Evolution-Science or Religion?

[hughes35e]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law. While I think it odd that it could be pushed on school children as fact, I believe that the idea does have merit, just not in the realm of the factual, but rather the belief in evolution should be faith based, and therefore disallowed from public government institutions in the same manner as christianity.

There are 3 basic questions that must be answered for a belief to be considered a religion according to Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Let's compare and contrast these three questions to christianity to find out if evolution can qualify as a true religion.

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

Question 2:
What should we do in life?
Christianity: Choose between God and hell, and prepare ourselves for righteousness, as God is righteous.

Evolution: Whatever we want

Question 3:
Where do we go when we die?
Christianity: To heaven or to sheol according to our deeds on the earth and the acceptance of the sacrifice of God's son.

Evolution: Dirt

I believe that evolution fits the bill to be made into a religion. Leave me a thread and let me know what you think.

 

[Orihalcon]

please, do not troll. there have been many threads like this, less troll-like, and much more informative yet still just plain annoying.

 

[PhantomLlama]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law. While I think it odd that it could be pushed on school children as fact, I believe that the idea does have merit, just not in the realm of the factual, but rather the belief in evolution should be faith based, and therefore disallowed from public government institutions in the same manner as christianity.

It is basically common knowledge that gravity is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law. While I think it odd that it could be pushed on school children as fact, I believe that the idea does have merit, just not in the realm of the factual, but rather the belief in gravity should be faith based, and therefore disallowed from public government institutions in the same manner as christianity.

 

[Freodin]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law. While I think it odd that it could be pushed on school children as fact, I believe that the idea does have merit, just not in the realm of the factual, but rather the belief in evolution should be faith based, and therefore disallowed from public government institutions in the same manner as christianity.

There are 3 basic questions that must be answered for a belief to be considered a religion according to Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Let's compare and contrast these three questions to christianity to find out if evolution can qualify as a true religion.

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

Question 2:
What should we do in life?
Christianity: Choose between God and hell, and prepare ourselves for righteousness, as God is righteous.

Evolution: Whatever we want

Question 3:
Where do we go when we die?
Christianity: To heaven or to sheol according to our deeds on the earth and the acceptance of the sacrifice of God's son.

Evolution: Dirt

I believe that evolution fits the bill to be made into a religion. Leave me a thread and let me know what you think.

You have just proven that, according to your criteria, Evolution does not fit the requirements of religion.
Question 1:Evolution does only roughly answer this question: it deals with the diversity of life, not "us".
Question 2: Evolution does not give any answer on this question, as it does not deal with it - so it is not "whatever we want."
You could get the same answer from Pointilism, Gravity or applejuice.
Question 3: Again a question that is outside of the scope of the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you for trying.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

No, no, no, no. The Bible says we came from dirt (see Gen 2:7). Evolution says we (humans) evolved from a primate ancestor.

Please, if you're going to argue strawmen, try to do a better job of it, eh?

 

[greatcogitator]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law. While I think it odd that it could be pushed on school children as fact, I believe that the idea does have merit, just not in the realm of the factual, but rather the belief in evolution should be faith based, and therefore disallowed from public government institutions in the same manner as christianity.

There are 3 basic questions that must be answered for a belief to be considered a religion according to Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Let's compare and contrast these three questions to christianity to find out if evolution can qualify as a true religion.

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

Question 2:
What should we do in life?
Christianity: Choose between God and hell, and prepare ourselves for righteousness, as God is righteous.

Evolution: Whatever we want

Question 3:
Where do we go when we die?
Christianity: To heaven or to sheol according to our deeds on the earth and the acceptance of the sacrifice of God's son.

Evolution: Dirt

I believe that evolution fits the bill to be made into a religion. Leave me a thread and let me know what you think.

By these questions I can prove anything to be a religion, therefore nothing should be taught...
For example Health:
Where do we come from? Sex
What should we do? Live
Where will we go when we die? Dirt

All hail Health...

This is fun, Let's try another game:
Something absurd....
Go ahead try it, name some field in school and then I will show that it is a religion. From this we will see that by your logic all learning is a religion. And thus this is absurd and thus the definition is incomplete.
One for the road though:
Logic:
Where do we come from? Where we last were in our particular perception of
time.
What should we do in life? Whatever it is that is best for us to do
Where will we go when we die? It is impossible to know

Oh yes and you fail to realize that Evolution isn't abiogenesis, which basically means that evolution doesn't say we come from dirt, it says that we come from other animals and originally from some abiogenesis.
Evolution also makes no claims to the afterlife. Evolution also doesn't set out a moral code. Your premises fail and thus your conclusion is suspect... As well there have been many a thread talking about fossil evidence of evolution and other observations such as micro(whatever that is) and macro evoltution thus not making it a belief. Finally the state doesn't define a religion based on a particular persons set of questions, as you can see that would be ridiculous.

Last puzzle for the game we are playing: Let's say that we observe where we originally came from, what we should do, and where we should go when we die. From these observations we make a theory. Is that theory a religion? Should it be taught in school? Before answering remember that everything observed is repeated several times with perfect results.

 

[lucaspa]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law.

As others point out, this is a misconception of what is a theory and what is a law. Theories contain laws. Evolution contains, among other laws, Hardy-Weinberg law, Cope's Rule, Haldane's Law, and the laws of Mendelian genetics.

There are 3 basic questions that must be answered for a belief to be considered a religion according to Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Let's compare and contrast these three questions to christianity to find out if evolution can qualify as a true religion.

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

Nope. Evolution also allows us to be created by the hand of God. Evolution is a how God created if you are a theist. Nowhere does Evolution say we came from "dirt". Evolution says humans arose from a previous species. In this case H. erectus.

Question 2:
What should we do in life?
Christianity: Choose between God and hell, and prepare ourselves for righteousness, as God is righteous.

Evolution: Whatever we want

The theory of evolution, to my knowledge, does not state anywhere what we should do in this life. Please find where Darwin stated this in Origin of the Species. No scientific theory states this. And neither does evolution. So that disqualifies evolution as a religion.

Question 3:
Where do we go when we die?
Christianity: To heaven or to sheol according to our deeds on the earth and the acceptance of the sacrifice of God's son.

Evolution: Dirt

Where does evolution say this? Again, find where in Origin of the Specieswhere Darwin says evolution predicts our fate after death.

I think you have mistaken evolution for atheism. It is not.

Now, if you ever find evolution being taught as atheism in public schools, be sure to document that and tell us and www.nceseweb.org so we can correct that. Evolution should not be taught as atheism. See my signature for the reason why not.

 

[Data]

"It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law."

Ah, the stupidity.

 

[Cantuar]

It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law.

It may be common knowledge; that doesn't stop it being nonsense.

Question One:
Where do we come from?
Christianity: We were created by the hand of God and through His Son (Gen 1:1, John Chapter 1)

Evolution: Dirt

And here's me thinking that "Dirt" was the Christian answer. Or is dirt somehow different from dust? As long as you're talking about where we come from, your first answer hasn't addressed it, it's just talked about "how." You aren't comparing like with like.

Question 2:
What should we do in life?
Christianity: Choose between God and hell, and prepare ourselves for righteousness, as God is righteous.

Evolution: Whatever we want

Rubbish. Evolution is religiously neutral, so you're not comparing like with like. However, if individuals just did whatever they wanted, society would break down and humans would be in deep trouble as far as survival was concerned. So evolution predicts that doing whatever we want would be harmful, but it doesn't say anything about "should."

Question 3:
Where do we go when we die?
Christianity: To heaven or to sheol according to our deeds on the earth and the acceptance of the sacrifice of God's son.

Evolution: Dirt

Do you mean to say that Christians believe that people's bodies aren't in the ground once they die and are buried or cremated? What do you think happens to people's physical bodies? Again, you're not comparing like with like.

I believe that evolution fits the bill to be made into a religion. Leave me a thread and let me know what you think.

As long as Christianity is a religion and your three answers have ALL avoided comparing like with like when giving the Christian and evolutionary alternatives, I think you've shown very well that evolution is nothing like a religion at all. You don't need responses; you've demolished your own argument beautifully.

 

[Arikay]

Hmm, thinking of all the "common knowledge" that ive heard, I think I can safely say that "common knowledge" shouldn't be trusted too much.

 

[revolutio]

Hmm, thinking of all the "common knowledge" that ive heard, I think I can safely say that "common knowledge" shouldn't be trusted too much.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -Albert Einstein

Yeah, I think that fits.

 

[Mr_Coffee]

This is utterly ridiculous. This entire thread is basically saying nothing about anything.

 

[Lonnie]

If God made us by evolution, then why did he not refer to it? He did refer to creating man and women in 7 days. That would be pretty fast for evoltion right? And if you think when he says "Days" that you think it could be any period of time. Then why would he change the meaning of "day" or Days when he talked about other things that involved days?

But I know God could have evolved things in less than 2 seconds. I dont think God evolved us.

God Also said that he blew into dust to create us(or something like that). So its not only dirt but also his breath.

Off Topic:
I did hear some where in these Forums about how the first cells could not survive (or some other thing) because they cannot survive with O2 in the air.
Some one mentioned that there could be just regular other forms of Oxygen.
But that is wrong, if they remembered basic highschool chemistry, then they would have know that oxygen is homonuclear diatomic molecules.
Which means, that pure oxygen has to remain as O2.

Later

Later

 

[Data]

I did hear some where in these Forums about how the first cells could not survive (or some other thing) because they cannot survive with O2 in the air.
Some one mentioned that there could be just regular other forms of Oxygen.
But that is wrong, if they remembered basic highschool chemistry, then they would have know that oxygen is homonuclear diatomic molecules.
Which means, that pure oxygen has to remain as O2.

[offtopic]
Who says the early earth had O2?
[/offtopic]

 

[Mr_Coffee]

Oxygen in the atmosphere didn't develop for a long time. I could be wrong, but I don't think the atmosphere retained a large percentage of oxygen until the early Devonian peroid.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

If God made us by evolution, then why did he not refer to it? He did refer to creating man and women in 7 days. That would be pretty fast for evoltion right? And if you think when he says "Days" that you think it could be any period of time. Then why would he change the meaning of "day" or Days when he talked about other things that involved days?

Because putting the time frames into something humans from a few thousand years ago is an easier way to get the message across. Sure, God could have spoken of millions or billions of years, but this amount of time is near impossible to properly grasp, let alone for people from ancient times.

 

[Lonnie]

So your theory is that he was not being litteral? Now why would he NOT be litteral? And why wouldn't he use a better defintion then days? Why not Ages, or Life times? Your theory is based on tons of theorys.

"Because putting the time frames into something humans from a few thousand years ago is an easier way to get the message across." Now why did he not use some other way to get it across? "Sure, God could have spoken of millions or billions of years, but this amount of time is near impossible to properly grasp, let alone for people from ancient times." What makes you think people of anciant times could not fathom it? And as you said nearly impossible to grasp. Then why do you believe it took billions of years?

And why did not God make a reference to evolution? And God Made the days and he refered to them. And I believe the world does not travel around the Sun 1,000,000,000 or 2,000,000,000 times a day.

But if you dont believe in God, then I guess this realy is useless to you.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

"It is basically common knowledge that evolution is not scientifically incontrovertable. Otherwise, it would have long ago become scientific law."

Ah, the stupidity.

QFE

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So your theory is that he was not being litteral? Now why would he NOT be litteral?

Because the real-world evidence suggests that He was not. Unless He went out of His way to plant false evidence in the Earth and universe...

And why wouldn't he use a better defintion then days? Why not Ages, or Life times? Your theory is based on tons of theorys.

It ties the creation account to the Sabbath, so it makes sense why it is the way it is in the Bible (IIRC, Genesis was written after some of the other books of the Bible).

What makes you think people of anciant times could not fathom it? And as you said nearly impossible to grasp. Then why do you believe it took billions of years?

Billions of years is virtually impossible to grasp from a human perspective. It's a looooooooong time. Just think of the radical changes in human society in the past century. Heck, cars didn't even exist a hundred years ago (at least, not in any capacity). Now, try multiplying that time-frame by 10 million and trying to grasp the changes that could occur over *that* period of time.

And why did not God make a reference to evolution?

Maybe He does:

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind

It all depends on your interpretation.

But if you dont believe in God, then I guess this realy is useless to you.

I may not believe in the Christian God or the whole idea of sin and salvation and so on, but I believe the Bible contains certain degrees of truths. For example, the creation account in Genesis shows that there was a progression from essentially nothing to the living breathing world that exists today. I think that alone speaks that it could be true much more than trying to wield it as literal history. If it can only be taken as literal history, then it is undoubtably false, since the evidence in the real world does not confirm a literal Genesis.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hmm, thinking of all the "common knowledge" that ive heard, I think I can safely say that "common knowledge" shouldn't be trusted too much.

"The problem with 'common sense' is that it's not common" --Mark Twain