Evolution is a Religion: Reloaded

[Split Rock]

One of our newer creationist posters started a thread with this O.P. He quickly changed the subject, and then changed it again a few more times, as he continued to avoid answering questions about things he posted which demonstrated his ignorance. Nevertheless, it is very popular for creationist to post here that "evolution is a religion." Strangely enough, these supposedly very religious people seem to be using the term "religion" as some kind of an insult or denigration. In any case, here is the O.P. again:

Evolution is a religion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:consumerism is the new religion

---------
Evolution, as defined as Darwinian evolution, tracing everything back to one common ancestor and ascribing as yet unobserved, untested and unrepeatable change from one complex creature to another. (Theropoda to a modern bird).

Evolution is a view of ORIGINS and as such is by definition a religion. It has no place in the operational science classroom which can teach real operational science without going into hypothetical origins teachings.

Most people misunderstand that natural selection, adaptation and mutations is evolution which it is not. Those are all working on genetics that are already complex and put into place and have strict limits. Down to the embryonic stage, set body plans, extremely set DNA error correction mechanisms and repair mechanisms.

That is why we get a variety of birds that are all still birds and a variety of dogs that are all still dogs and so on.​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7764586/

As this line was quickly dropped and forgotten in the original thread, I think it worth re-evaluating it here (since it is a common theme in this forum).

Part 1: In the first part of the OP, definitions of "religion" are posted, probably from some website which he doesn't bother to cite. Nevertheless, evolution certainly does not qualify for the first two definitions at all. The last definition is a very loose one where "commercialism" is used as an example of a "religion." This definition says that "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" is a religion. So, not only is "commercialism" a religion, but so can stamp collecting. I suppose with such a definition, for some people, evolution can be called a religion... just as any interest can be called a "religion." Does this put evolution on the same level as either Christianity or creationism?

Part 2: In the second part he claims evolution ascribes to “unobserved, untested and unrepeatable change.” While past changes are themselves unobserved, evolution is observable today, including speciation both in the lab and in nature. Furthermore, the predictions made by evolution are testable.

Part 3: In the third part, he comes back to religion, by claiming evolution is about “origins,” and is thus a religion. This despite the fact that “origins” was not included in any of the original definitions he provided for the term ‘religion.” In any case, evolution is only about the origin of species, not life, nor the solar system, nor the universe.

Part 4: The fourth paragraph is probably the worst of the bunch. Here he claims that natural selection, adaptation and mutations are not part of evolution. This is a blatant attempt to re-define evolution in an attempt to disprove it. The three basic mechanisms of evolution are : gene flow, genetic drift and, of course, natural selection. Mutation provides the raw material for evolutionary mechanisms to act on. Adaption is basically micro-evolution, or evolution within a species.

Part 5: Finally he says that birds give rise to birds and dogs to dogs. This is the one thing he gets right in the O.P. Our ancestors were apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc., and so are we. You cannot escape your ancestry. Unfortunately for his argument, that puts all life on earth into one “kind” as it were… which is exactly what the theory of evolution tells us.

My conclusion: Evolution is not a religion, but is a testable, observable scientific theory. The original O.P. is a failure.

 

[AV1611VET]

My conclusion: Evolution is not a religion, but is a testable, observable scientific theory. The original O.P. is a failure.

Fair enough ... let's call it a doctrine then.

Much like we wouldn't call justification or sanctification a religion, but a doctrine; perhaps we should call evolution a doctrine?

 

[Loudmouth]

Part 3: In the third part, he comes back to religion, by claiming evolution is about “origins,” and is thus a religion. This despite the fact that “origins” was not included in any of the original definitions he provided for the term ‘religion.” In any case, evolution is only about the origin of species, not life, nor the solar system, nor the universe.

This gets even sillier when you look at other examples. Meteorology describes the origins of a storm system. Does that make meteorology a religion? Germ Theory describes the origin of infectious diseases. Does that make Germ Theory a religion?

This makes me really wonder if creationists think that any scientific theory is actually scientific and areligious.

My conclusion: Evolution is not a religion, but is a testable, observable scientific theory. The original O.P. is a failure.

A better way to approach this may be to ask creationists for a scientific theory that is not a religion, and then see if it passes their criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough ... let's call it a doctrine then.

Are all scientific theories doctrines?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are all scientific theories doctrines?

I give up; are they?

 

[HitchSlap]

Fair enough ... let's call it a doctrine then.

Much like we wouldn't call justification or sanctification a religion, but a doctrine; perhaps we should call evolution a doctrine?

Why call it "doctrine," when everybody knows it's only a theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A better way to approach this may be to ask creationists for a scientific theory that is not a religion, and then see if it passes their criteria.

I found this article on ID:


Intelligent Design

At the bottom of the page they try to claim that the "Theory of ID" is scientific:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Ignoring that they forgot that peer review is part of the process, I found the whole thing rather hilarious. Please note that they did not list any examples of "irreducible complexity". Is that because even creationists can learn after a while? They must know by now that one of the quickest ways to find the answer for a problem in biology is to call the process "irreducibly complex".

 

[Split Rock]

Fair enough ... let's call it a doctrine then.

Much like we wouldn't call justification or sanctification a religion, but a doctrine; perhaps we should call evolution a doctrine?

No. I don't see why. I just went through an entire O.P. disproving the original assertion that evolution is a religion. Why now call it "doctrine," when doctrine is part of religion???

 

[Loudmouth]

I found this article on ID:


Intelligent Design

At the bottom of the page they try to claim that the "Theory of ID" is scientific:



Ignoring that they forgot that peer review is part of the process, I found the whole thing rather hilarious. Please note that they did not list any examples of "irreducible complexity". Is that because even creationists can learn after a while? They must know by now that one of the quickest ways to find the answer for a problem in biology is to call the process "irreducibly complex".

It's really a throw away hypothesis. There is nothing risky about it. For example, I could hypothesize that if life was created by Leprechauns that it would contain atoms. We find that life is made up of atoms, therefore Leprechauns.

What they need to do is tell us why finding these features is compelling evidence for intelligent design. Even more importantly, they need to explain all of the other evidence within biology which stand in stark contrast to ID (e.g. the twin nested hierarchies).

As to CSI and IC, the real argument is not over whether they exist. The real argument is over whether or not natural mechanisms can produce them. For example, the mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex. If you take away one of the three bones in the middle ear it will cease to function. However, we know from fossils that the mammalian middle ear evolved by steps and not all at once. So we already know that these systems can evolve.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

The only thing that is suspect is Behe's unevidence assertion that IC systems can not evolve. He never demonstrated this in any of his work.

 

[Split Rock]

I found this article on ID:


Intelligent Design

At the bottom of the page they try to claim that the "Theory of ID" is scientific:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.


Ignoring that they forgot that peer review is part of the process, I found the whole thing rather hilarious. Please note that they did not list any examples of "irreducible complexity". Is that because even creationists can learn after a while? They must know by now that one of the quickest ways to find the answer for a problem in biology is to call the process "irreducibly complex".

This is better than anything Dragon came up with but I agree it is still lacking.

1. What is C.S.I. and how do we determine if something qualifies as C.S.I.? Basically, if an elephant was specified or intended as a design, then the information that makes up the elephant is "specified." However, that begs the question, how do we determine if the elephant was intended?

2. I.C. also doesn't work. I.C. arguments assume that all parts to a system were put together one by one and never changed in form or function or were removed/replaced. This ignores changes in function or parts, and scafolding, among other things. In any case, no one has come up with a specific system which cannot run without all its parts.

3. Even this definition is a form of Negative Argument. If we cannot see how nature did X, then by default, X was intelligently designed. A nice way of "stacking the deck."

 

[EternalDragon]

My conclusion: Evolution is not a religion, but is a testable, observable scientific theory. The original O.P. is a failure.

I did not change the subject or deviate from the subject on purpose. Your team of non-Christians popped up and started posting all kinds of things. So the blame is not on me.

If you want to call questioning scientists assumptions about the evidence "ignorant" that's fine, but everyone has a right to question. Unless you want to brainwash them....

Besides I did give my reply and I stand by it. Which is that natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations are all testable and observable. Variation is testable and observable.

The idea that long periods of time plus those processes can build new complex genetic structures or change those structures, while avoiding correction mechanisms, to where we all evolved from one common ancestor is not. It takes faith to believe that. Hence, a religion. Not science.

If we all evolved and there is no God then why fight as hard as you do about evolution? So some people want to believe the Bible. If we all just die, then what does it matter what you, or I believe in the end?

 

[lasthero]

You did change the subject. Your second post focused on falsification, ignored the posts about religion, and you never got back on track.

 

[CabVet]

Fair enough ... let's call it a doctrine then.

Much like we wouldn't call justification or sanctification a religion, but a doctrine; perhaps we should call evolution a doctrine?

No. Doctrines don't change. Evolution is completely open for change if another better theory is developed. Actually, evolution did change a lot from when it was first proposed to now.

 

[CabVet]

You did change the subject. Your second post focused on falsification, ignored the posts about religion, and you never got back on track.

No, the fact that evolution is falsifiable is what makes it science, and not a religion. Saying that evolution is falsifiable has everything to do with the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you want to call questioning scientists assumptions about the evidence "ignorant" that's fine, but everyone has a right to question.

It would help if you actually understood what those conclusions are and the evidence that led to those conclusions. All you seem to be questioning is your fantasy of what the theory is instead of the actual theory that is used by scientists.

The idea that long periods of time plus those processes can build new complex genetic structures or change those structures, while avoiding correction mechanisms, to where we all evolved from one common ancestor is not.

Why can't we test this hypothesis?

It takes faith to believe that.

That's strange, because we have the evidence to support universal common descent:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

If we all evolved and there is no God then why fight as hard as you do about evolution?

We are fighting against those who would remove science from schools in the name of religion. We happen to think that science education is important to our futures. There is also a dash of this:

So some people want to believe the Bible. If we all just die, then what does it matter what you, or I believe in the end?

What matters is we need science while we are alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I don't see why. I just went through an entire O.P. disproving the original assertion that evolution is a religion. Why now call it "doctrine," when doctrine is part of religion???

Fair enough -- call it what you want, and we'll do the same.

 

[CabVet]

Besides I did give my reply and I stand by it. Which is that natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations are all testable and observable. Variation is testable and observable.

Sorry to break the news for you, but this is evolution. As much as you want to change the definition to suit your needs and reject it, there is no way around it.

The idea that long periods of time plus those processes can build new complex genetic structures or change those structures, while avoiding correction mechanisms, to where we all evolved from one common ancestor is not. It takes faith to believe that. Hence, a religion. Not science.

The fossil record (a.k.a. evidence) and the genetic relationships between living organisms (among many other things) make evolution a valid scientific theory. Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence, you seem to be forgetting this point.

If we all evolved and there is no God then why fight as hard as you do about evolution? So some people want to believe the Bible. If we all just die, then what does it matter what you, or I believe in the end?

If we all fall back to earth when we jump and there is no God, why fight as hard as we do about gravity? The answer is simple, because it is a valid and sound theory. We are not about to abandon a scientific theory just because it (in your eyes) goes against your beliefs.

 

[EternalDragon]

You did change the subject. Your second post focused on falsification, ignored the posts about religion, and you never got back on track.

The subject was evolution so no, I did not change the subject. I just checked the post.

Others tried to say evolution is falsifiable, that's why it's not a religion or tried to throw natural selection, mutations and genetic drift in there which are testable and observable, and so on.

You want me to be literal and sound like an ass? O.k. I will re-address some answers. The science lab is the church, the evolution scientists are the pastors or preachers, Darwin is your preacher or your Jesus and Darwinian evolution is your god. There is no neutral ground.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Doctrines don't change. Evolution is completely open for change if another better theory is developed. Actually, evolution did change a lot from when it was first proposed to now.

No sweat.

 

[CabVet]

Fair enough -- call it what you want, and we'll do the same.

Exactly, it doesn't matter what the definition is, you can just change the meanings of words (and entire scientific theories) to fit your interpretation of the Bible.