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:
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.
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 worlds 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/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 worlds 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.
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.