Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

[Morat]

I see your point. So then evolution definitely IS religion as it is just another form of chaos theory, if you will.

  Non sequtor of the extremest type. I have no idea, for instance, as to why you'd consider evolution part of chaos theory, nor as to why you'd consider chaos theory to be a religion.

   You're going to have to expand on that a bit before I can address it beyond stating: "Umm, no. I don't know how on Earth you'd get that idea. Are you certain you were responding to my post?"

 It comes down to the question: do accidents happen? And the answer depends on your attitude towards the question. If you think that accidents CAN happen, then there can be no God. If you think that accidents cannot happen, then you are in God-land.

  We were arguing science. Now you're arguing metaphysics. By that "definition" everything is a religion, and nothing is. Which makes it a bloody poor definition, for sure.

   Just out of curiousity: Since quantum events are decidely random and acausal, is quantum mechanics a religion?

   As for "Accidents", you're putting the cart before the horse. "Accidents" assume purpose. You can only have an accident if there is purpose.

   Science doesn't assume purpose. You do. So why should I answer a question that is only valid under your assumptions, not mine?

   You assume there is some metaphysical purpose, some design to the universe, to reality. Worse yet, when told that science does not assume this, and thus does not address these issues, you seem to create those answers yourself.

   Science doesn't address purpose, or God, or the supernatural. Why do you think that "does not discuss" is the same as "is against"?

 Either way. Religion is more honest because it offers an explanation where evolutionists can only shrug their shoulders and point to accidents.

   I think I see your problem. Religion is designed to answer those questions, as all metaphysics is.

   Science isn't. Your objection is like stating "If the infield fly rule exists, why are apples red?"

   Science doesn't answer "why" except the mechanical "why". If you ask it why apples fall, it talks to you of gravity. If you ask it what an apple is, it tells you. If you ask it where apples and oranges and people and monkeys came from, it answers.

   But it doesn't answer those metaphysical "whys". Not because it fails at the task, but because it was never designed to answer them in the first place.

   Science is a tool for examining, detailing, and understanding natural processes. It is not a metaphysical world view.

 Let me ask you a counterquestion then: why don't you ask why (as opposed to how) mutations happen? Why do think accidents are even possible?

   I've already answer why mutations happen. I've answered it several times, in fact. They happen because (among other things) DNA cannot replicate perfectly. To do so is every time is, in fact, impossible.

  

 

[bluetrinity]

Originally posted by Morat
  Non sequtor of the extremest type. I have no idea, for instance, as to why you'd consider evolution part of chaos theory, nor as to why you'd consider chaos theory to be a religion.

   You're going to have to expand on that a bit before I can address it beyond stating: "Umm, no. I don't know how on Earth you'd get that idea. Are you certain you were responding to my post?"



  We were arguing science. Now you're arguing metaphysics. By that "definition" everything is a religion, and nothing is. Which makes it a bloody poor definition, for sure.

   Just out of curiousity: Since quantum events are decidely random and acausal, is quantum mechanics a religion?

   As for "Accidents", you're putting the cart before the horse. "Accidents" assume purpose. You can only have an accident if there is purpose.

   Science doesn't assume purpose. You do. So why should I answer a question that is only valid under your assumptions, not mine?

   You assume there is some metaphysical purpose, some design to the universe, to reality. Worse yet, when told that science does not assume this, and thus does not address these issues, you seem to create those answers yourself.

   Science doesn't address purpose, or God, or the supernatural. Why do you think that "does not discuss" is the same as "is against"?



   I think I see your problem. Religion is designed to answer those questions, as all metaphysics is.

   Science isn't. Your objection is like stating "If the infield fly rule exists, why are apples red?"

   Science doesn't answer "why" except the mechanical "why". If you ask it why apples fall, it talks to you of gravity. If you ask it what an apple is, it tells you. If you ask it where apples and oranges and people and monkeys came from, it answers.

   But it doesn't answer those metaphysical "whys". Not because it fails at the task, but because it was never designed to answer them in the first place.

   Science is a tool for examining, detailing, and understanding natural processes. It is not a metaphysical world view.



   I've already answer why mutations happen. I've answered it several times, in fact. They happen because (among other things) DNA cannot replicate perfectly. To do so is every time is, in fact, impossible.

  

I see (some of) your points. Science can never answer the "why" question (as opposed to the "how" question) because it wasn't designed to answer it. However, "science" is the number one reason to disprove the existence of God, yet you tell us that science could never answer that question to begin with.

So, the way I see it, it's either creation by chance (ie acidental or randomly) or creation by design, correct? So, if we are created by chance, just as a "fluke" of nature, why is it, that we feel strongly about matters such as love, justice, human rights etc. And if we in fact do feel strongly about them, then those feelings are just freak occurences and should be disregarded as accidental. Then, of course, we should have no problems killing someone or raping a 6 year old girl (or boy). How do you reconcile that?

 

[Morat]

Originally posted by bluetrinity
I see (some of) your points. Science can never answer the "why" question (as opposed to the "how" question) because it wasn't designed to answer it. However, "science" is the number one reason to disprove the existence of God, yet you tell us that science could never answer that question to begin with.

  No. Science isn't disproving God. Science cannot and does not address God. Period. Ever. (It can, however, address religions. ).

   People can use scientific data and theories to support or destroy their own or others worldview.

   So?

So, the way I see it, it's either creation by chance (ie acidental or randomly) or creation by design, correct?

   Why not some of both? I can think of several possibilities that are both.

So, if we are created by chance, just as a "fluke" of nature, why is it, that we feel strongly about matters such as love, justice, human rights etc.

   Why wouldn't we? What makes you think these qualities could alone arise by "design". They are, after all, rather useful qualities.

 And if we in fact do feel strongly about them, then those feelings are just freak occurences and should be disregarded as accidental.

   Your heart is just a freak occurance of chance. Why not discard it?

 

 Then, of course, we should have no problems killing someone or raping a 6 year old girl (or boy). How do you reconcile that?

   Rather easily. Raping or killing a child is the sort of thing that drastically lowers my life expectancy, cuts into my standard of living, and in general creates a nasty society that I don't want to live in.

   We're social animals, Trinity. Why do you insist that we'd evolve to act antisocially?

 

 

[bluetrinity]

Originally posted by Morat
  No. Science isn't disproving God. Science cannot and does not address God. Period. Ever. (It can, however, address religions. ).

   People can use scientific data and theories to support or destroy their own or others worldview.

   So? 

   Why not some of both? I can think of several possibilities that are both. 

   Why wouldn't we? What makes you think these qualities could alone arise by "design". They are, after all, rather useful qualities. 

   Your heart is just a freak occurance of chance. Why not discard it? 
 

   Rather easily. Raping or killing a child is the sort of thing that drastically lowers my life expectancy, cuts into my standard of living, and in general creates a nasty society that I don't want to live in.

   We're social animals, Trinity. Why do you insist that we'd evolve to act antisocially?

 

1. So science does not disprove God. That's a major step forward.
2. I personally agree that creation is a bit of both. But I can't believe that you are saying this because it means that God (also) created.
3. I could rip out my heart, but I don't see animals doing that either and you are arguing that we are in fact animals - i.e. freak occurances
4. We are social animals. That's right. We have a sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, love and hate. Animals don't have this (I think). But if we only have social instincts by a freak development in evolution, because this mutation occurred or that, then you have to admit that it could also have been the reverse and that being "social" has no value whatsoever. In which case, why bother?

 

[Morat]

So science does not disprove God. That's a major step forward.

 No. Science doesn't address God. God is not an issue science can deal with. Science can only describe and explore natural processes using natural tools.

  The whole concept of God is, quite obviously, supernatural.

I personally agree that creation is a bit of both. But I can't believe that you are saying this because it means that God (also) created.

  No. I was pointing out that you were creating a false dichotomy. That is, you were arbitrarily restricting things to two choices.

   It's like saying "Either evolution is true, or God did it". What if evolution is wrong, but some other natural explanation is true?

I could rip out my heart, but I don't see animals doing that either and you are arguing that we are in fact animals - i.e. freak occurances

   Why freak? We have a unique ability. Quite a few species have their own unique abilities. My point was "Why would I do something that would make my own life less pleasant?" You seem to think that, if evolution were true, people would immediatly start to act in ways that were detrimental.

   I don't understand that reasoning at all.

We are social animals. That's right. We have a sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, love and hate.

  I meant more in the sense of "We live in extended groupings, which means we have to get along with said "other people".

Animals don't have this (I think).

  What? Social instincts? Yeah they do. Study bonobo chimps. They have rather complex societies, with strict rules. Heck, they even have prostitution.

But if we only have social instincts by a freak development in evolution, because this mutation occurred or that, then you have to admit that it could also have been the reverse and that being "social" has no value whatsoever. In which case, why bother?

   What makes you think being 'social' has no value? You think wolves hang out in packs because "Hey, why not?"

   Social animals have lots of advantages over solitary ones. After all, one hairless ape facing a tiger is in for a tough fight. 5 hairless apes, however, are going to be carrying home a nice meal.

   And, of course, the mere fact that I don't have to grow my own food, but instead can focus on other pursuits...

    It's true. We might not have been social animals. But if we weren't, we probably wouldn't be here. Humans are fragile beings. We need to hang out in groups to deal with the world. (Well, before guns and tools and stuff, leastwise).