under them both. They are the guys who "discovered" the "Hobbit" or Homo Floriensis if you would prefer its correct name.Under their tutalege we found out there are a few theories of evolution.

1. Phyletic Gradualism nicknamed "Evolution by Creeps", has these main atributes:
a. A new species arises by the gradual modification of an ancestral population. (no real evidence of this in human species)
b. The transformation is generally slow. (again no real evidence as the discovered fossils are either one species or another.
c. The transformation may (they say may because they don't really know) involve most of the ancestral population (which goes against the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve ideas because if these 2 were the basis of both modern male and female mtDNA and male Y chromosomes then that leaves out all others), but it more commonly involves allopatric populations (populations living in different and seperate geographical areas.
d. The transformation takes place over all or at the very least most of the ancestral populations geographical range (this to goes against the Adam & Eve idea)

2. Punctuated Equilibrium nicnamed "Evoltion by Jerks", has these main attributes.
a. Most new species come from the splitting of existing lineages (all well and good but there is very little if any at all between Genus's).
b. Most new species develop rapidly then stabilise. (there is no evidence of quick development from one species to another. The evdence that is available has anatomically differnet species and there is no real evidence of a hybrid between Ardepithicus and Australopithecine, and between Australopithecine and Homo.
c. A small subpopulation of the ancestral species brings in the new species (if this isn't by birth then how is it done? do they just popup from nowhere?).
d.The new species originates in a very small, isolted part of the geographical range of the ancestral species. (mmm, how is this done I wonder could it be through the birth process?)
e. Once they arive , the species does not change much throughout their remaining history (Oh, so they do not evolve ithrough a hybridisation procees into another species! Instead they give birth to another species. Funny at least on 2 occasions by evolutionary theory it wasn't just a species it was a totally new Genus!).

These 2 theories clearly do not agree on major points. And there is no real evidence to support either. The outcome of each theory depends onthe interpretation of the evidence by the people involved in the analysis. Unfortunately Human interpretation is often wrong.

Now you have the chance to tell everyone here how mankind come about according to evolutionary science and how you interpret it. If they were born from previous species how did they appear? Evolutionists in this forum have already stated modern man evolved from previous species and that God gave modern man a soul and decided to commune with him. So again I'll ask you to please enlighten us oh master of evolutionary science. You know YECs stance so please explain yours and give us the evidence.

That's one silly definition of a religion. I would hardly call communism or capitalism a religion. It only cheapens both capitalism and religion. I also wouldn't call forms of government religions, either. Why is it Creationists allways try to make out everything into a religion, as if it would bring it down a peg? Using your exact same definition, gravity would be a religion since no one has ever observed a gravitational wave or particle.

You may think it is silly dear Brother but it is a definition. A question for you why doesn't this definition cheapen Communism? You singled it out to leave out when I specifically mentioned it. Did you leave it out because you do not agree with it and so you don't care if it is cheapend? I never said forms of Gov't are religions, I said Communism and Capitalism are religionsby the definition in Wikipeadia. Capitalism is not a system of gov't and Communism does not have to be a system of gov't. Gravity is not something that people base their way of lifes on , Communism and Capitalism are. Why is it evolutionists always throw in something left of field. Is it to cheapen the value of the discussion because they are unable to discuss something without resorting to sarcasm and silly side tracks.

evolution is in no way a communal system for the coherence of belief, and your suggestion that it is simply because many people believe it is absurd. i do not need to be rude, but this sort of stretching of definitions to suit our arguements borders dishonesty.

You have been rude and you are not the 1st evolutionist to be rude either.

 

[keltoi]

And it's a good thing, too. If any of that genus-hopping had actually taken place, we'd have to throw evolutionary theory out. Of course, you thought the opposite was true, because you don't actually know what the theory of evolution states.

Actually I don't think any of it is true, I believe it is a sad attempt by man to figure out his origins. It is sad because it is written down for us to read.

Read the above post. It is clear by the 2 major theories that evolution explains mans origins by development of not only new species but also totally new Genus' through the ancestral populations (ie the previous species or Genus) biological evolution in the case of a new species, but also biological revoltion in the case of a totally new Genus from a previous Genus.

If you have any evidence otherwise please fell free to share as no other Evolutionist has done so yet in the discussions I have been a part of. Instead they just resort to statements about Genus hopping and other equaly futile statements.

 

[Brennan]

Ah, the old abuse of the word 'belief' tactic. Someone will be saying 'it's only a theory' in a minute...

If evolution is a religion, then almost everyone who 'believes' in it also follows religions of: gravity, electromagnetism, mathematics, geography...

What crazy mixed-up people we must be to have all these different religions at once, not to mention one other.

 

[shernren]

From Wiki: "In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief."

Evolutionist belief is that evoltion is the responsible cause of life as we know it. TEs apparently believe God set evolution in place and decided to commune with Homo Sapien Sapiens while ignoring all other of his creations that evolutionist class as Human.

In the light of the above quote from Wikipeadia yes evolution is a religion as it is a communal system, and it is a belief system. This is because there are many evolutionists and they believe it is true.

Communism is also a religion as is capitalism and democracy. Anything that people believe in and base their life upon in a recognisably communal way (that is many people believe the same and behave the same) then it is a religion.

By your definition football is a religion. My younger brother worships Manchester United. He believes that they are the best team in the world, and given his age and his (lack of) technical knowledge concerning football I'd say this belief borders on the religious. He expresses his homage in many ways. My Christian parents have no problem with any of them, except for when he tries to play FIFA '05 on my mom's laptop in a ritualistic invoking of the Spirit of Football, and even then they protest only because it's my mom's laptop and not his own.

Any club of football supporters is a communal system for the coherence of belief (in their respective teams). In fact, I'd even say football is more religious than evolution by far.

 

[shernren]

Please enlighten us oh master of evolutionary science. Have you ever heard of Mike Morwood and Peter Brown? I have and I have worked with them both and studied under them both. They are the guys who "discovered" the "Hobbit" or Homo Floriensis if you would prefer its correct name.Under their tutalege we found out there are a few theories of evolution.

1. Phyletic Gradualism nicknamed "Evolution by Creeps", has these main atributes: <snip>
2. Punctuated Equilibrium nicnamed "Evoltion by Jerks", has these main attributes. <snip>

Actually, I think those are pretty accurate representations of evolution. But perhaps you may have misunderstood how they are to be applied. The way you describe them, they seem to be different results which can arise from the same mechanisms of evolution but they are both still evolution - in one individual case, by creeps; in another, by jumps.

Let's take a population of birds on an island. (The origin of the birds themselves are mostly irrelevant; we are concerned with how evolution changes them.) Firstly, let's imagine a very gradual climate change. Over many thousands of years, the island gradually becomes drier, causing the types of plants to change, and dramatically all the predators on the island are wiped out in a freak plague. As a result, the average beak size of the flock changes gradually to become much smaller, and they lose their flight capability. This is "phyletic gradualism", more properly anagenesis: the ancestral population gradually modifies slowly, and the whole ancestral population is involved over the whole range. Paleontologists examining the site a long time later would find fossils showing gradual change.

Now let's imagine a different scenario: a freak storm blows some of the birds to a neighboring island. On this island, the climate change that affected the previous island doesn't happen; in addition, the island has lots of extremely nutritious and easily-found slugs. As a result, the birds retain their ability to fly, but their beak structure and internal anatomy changes to enable them to eat slugs: more importantly, because their surroundings are immediately different from their original surroundings, the change occurs rapidly. This is "punctuated equilibrium", more properly cladogenesis: a small fragment of the population is geographically and ecologically separated, changes fast, and stabilizes once it has adapted properly to its disruptively different environment. Paleontologists coming later might not find a proper series of transitional fossils, but rather fossils with sudden huge differences between them followed by stabilization.

Hopefully my example will make clear that these two modes of evolution can happen. Not only that, they may even happen as mixes: perhaps a small subpopulation becomes only partially separated from the main population, able to mix genes with the main population and yet undergoing different selection constraints. The small population that has branched out may undergo gradualism at a later date if its environment slowly changes later on. And since evolution happens worldwide at all times, lots of different species may have been experiencing different modes of evolution at different times.

It's a little like the science of "dropping": what happens when I drop an object? If I drop a ball in vacuum, it accelerates perfectly. If I drop a ball in air, it accelerates but reaches a terminal velocity that doesn't change (for a short while before hitting the floor); if I drop it in water, it slows down and reaches a different terminal velocity. But if I drop a cork in water, it doesn't sink at all! Is there a general theory that explains all these "contradictory" observations? Sure, it's gravity and friction and Newton's Laws and the lot. In the same way, evolution can operate in different ways under different circumstances: although the same basic mechanisms are involved, they give rise to different results.

As for human evolution itself, I'm no expert on it, so you'll have to find someone more knowledgeable.

But I don't get this:

(Oh, so they do not evolve ithrough a hybridisation procees into another species! Instead they give birth to another species. Funny at least on 2 occasions by evolutionary theory it wasn't just a species it was a totally new Genus!).

What do you mean by "evolving through a hybridization process into another species"? And what two occasions are you talking about?

 

[chaoschristian]

Was this moved up here from Cre/Vo or some other section of the forum?

Because if it orginated here, as written, one could get the impression that the OP considers Christians who accept the testimonial support of Creation for evolution to be something less than that. I mean, after all, we have all affirmed CF's Terms of Service here, which means we've all affirmed the tenets of the Nicene Creed, which means that we've all affirmed God as Creator and nothing/no one else.

Yes, the only logical conclusion is that this was originally addressed to another audience and moved here, but the Mod forgot to put on a Mod Hat. Mods are terribly busy here.

Because if not, then the only other conclusion is that this was originally written to a Christian audience, and the implications of that . . . no, I shalln't accept it.

Of course most will say no....However

where a creationist would say "God" did it

The evolutionist says "Time" or "A long period of time" di it.

So they rely or have faith in "time" to do Gods miracles

Ok, I asked for it, i know most will try and tear me apart on this but im ready, so....what ya think

 

[KerrMetric]

By reading this thread I have just discovered I have two religions at a minimum.

I am a Christian and a Rare Steak believer.

Ooops I have another one - I am a basketball believer too.

 

[imind]

You have been rude and you are not the 1st evolutionist to be rude either.

i believe you're simply becoming a bit defensive, and perhaps hyper-sensitive. i'm sorry you were offended, but your stretching of definitions was unacceptable.

i don't know why you mentioned i wasn't the first 'evolutionist' (?) that was rude to you. i hope you weren't inferring that creationsists don't sometimes share this quality.

 

[random_guy]

By reading this thread I have just discovered I have two religions at a minimum.

I am a Christian and a Rare Steak believer.

Ooops I have another one - I am a basketball believer too.

You're probably just a heathen, one that worships the Lakers or Golden State, not a true believer like me, who worships the Utah Jazz.