Evolution is a RELIGION and not Science

[AV1611VET]

-- Knock it off, guys!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just keep repeating it. That'll make it come true.

Are you denying there are religious versions of evolution?

 

[Phred]

Are you denying there are religious versions of evolution?

Are you saying there are?

 

[OllieFranz]

Are you denying there are religious versions of evolution?

That would depend on whether the way you phrased the question reflects the question in your head.

If you meant it literally, something akin to "Isn't science sometimes religious?" or "Can't science include religion and the supernatural?" then the answer is "No." Science studies the laws of nature. Supernatural events are outside the laws of nature, and therefore outside science.

If you meant "Aren't there many religious scientists?" the answer is "Of course there are, but their religion is not part of their science." At least not if they are honest and earnest. And if it is, what they are doing is, by definition, not science.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Theistic evolution IIRC is a "version" of evolutionary theory where God controls mutations. If you want to say "that's non-scientific" it's true, but whether it is classed as a version of evolution less straightformard. You can say "only scientific theories of evolution count as evolutionay theory" but that needs further back up. I would just say theistic evolution is a religified version of evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Theistic evolution IIRC is a "version" of evolutionary theory where God controls mutations.

Your recollection is wrong. Theistic evolution is merely a theological position adopted by religious people with regards to the acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory.

It's one of the great ironies of the Crevo debate. Atheists who aren't militant or activist consider TEs to be their ultimate allies while Creationists, who ostensibly agree with them regarding the source of Creation, consider them to be enemies while simultaneously claiming that your average "meh" atheist considers them "useful idiots". In actuality, it's the militant atheists who consider Creationists to be the real "useful idiots", because as people who have been taught that it's a literal Genesis or atheism learn that a literal Genesis is unsupportable, they lose or have a crisis of faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

... because as people who have been taught that it's a literal Genesis or atheism learn that a literal Genesis is unsupportable, they lose or have a crisis of faith.

Now that's funny -- it strengthens mine.

 

[Belk]

Now that's funny -- it strengthens mine.

But your not exactly the norm AV. You tend to be fairly unique in your outlook from my observation.

 

[CabVet]

You clearly haven't read much, there are many religious based evolution theories in regards to the proposed mechanism(s) for evolution.

There are many attempts to fit evolution to religious dogma, or changes in interpretations of religious books to fit evolution. There is only one theory of evolution. Creationism and it's variants are not scientific theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

But your not exactly the norm AV. You tend to be fairly unique in your outlook from my observation.

That's not a fair assessment, in my opinion.

I answer questions that I would say most of my peers have never heard before.

If I were to simply answer them with, "I don't know. It's not in the Bible, and I've never heard it preached before", then I would be accused of espousing god-of-the-gaps theology.

But if I fill in the gaps with supposition, I get called a member of a 'backwater church.'

So, either way...

 

[Delphiki]

If I were to simply answer them with, "I don't know. It's not in the Bible, and I've never heard it preached before", then I would be accused of espousing god-of-the-gaps theology.

Not sure how that works. God of the Gaps is when you follow "I don't know" with the assumption "so, therefore God." If you just said you didn't know and that you've never had it taught to you, then that's called intellectual honesty.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Evolution says, they don;t know how things came about, but they postulate and postulate.


If responding ONLY counter the message and not the messenger, other wise you will be belittling a poster, and that is not allowed.

So lets attack evolution, and not evolutionists.

Or differ with or attack creationism not attack creationists.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Evolution says, they don;t know how things came about, but they postulate and postulate.


If responding ONLY counter the message and not the messenger, other wise you will be belittling a poster, and that is not allowed.

So lets attack evolution, and not evolutionists.

Or differ with or attack creationism not attack creationists.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to translate from Canadian to American?

 

[Phred]

Evolution says, they don;t know how things came about, but they postulate and postulate.

Creationism says, "We're certain how things came about. Goddidit. We don't know anything else. We don't know the process, we don't know the methods. We don't know anything but "poof!". And frankly, we don't care."

 

[Delphiki]

Evolution says, they don;t know how things came about, but they postulate and postulate.

If by "things" you mean life, then the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how it came about. The theory addresses the origin of species, not the origin of life. The origin of life is studied in the field of abiogenesis.

The theory isn't postulation, like all scientific theories, it's an explanation of the facts, evidence, and observations. It's also not a "they". I'm sure you've been told this countless times, but maybe repetition will get through to you.

If responding ONLY counter the message and not the messenger, other wise you will be belittling a poster, and that is not allowed.

Can you try rewording this sentence so it makes sense, please?

So lets attack evolution, and not evolutionists.

How does one attack change through common descent and natural selection and what are your motives for doing so?

Or differ with or attack creationism not attack creationists.

More accurately, I would say I'm defending reason from ideas like creationism.


There is just way too much equivocation going on in your posts. Might I suggest at least Googling most of the words you choose to use before you use them?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Creationism says, "We're certain how things came about. Goddidit. We don't know anything else. We don't know the process, we don't know the methods. We don't know anything but "poof!". And frankly, we don't care."

WE know, I post it, you reject it and go back to POOF BANG ZAP magic mutations and magic organisms over billions and billions of years.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Creationists still convincing themselves they are even in the fight? When it comes to the "war of facts" you all don't seem to understand...you're not in the race..you never were. The rewards were already passed out and people went home.

You all are just being a weird creepy fellow standing outside the fairgrounds in the rain while delusions of coming in first place dance through our head.

 

[Loudmouth]

WE know, I post it, you reject it and go back to POOF BANG ZAP magic mutations and magic organisms over billions and billions of years.

Trying to make evolutoin sound like creationism only makes our point for us.

The fact of the matter is that we have observed mutations. Not once have we observed a supernatural deity magically poofing species into existence. To try and cover up these facts you have to bring science down to you level. Sorry, won't happen.

 

[Phred]

WE know, I post it, you reject it and go back to POOF BANG ZAP magic mutations and magic organisms over billions and billions of years.

You don't know. You pretend you know. And then someone else of your ilk posts a different idea. You can't really challenge each other because neither of your fantasies is based upon anything real. So there's no evidence to check them against. So yes, I reject your manic fantasies. And your magic. And your ignorant characterizations of what actually is knowledge.

 

[MrMoe]

The fact of the matter is that we have observed mutations. Not once have we observed a supernatural deity magically poofing species into existence.

I agree we can observe mutations. but we have never observed one species of animal turn into a completely different species of animal.

saying that beneficial mutations through natural selection accumulate over thousands of years to form new species is a nice theory but you need to prove this is actually possible.