Is evolution a religion?

[Assyrian]

Well the fact you find humor in the persecution of others, calls for a question of faith in my opinion,

That depends on whether he was laughing with the tyrants or laughing at them. Using humour to deflate the pompous is a good thing.

Objecting to the use of humour to highlight the crimes committed in the name of religion and indeed of Christianity probably counts as 'straining at gnats and swallowing a camel', a line of humour Jesus used to deflate the oppressive Pharisees.

if you were offended i believe its probably your guilty conscience, however i apologize fully

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

There is no way to twist it: Evolutionary theory IS an explanation that replaces the need for a creator.

Even though the idea is false in that line of thinking, it is simple for secular society to fall into the trap.

Where did the matter come from? Who/what started it? Where did the energy come from? etc.

It explains nothing about our base origins. But it does (attempt to) explain where the variations of species came from. Which allows people to deny the existance of a creator. At that point they become their own "gods", that is their new relegion. Evolutionary theory was simply the springboard.

Sidenote: It is hilarious to me that anyone can seriously consider the idea that matter can itself create life, just given "enough time" and "enough tries". Drop a bunch of random letters, you may get a word. Do it enough, you may get a sentence! But will you get the encyclopedia a thousand times in a row? Keep trying... PS - Where'd the language system come from to read such sequences?

 

[random_guy]

There is no way to twist it: Evolutionary theory IS an explanation that replaces the need for a creator.

Even though the idea is false in that line of thinking, it is simple for secular society to fall into the trap.

Where did the matter come from? Who/what started it? Where did the energy come from? etc.

It explains nothing about our base origins. But it does (attempt to) explain where the variations of species came from. Which allows people to deny the existance of a creator. At that point they become their own "gods", that is their new relegion. Evolutionary theory was simply the springboard.

So how does explaining the origins of variation deny the existence of a Creator? Kepler's Laws describe how celestial bodies move. Does his laws deny a Creator? It seems your logic does not follow. Also, not too many scientists I know and work with would describe themselves as gods. It seems you've been watching too many cartoons.

Sidenote: It is hilarious to me that anyone can seriously consider the idea that matter can itself create life, just given "enough time" and "enough tries". Drop a bunch of random letters, you may get a word. Do it enough, you may get a sentence! But will you get the encyclopedia a thousand times in a row? Keep trying... PS - Where'd the language system come from to read such sequences?

It seems more hilarious to me that people would actually create their own false reality, justify any tactics, and ignore all evidence, all to support their own interpretations of the Bible. Oh wait, it's not hilarious, but sad. Just be aware that your position has about as much validity in the real world (universities, research labs, school system) as flat Earth. Food for thought.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

please note:

There is no way to twist it: Evolutionary theory IS an explanation that replaces the need for a creator.


and

Which allows people to deny the existance of a creator.

are NOT logically equivalent.
hint:
it is the usage of IS and ALLOWS

the first statement is false.
the second is true.
furthermore neither have anything to do with the truthfulness of the scientific theory of evolution.

biology is simply silent about gods, creators, pixies and any other proposed supernatural entity.

btw, so is math, and physics, and geology, and ......
well, maybe not math, it is a bit too neo-platonic. *grin*

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

So how does explaining the origins of variation deny the existence of a Creator?

It doesnt. Which is why my next statement was:

"Even though the idea is false in that line of thinking...Where did the matter come from? Who/what started it? Where did the energy come from? etc. "

What it does is allow those without a spiritual background to find some sort of explaination as to how earth got to where it is today. The underlying issue of where did it come from is usually passed off as misunderstood "big bang" theory or some variation. Issue over and done, now little Jimmy can do whatever his heart desires. I believe that is evolutionary theory's only motivation and the only reason it still a relevant topic today.

 

[random_guy]

It doesnt. Which is why my next statement was:

"Even though the idea is false in that line of thinking...Where did the matter come from? Who/what started it? Where did the energy come from? etc. "

What it does is allow those without a spiritual background to find some sort of explaination as to how earth got to where it is today. The underlying issue of where did it come from is usually passed off as misunderstood "big bang" theory or some variation. Issue over and done, now little Jimmy can do whatever his heart desires. I believe that is evolutionary theory's only motivation and the only reason it still a relevant topic today.

Yeah, but faulty logic of ignorant peopledoesn't make evolution wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolution. That would be like using the people that shot abortion doctors to disprove Christianity.

Also, the reason why evolution is still relevant is because it's a science, it's the central unifying concept in biology, and it continues to better improve our lives to the development of drugs and treatments as well as further our knowledge.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Even though the idea is false in that line of thinking...Where did the matter come from? Who/what started it? Where did the energy come from? etc. "

I believe that is evolutionary theory's only motivation and the only reason it still a relevant topic today.



the modern synthesis or neo-darwinian evolutionary theory has nothing to do with cosmology. it is an unfortunate overlap in the common usage of the word "evolution".

I believe that is evolutionary theory's only motivation

and your belief is false, the major motivation behind the TofE like all science is curiosity and inquiring minds.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yeah, but faulty logic of ignorant peopledoesn't make evolution wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolution. That would be like using the people that shot abortion doctors to disprove Christianity.

actually demonstrating logically and consistently that Paul Hill did act out of Christian principles would go a long ways towards showing Christianity to be not only wrong but dangerous.

this is a far better case than using faulty logic and a strawman of the TofE to disprove it.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

please note:
There is no way to twist it: Evolutionary theory IS an explanation that replaces the need for a creator.
and
Which allows people to deny the existance of a creator.

are NOT logically equivalent.
hint:
it is the usage of IS and ALLOWS

the first statement is false.
the second is true.
furthermore neither have anything to do with the truthfulness of the scientific theory of evolution.

biology is simply silent about gods, creators, pixies and any other proposed supernatural entity.

btw, so is math, and physics, and geology, and ......

I apologize, I'm not used to debating such issues over the internet. I need to be a little more accurate with my phrasing. Replace IS with PROVIDES.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

Yeah, but faulty logic of ignorant peopledoesn't make evolution wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolution. That would be like using the people that shot abortion doctors to disprove Christianity.

Also, the reason why evolution is still relevant is because it's a science, it's the central unifying concept in biology, and it continues to better improve our lives to the development of drugs and treatments as well as further our knowledge.

I agree. I dont claim that the faulty logic that I allude to has any bearing on the legitimacy of evolution... only that it is the motivating factor that keeps the weak theory afloat.

I also should probably clarify that anytime I reference "evolution theory" I am only referencing the part of it that is theory. There are many aspects to the word "evolution" that are certainly observable science, variation within species for example.

 

[Dannager]

I also should probably clarify that anytime I reference "evolution theory" I am only referencing the part of it that is theory. There are many aspects to the word "evolution" that are certainly observable science, variation within species for example.

Speciation is observed science as well. Regardless, even variation within species is part of the theory, BoaBreedingChristian. It doesn't appear that you are well-versed in what exactly the word theory means in a scientific context.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I apologize, I'm not used to debating such issues over the internet. I need to be a little more accurate with my phrasing. Replace IS with PROVIDES.

even then the issue is if how people use or misuse a scientific theory has any relevance to the truthfulness of the theory.

just as sincerity is no way to properly judge if a person is right about something or not. what ethical or moral ends to which people put scientific theories is no judge of the truthfulness of that theory.

scientific theories are judged on any number of criteria: simplicity, mathematical expressions, beauty, utility, fruitfulness, ability to get funding, etc. but the fundamental judge is if the majority of people working on the theory believe it to correspond accurately with reality, we usually call this truthfulness or accuracy. it really is the only valid criteria for a scientific theory, if it explains and corresponds to reality.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

Speciation is observed science as well. Regardless, even variation within species is part of the theory, BoaBreedingChristian. It doesn't appear that you are well-versed in what exactly the word theory means in a scientific context.

I certainly am not up to snuff with the semantics of "theory" or "hypothesis", I find that to be aside from the real issue and irrelevant regardless.

Speciation can be rationalized as observed science because of the definition of the word "species". Which is why some creationists steer clear of the phrase and simply use the word "kind". No specific kind of animal has been observed to change into another specific kind of animal. I wouldnt expect to find such a change under the evolutionary (billions of years) scale regardless, it is unlikely that our limited timespan of knowledge could prove the issue.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

scientific theories are judged on any number of criteria: simplicity, mathematical expressions, beauty, utility, fruitfulness, ability to get funding, etc. but the fundamental judge is if the majority of people working on the theory believe it to correspond accurately with reality, we usually call this truthfulness or accuracy. it really is the only valid criteria for a scientific theory, if it explains and corresponds to reality.

By your words, the "judge" is based on peoples beliefs upon the theory. Which completely coincides with my point that peoples beliefs are skewed by their own personal motivations.

 

[Dannager]

I certainly am not up to snuff with the semantics of "theory" or "hypothesis", I find that to be aside from the real issue and irrelevant regardless.

But it's not irrelevant. Every time someone erroneously shouts "Evolution is just a theory!" it unfairly discredits it. Evolutionary theory is a theory just like gravitation has a theory attached to it. You don't disbelieve gravity because it's "just a theory", so you clearly shouldn't reject evolution because it's "just a theory" either. Be honest, and admit the real reasons you reject evolutionary theory.

Speciation can be rationalized as observed science because of the definition of the word "species". Which is why some creationists steer clear of the phrase and simply use the word "kind".

The difference is that "species" has a definition (or set of definitions, if you want to get into specific methods of classification), whereas "kind" does not have one because defining "kind" would allow for counter examples to be brought up. Conveniently, the accepted meaning for "kind" among creationists is a set of creatures that doesn't change into another set of creatures. Not only is this not a proper way of defining something, but it demonstrates that creationists don't even know how evolution works. Creatures don't jump over, genetically, and become other sorts of creatures.

No specific kind of animal has been observed to change into another specific kind of animal.

Okay then, allow us to attempt to falsify this claim. First, define "kind" so that we will be able to locate an example appropriately.

I wouldnt expect to find such a change under the evolutionary (billions of years) scale regardless, it is unlikely that our limited timespan of knowledge could prove the issue.

Our timespan of knowledge has given us access to the fossil record, meaning our knowledge is much less limited than you give it credit for, and is fully capable of satisfactorily evidencing evolutionary theory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
scientific theories are judged on any number of criteria: simplicity, mathematical expressions, beauty, utility, fruitfulness, ability to get funding, etc. but the fundamental judge is if the majority of people working on the theory believe it to correspond accurately with reality, we usually call this truthfulness or accuracy. it really is the only valid criteria for a scientific theory, if it explains and corresponds to reality.

By your words, the "judge" is based on peoples beliefs upon the theory. Which completely coincides with my point that peoples beliefs are skewed by their own personal motivations.

so??
we don't really have access to the real world, but only to a model of it we build in our minds via our perceptions.

We seldom actually talk about the text of the Bible but are usually discussing our various interpretations of what the text says. it is usually about meaning not very the text itself.

People's beliefs do skew their perceptions and theories, including science. however science is not a single person's set of beliefs, nor is it even a single small group of people. rather it is an extraordinary number of very different people cooperating on a level that makes the term "intersubjectivity" an interesting reality.

to merely state that our thoughts, feelings, bodily conditions color our perceptions and our thinking is not the same thing as explaining exactly what are these things and exactly what it means to skew thinking.

to discredit the TofE because it is merely a theory based on people's assumptions really misses the point of science, don't you think?

especially if you never talk about exactly what are these assumptions and how they do this dastardly task of misreading the geology of the earth to say it is 4.5B years old when it is really only 6Kya. merely alluding to presuppositions is a cop out of almost the magnitude of this YECist dating error.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

so??

So, the fact that, even science, can and is influenced by the motivations amd subjectivity of individuals is, or at the least could be, relevant as to why this theory has lingered. I would argue it is the primary reason, not the supposed degree of accuracy that the theory posesses.

I dont think people's motivational assumptions discredit the theory, not at all. From a scientific standpoint unbiased observable information discredit it... from a personal standpoint the Bible discredits it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So, the fact that, even science, can and is influenced by the motivations amd subjectivity of individuals is, or at the least could be, relevant as to why this theory has lingered. I would argue it is the primary reason, not the supposed degree of accuracy that the theory posesses.


then, i will ask as i always do, to present these assumptions and "personal motivations" that help the TofE "linger"?

what exactly are they? and how do they alter the theory so that it is less truthful then it would be without them? then talk about the mechanism of "personal motivations" as they pertain to literally millions of very different people, getting the same data and working on the same theories.

Generalities are nice, but they are not only uninformative without their content, but without the details they are not worth much either.

the fact that science is influenced by outside forces is well known, what is not understood, as least by me, is what are these forces, what do they do to science, and how do they work? i've looked at the issue carefully in the past and wouldn't mind looking at it again, but simply to state it will not be a sufficient argument to convince me that you have content to the idea that is worthwhile my efforts to understand it.

so.
present away.
please.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

then, i will ask as i always do, to present these assumptions and "personal motivations" that help the TofE "linger"?

what exactly are they? and how do they alter the theory so that it is less truthful then it would be without them? then talk about the mechanism of "personal motivations" as they pertain to literally millions of very different people, getting the same data and working on the same theories.

Generalities are nice, but they are not only uninformative without their content, but without the details they are not worth much either.

the fact that science is influenced by outside forces is well known, what is not understood, as least by me, is what are these forces, what do they do to science, and how do they work? i've looked at the issue carefully in the past and wouldn't mind looking at it again, but simply to state it will not be a sufficient argument to convince me that you have content to the idea that is worthwhile my efforts to understand it.

so.
present away.
please.

I'm sure you understand the personal motivations, as they are widely known and I believe I have stated them in this thread. Everyone has a conscience - and everyone has sinned. If one is to reject relegion, they must grasp some other explaination. That explaination is evolution theory. A poor explaination sure, but nevertheless, widely accepted as such. Why would they hold such a flimsy view? Consider the thought process of anyone who denies the existance of a creator (agnostic or athiestic) and that should answer your question.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm sure you understand the personal motivations, as they are widely known and I believe I have stated them in this thread. Everyone has a conscience - and everyone has sinned. If one is to reject relegion, they must grasp some other explaination. That explaination is evolution theory. A poor explaination sure, but nevertheless, widely accepted as such. Why would they hold such a flimsy view? Consider the thought process of anyone who denies the existance of a creator (agnostic or athiestic) and that should answer your question.

nonsense.
most Christians think that the TofE is a good scientific theory, only in the US is YECism a significant portion of the church.
your contention is that atheists hate god and therefore see evolution in nature. The problem is that so do lots of Christians who love God and do not use common descent to justify anything religious or metaphysical.

but the biggest problem is how atheism effects people so that they see the same thing as Christians do if the motivation is hating god. take the age of the earth for an example. how does being an atheist change your interpretaton or perception of radioactive decay. plus lots of other kinds of relgious people see the same thing.

the only solution to this dilemma is to propose that only YECists are true Christians. that anyone who thinks that the scientific theory of evolution is true are so badly deceived by demons that they are no longer, if they ever were, Christians. curiously what this ends up doing is to raise a scientific issue, the age of the earth well above traditional principles of Christianity such as faith, grace etc.