Do you think evolution is a religion? why or why not?

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by clue
The other side is just throwing up well established scientific theories (and other statements that just don't follow from the definition) to try to derail the fact that the dictionary's definition of a religion would imply that evolution is one.

Yeah! The nerve of some people to actually use, as you yourself call them, "Well established scientific theories!" What are they thinking to compare the Theory of Evolution to a well established scientific theory-- uh, wait a minute...

And the dictionary's definition of "religion" doesn't help you. Any researcher knows that the 1st definition listed in a dictionary is the one most commonly used in contemporary society. I noticed that nobody mentioned definition #1:

<TABLE height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR>

<TD vAlign=top>
From Merriam Webster's dictionary.

Main Entry: <B>re·li·gion</B>

1 a :&nbsp;the state of a religious b (1) :&nbsp;the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :&nbsp;commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance&nbsp;

The most common use for "religion" doesn't seem to include evolution, now does it? You'd have to get pretty obscure to prove your point.

Not that this proves you wrong per se, but I can read through a dictionary and post a string of archaic and forgotten definitions, and apply them to just about anything I want.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[clue]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
And the dictionary's definition of "religion" doesn't help you. Any researcher knows that the 1st definition listed in a dictionary is the one most commonly used in contemporary society. I noticed that nobody mentioned definition #1.

Okay, if you&nbsp;IGNORE&nbsp;the 3 definitions posted, and just take the 1st definition (because psst, Nathan Poe said so) then evolution cannot be considered a religion.

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
The most common use for "religion" doesn't seem to include evolution, now does it? You'd have to get pretty obscure to prove your point.

Or you could just come up with some new, self serving&nbsp;rules&nbsp;to the game to try to get your viewpoint across.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by clue
Okay, if you&nbsp;IGNORE&nbsp;the 3 definitions posted, and just take the 1st definition (because psst, Nathan Poe said so) then, evolution cannot be considered a religion.

And if you include the other three, then you can include anything and everything as a religion. Which, as has been pointed out, is completely meaningless.

Have we gone over this enough times now?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by clue
Okay, if you&nbsp;IGNORE&nbsp;the 3 definitions posted, and just take the 1st definition (because psst, Nathan Poe said so) then evolution cannot be considered a religion.



Or you could just come up with some new, self serving&nbsp;rules&nbsp;to the game to try to get your viewpoint across.

Or we could use the 3 lesser-used definitions and ignore the primary, as you suggest. Using those definitions alone, how are Democracy, high school, and rap music not religions?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
I think most people will agree that creationism is religion enforced by scientific theory. I also think thatevolutionism is scientific theory held up mainly by religion. what do you think?

I don't think&nbsp;"most people" will agree.&nbsp; Creationism is religion trying to masquerade as a scientific theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Held up by data.

However, some atheists try to use evolution to hold up that particular faith.

&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

However, some atheists try to use evolution to hold up that particular faith.

Have you ever pointed out a faith statement in my atheism?

Nope. But you keep repeating this as if it were universal truth.

"I lack belief in God". He/She/It/They/Them might exist, for all I know, but until I have a reason to think so, I don't.

As that's the sum total of my atheism, you should be able to pick out a faith statement.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
you believe in evolution like I believe in creation. You have faith that its true (otherwise you wouldn't be backing it up) and I have the same sort of faith for creationism.

Not the same at all.&nbsp; I accept that evolution is (provisionally) true because we haven't been able to falsify it and there is overwhelming intersubjective evidence supporting it.&nbsp; That same intersubjective evidence completely falsifies creationism. Creationism is a falsified theory like flat earth, geocentrism, and proteins as the hereditary material are falsified theories.

WIAD, creationism was falsified by 1831.&nbsp; By that time a young earth and a global Flood to account for fossils was falsified.&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
Have you ever pointed out a faith statement in my atheism?

Nope. But you keep repeating this as if it were universal truth.

"I lack belief in God". He/She/It/They/Them might exist, for all I know, but until I have a reason to think so, I don't.

As that's the sum total of my atheism, you should be able to pick out a faith statement.

Morat, I understand that this is where you start, but that "I lack belief in God" is not stable.&nbsp; As soon as you start to think about the situation, you do make faith statements.

Now, what about the "natural" processes we discover by science?&nbsp; Is God necessary for these processes to happen? If you say "no", then you are making a statement of faith, because there is nothing in science that will tell us so.&nbsp; If you say "I don't know" then you are no longer an atheist but an agnostic.&nbsp; If you say "yes", then you are a theist.

While atheism can start out as a negative statement, it can't stay that way once you begin thinking about the implications of how the "natural" world works.

None of that says atheism is wrong.&nbsp; But I'm not sure that someone who doesn't do enough critical thinking about their position to say what you just said is any better than a creationist's lack of critical thinking about statements by Hovind.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
Have you ever pointed out a faith statement in my atheism?

Nope. But you keep repeating this as if it were universal truth.

"I lack belief in God". He/She/It/They/Them might exist, for all I know, but until I have a reason to think so, I don't.

As that's the sum total of my atheism, you should be able to pick out a faith statement.

BTW, that "until I have a reason to think so" is logical positivism.&nbsp; It is a belief in itself that entities don't exist unless they can be "verified".&nbsp; (a reason to think so)&nbsp; However, logical positivism died because the Verification Principle itself couldn't, ah, be verified. So right there we have another faith statement of yours.

Embedded in that, of course, is the faith that none of the evidences presented by theists constitute "a reason".&nbsp; Look at the end of the Gospel of John. The author states that the account is supposed to be sufficient to have you believe that Yeshu ben Joseph is the son of Yahweh. Now, your faith is that this really isn't sufficient to do that.

I also pointed out that evolution is used by atheists to support their faith that deity does not exist.&nbsp; Without evolution by natural selection, atheists have no answer to the Argument from Design.&nbsp; Do you deny that this is true?&nbsp; So, before evolution it was obvious that atheism was a faith. Evolution really hasn't changed that. The only thing that has changed is that evolution gives enough intellectual fulfillment to atheism that people like you can now deceive yourselves that atheism is a faith. But still neither "God did it" nor "God didn't do it" are scientific statements. So where is your scientific evidence that "God didn't do it"?&nbsp; Without that, you either have to have faith that "God didn't do it" or say "I don't know if God did it or not" (agnosticism) or believe that "God did it".&nbsp; Your position that "God didn't do it" is faith.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto
You do realize that a large number of scientists who accept evolution are Christian, right?

Are you suggesting that evolution is their religion?

They would tell you otherwise and can make the distinction you do not.
Accepting Evolution as a well supported mainstream scientific theory does not mean that you do not believe in God.

Accepting Evolution as a well supported mainstream scientific theory is not done base on faith.

Evolution is not a religion. It is not accepted on faith.

I choose to accept the fact that the sun is made of hydrogen because that is a consensus of moderm mainstream science based on facts and evidence that supports that theory.

I choose to accept the fact of evolution because that is a consensus of modern mainstream science based on facts and evidence that supports that theory.

Do I have a "belief" or "faith" that the sun is made of hydrogen? Is that now my religion?

How foolish can you get.

Nicely said!

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
To jerry smith
I have yet to see science enforce evolution in any lasting way.
There are no scientific "facts" for evolution.

LOL!! Science doesn't "enforce" anything.&nbsp; Science is made up of stubborn, independent scientists. When ideas are accepted in science it's because scientists do so voluntarily because that is what the data says.

As to your last sentence, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi&nbsp;and enter the search term "evolution". Start reading the abstracts of papers (scientific facts). Then get back to us about this ridiculous sentence.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by clue
From Merriam Webster's dictionary.

Main Entry: re·li·gion

1 a :&nbsp;the state of a b (1) :&nbsp;the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :&nbsp;commitment or devotion to faith or observance&nbsp;
2 :&nbsp;a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices&nbsp;
3 archaic :&nbsp;scrupulous conformity :&nbsp;&nbsp;
4 : a&nbsp;cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Using the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th definitions, Evolution can be viewed as a religion.&nbsp; Plus, Evolutionists will try to extract philosophical and moral ideals from Evolution, so it is a religion in that sense too.

How do you figure this?&nbsp; #2 doesn't apply to evolution. It might apply to atheism, but evolution is not atheism.&nbsp; There is no institutionalized system of attitudes or beliefs among evolutionists. There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists.&nbsp; So where is the "conformity"?&nbsp; Even within evolutionary biology, you see the arguments among scientists about the mode and tempo of evolution, the role of neutral mutations, etc.&nbsp; The arguments between Dawkins and Gould, as just one example, are legendary.&nbsp; Where is the institutionalization or conformity?

Science in general and evolution in particular don't have principles or systems of belief.&nbsp; Again, the wide variety of beliefs about deity among evolutionists refutes that idea. Science is not an ethical system.&nbsp; Neither is evolution. As Gould noted: "One might argue, as Thomas Henry Huxley did in his famous essay "Evolution and Ethics," that Darwinism embodies a law of battle, and that human morality must be defined as the discovery of an opposite path.&nbsp; Or one might argue, as grandson Julian did, that Darwinism is a law of cooperation and that moral conduct should follow nature.&nbsp; If two such brilliant and committed Darwinians could come to such opposite opinions about evolution and ethics, I can only conclude that Darwinism offers no moral guidance."&nbsp; Stephen Jay Gould, essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991 pp. 426-427.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by clue in reference to the statement that evolution ary theory is a consensus among scientists

Maybe the consensus really isn't there.&nbsp; Maybe the consensus is there because the evolutionists don't let anybody else have a say.

So, if this is the case, then you realize that many Christians in this country are in on the coverup, right?

All of the biologist, professors, high school teachers, the scientists at the genetics labs, the publishers of peer reviewed material - there are a lot of Christians (I would venture to say the majority) in these roles in this country.

They accept evolution based on the evidence.

 

[Risen Tree]

And notto, that number is dying. The evidence for creation which has been supressed for decades is at last coming to light.

 

[seebs]

Huh?

I've seen lots of claims that people can "disprove" one part or another of evolutionary theory, none of which have panned out. But no one has yet offered a single piece of evidence *FOR* creationism that I've seen. Go ahead. Cite. Exactly what is the evidence? How does it support the theory?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by clue
Or you could just come up with some new, self serving&nbsp;rules&nbsp;to the game to try to get your viewpoint across.

Indeed. Kind of like some Christians who claim to love Christ but hate religion. I've seen some posts on these boards from people who claim that what they have is a personal relationship with God, and not, by definition, a "religion."

In their minds, evolution is a religion, but Christianity isn't.

How self-serving can you get?

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If you make it your Creative God, and worship it, then it is a religion. Of course, that is a moronic stance to take, but it happens.

Can you give an example of someone who WORSHIPS a scientific theory? Do they sing songs to it, pray to it, ask it for forgiveness, beseech it to alter the course of events, write holy books about it and build temples for the public to come sing the songs and perform the rituals?

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by s0uljah
No, they don't go to church and bow down to it, nope. But that isnt the only way people worship.

Some people worship Crack, or Alchohol, or whatever.

So worship means addiction or some variety of unhealthy craving?

&nbsp;

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by What is a Darwin?
If you believe in chips, monday, this board and anything else with ardor and faith then you believe in them religously. BY DEFINITION! So go argue with your dictionary and see how far you get.

&nbsp;

It's a fine point, but one that needs to be understood. Believing something religiously does not make it a religion. In this case "religiously" is an adverb, used to signify that something is as important as a religon might be, not that it is a religionitself.

Consider the word "angelic". It means like an angel in appearance or goodness. Yet an angelic person is not an actual angel.

If everything CAN be termed a religion, then the word has no meaniang whatsoever, does it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Humanista
So worship means addiction or some variety of unhealthy craving?&nbsp;

*RANT MODE ON*&nbsp;

Now that's the most intelligent definition of "worship" I've heard yet.

= cult

&nbsp; = religion

*RANT MODE OFF*