Is Evolution a Religion?

Reply to post by Evil_Santa

Wow, this is pretty much a historically accurate, amazingly articulate philosophical viewpoint (also, a plain fact ).




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by domasio


Thank you for the complement - although i've never studied philosophy, just psychology. In my experience, people who have invested a great deal of their life towards developing a belief will unconsciously avoid information that directly challenges that belief, and even when presented with such information, will consciously ignore it. My curiosity is if this is driven by the need to preserve the belief, or the need to preserve the time invested in developing the belief.

maybe evolution is church for those who hate the religious standpoint but have the same personality characteristics.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by winterkill

 

Religion doesn't take it well when its assumptions are shown to be wrong by Science, as this undermines their laws which are based on these assumptions. Thus, Religion has set itself as an adversary to Science.

Science is progressive. Religion is stagnant, obstructive, even regressive.

There are new brands of Spirituality emerging which do not set themselves against Science, but rather expand off of it to create a different model of the universe beyond science's understanding. These forms of Spirituality are less interested in making laws to control people, and more interested in understanding what reality is all about.

edit on 8/12/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)

Why do you think this brand of "science" is developing? For the deployment of the occult religions who have been waiting for it. For this day and time. They have zero interest in finding out "what reality is all about", and every interest in controlling the world. This new "spirituality" has existed since the beginning....the old "you can become like god". Science today, from astronomy to evolution and eugenics is Kaballah and Talmud.. It's why NASA can't send up a mission without marking it's mission with every esoteric and occult symbol known to them. It's why Science Daily is branded in blue and red....it's why the Horus eye is branded everywhere. Science today is the largest fraud on the planet given to us by men on a mission. Thinking that mission is secular and non religious is like still thinking that you don't need to sell your soul to succeed in Hollywood.

That new spirituality as you call it needed a population to believe in evolution and eugenics so that they'd have no problems accepting the upcoming "evolutionary upgrade" which will be nothing short of utter rejection and rebellion to be created in God's image and likeness. Scripture is clear, in the last day the harvesters, the angels, will bundle up the tares to burn. Thinking that "science" is your friend is perhaps the most naive and deadly statement that one can make. Not when the President of Iran just declared that his Imam Mahdi will come to combine "science and knowledge" to revert the children of Adam back "to their innate origin after a long history of separation and division linking them to eternal happiness."

reply to post by WhoKnows100


You sound like a paranoid nutter. If I were to believe you, I might as well sit paralysed with fear waiting for some evil organization to come harvest my organs or some such nonsense.

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

Originally posted by six67seven
I've noticed lately that a lot of people ignore the "search" function.

Could this group of people be anti-search.

Do you think anti-searchists are part of a religion or a cult?

Seriously this topic has been covered ad nauseum.

The only people who are afraid to search for answers, are those who fear questioning their own beliefs.

edit on 8-12-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

okayyyy. I assume your reply isn't directed at me, as did not mention one word of my beliefs on the subject of whether evolution is a religion, or should be considered as such.

Either way, I stand by my post.

To save you a minute and a few keystrokes, I'll post you're reply to this post:

I stand by my post.

Originally posted by Evil_Santa via six67seven

As do I.

reply to post by winterkill


Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory.

Religion is a set of rituals, beliefs, and practices centered around the worship of, or service to, a supernatural being, or beings. Every religion on the planet, from Scientology, to Wicca, to Christianity observes holy days, sacred rituals, a set of morality delivered by supernatural beings, psychic and mystical observances, and special beliefs which often defy physical reality and science as it is currently understood.

Evolution does none of those things. The proponents of evolution can religiously defend the theory of evolution, but this does not mean they pray to evolution, enact sacraments in honor of evolution, hold holy observances for evolution, or believe that evolution transcends the laws which govern the physical universe.

Evolution is not a religion.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by six67seven
I've noticed lately that a lot of people ignore the "search" function.

Could this group of people be anti-search.

Do you think anti-searchists are part of a religion or a cult?

Seriously this topic has been covered ad nauseum.

This is the first site I have ever seen where the idea that people enjoy and desire to take part in discussion themselves, with other people, in their own words and personal way of expressing themselves, is not acknowledged.
wierd, it seems to be a pretty universal human characteristic. I can understand why people want to actually initiate a discussion themselves, rather than just read discussions that took part between other people in the past.
What I don't understand real well is why people that are tired of a subject and have already fulfilled their desire to exchange with others on it actually click on new threads on that same topic!

---------------------on topic-
I don't think evolution can be considered a religion. But I think you are refering to "religious behavior" which can certainly exist amongst people in any sort of focus!
I'm into horses- I know people who are religious about their horsemanship practice.... my husband collects cars and planes, and knows people religious about their particular interest. They display all the attitudes and behaviors you have listed.

I like what the poster said about science focusing on "how" and religion on "why". This is the difference I see, and why I think this current clash of people trying to somehow reconcile science with religion seems fruitless to me. It is like trying to argue over oranges and apples.

Though I suspect that this has come about because of the rise in fundamentalism, and looking at religious beliefs no longer as guides and descriptions of inner life, but rather, literal exterior rule and history books. Taking the "spirituality" out of them.

Evolution can very well be true and religion also, if you do not take the Bible to be a literal history book, but rather a spiritual text, using things like metaphor and imagery to speak not only to the conscious ego/intellect (Yang), but to rouse and stir the emotional subconscious (Yin) as well.

It is really quite simple --

Evolution is fact.

Religion is dogma.

Why is this even debatable.

Originally posted by spyder550
It is really quite simple --

Evolution is fact.

Religion is dogma.

Why is this even debatable.

By only focusing on the exact wording of the question it is quite easy to pretend ignorance of the actual issue being refered to. This is often a problem in communication between people who are more "left brained" and those more "right brained" (or whatever terms one subscribes to the analytic/holistic, covergent/divergent....) .

I agree that literally, evolution (or any scientific theory) cannot be catagorized as a religion.
But the content behind the form here... you surely know what that is?
Religious behavior and attitudes!

In the Free Dictionary;

re·li·gion (r -l j n)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

When the focus upon the facts zealously engages in trying to invalidate completely subjective experience, that is when the parallels start between them and the religious who engages in trying to invalidate objective experience.

That is why the question keeps coming up here and everywhere- people trying to put into words the similarity they find with the atheists that seek out religious to confront (for the less zealous atheists just don't go looking for them).

Human's are still evolving. Check out the data for "High-Altitude Adaptation" in Tibet, which is a recent change in the last 3000 years. Or even better -- check out the story of "Lactose Tolerance" in descendants of Northern Europeans in the last 5000 years.

In both cases, specific genetic markers in the human chromosome point to actual adaptation and speciation, over a relatively short and recent point in time.

There is simply no comparison between these examples of human evolution and religious teaching. However -- there are LOTS of similarities between the stories in the Bible (for example) and other mythological tales we no longer believe relate to true people, events or places.

I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by spyder550
It is really quite simple --

Evolution is fact.

Religion is dogma.

Why is this even debatable.

By only focusing on the exact wording of the question it is quite easy to pretend ignorance of the actual issue being refered to. This is often a problem in communication between people who are more "left brained" and those more "right brained" (or whatever terms one subscribes to the analytic/holistic, covergent/divergent....) .

I agree that literally, evolution (or any scientific theory) cannot be catagorized as a religion.
But the content behind the form here... you surely know what that is?
Religious behavior and attitudes!

In the Free Dictionary;

re·li·gion (r -l j n)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

When the focus upon the facts zealously engages in trying to invalidate completely subjective experience, that is when the parallels start between them and the religious who engages in trying to invalidate objective experience.

That is why the question keeps coming up here and everywhere- people trying to put into words the similarity they find with the atheists that seek out religious to confront (for the less zealous atheists just don't go looking for them).

By your definition Evolution is not a religion

Belief implies faith - the understanding of science does not require faith

There is not spiritual leader.

It is not a cause principle or activity

There is no worship of science. It is true until proved untrue. The devotion comes in proving and confirming or disproving and learning some thing that is not true, which is fully as important as learning what is a true or factual. That is the scientific method -- which is also not a religion -- simply a set of rigorous rules that make the information meaningful.

Religion is Dogma
Science is not

It is that black and white.

If you believe in something to be true, even when it will later be proven untrue, are you not exhibiting "faith"?
Faith, is the belief that something is true and not just a word of religion. I have faith the sun will be here tomorrow as it has a track record.
That is faith.
To call religion dogma means you have faith in your answer. That your answer is true.
Yet if God appeared tomorrow, your truth would be in error.

Just because observation was used to come to a scientific conclusion, does not necessarily make it true.
John drinks tonic water and vodka on Monday and becomes drunk.
Rum and tonic on Tuesday and becomes drunk
Brandy and tonic on Wednesday and becomes drunk
Scotch and tonic on Thursday and becomes drunk

Observing scientist concludes that tonic water makes john drunk.

It is not man's power of observation that is his great weakness,
but his incapacity for competent conclusion.

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by MamaJ

 

You'll be waiting for more than one lifetime. It takes millions of years of small, incremental changes. In theory your fish could, over the course of many generations, eventually develop legs and turn into its closest neighbour, the amphibian.

That is, if growing legs was a benefit to the survival of the fish, as we know that evolution is guided by natural selection.

edit on 8/12/2012 by Glass because: (no reason given)

But we should at least find one fish with legs right? Shouldn't we see the fish that walks on land but still has gills? Shouldn't we see something that suggests that something from the ocean is evolving into something on land? There are literally millions of species in the ocean, but we can't find one that suggests that it is evolving. Doesn't this seem a little peculiar? A lot of evolution would have to account for man. Did evolution stop?

Even if it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, mathematically speaking with the millions of species that are here we should find at least one species in transition?

reply to post by winterkill


That is not how science works - you missed a few steps.

The scientist then submits a paper for publication.

Other scientists then review the paper and attempt to reproduce the results. Then attempt to develop alternative methods and experiments to test the veracity of the original experiment and conclusion. If the claim passes all the review steps, then the paper will get published.

In the hypothetical case you describe, the paper would get laughed out of the review process due to its completely laughable methodology (the fact the scientist had not rigorously tested the tonic water alone etc). The scientist would have extreme difficulty ever getting any research funding again due to his poor procedural aptitude.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

But we should at least find one fish with legs right? Shouldn't we see the fish that walks on land but still has gills?

What - like one of these you mean?

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course no scientist would ever falsify documentation either...
would they?

Question by the way, the fish develop legs because their water source is getting smaller?
So if it was getting smaller that slowly, how would the fish know?

Originally posted by winterkill
Of course no scientist would ever falsify documentation either...
would they?

Question by the way, the fish develop legs because their water source is getting smaller?
So if it was getting smaller that slowly, how would the fish know?

1) On scientists...
Some people lie
Some people cheat
Some people steal
Many people make mistakes
Scientists are people

The whole point of the review process is to weed out the liars, cheats and thieves - and to rigorously check that no mistakes are made. Peer review is one of the most important steps. In fact it is one of the pillars of the Scientific Method.

2) On fish with legs
In many areas of the world there is seasonal inundation of areas as well as tidal activity. An animal that develops a mutation that gives it a slight advantage to survive under those conditions has a greater chance to pass on the genes that carry that mutation.

The fish that don't have the mutation must leave the area as the water drops, or they die. The ones with the mutation are able to remain and thrive.

Originally posted by MyOath

Originally posted by sacgamer25

But we should at least find one fish with legs right? Shouldn't we see the fish that walks on land but still has gills?

What - like one of these you mean?

en.wikipedia.org...

LOL I knew someone would link to a mudskipper. Those are not legs, they are fins. The mudskipper is a perfect example of an animal that should evolve if evolution is possible. Look at how it has to care for its eggs to keep them safe. Find me the mudskipper with legs. If any creature could use some nice hind legs it would be this guy. So where are they? If they ever evolved hind legs why don't they do it today?

Why isn’t there a species of mudskipper with hind legs still? So the original being is there and the evolved being is there but somehow the transitional being is extinct with no fossil record. Isn't that always the story with evolution though? It's too bad that all the transitional beings went extinct and left no fossil record isn't it?

Evolution is the story of what could have or might have happened. Once we accept that it could have happened we start to call the mudskipper a fact that it did happen. As a creationist I see the mudskipper as another of God's creations that was designed for precisely the life it lives.

reply to post by sacgamer25


This is the 'moving the goal posts' fallacy.

The request was made to provide evidence of transition. The specific evidence requested was provided.

You are now claiming it is not valid because the limbs are not fully formed. This is erroneous for two main reasons.

Firstly, something fully formed is not transitional... although the mudskipper would be inclined to believe his limbs are in fact fully formed because they serve his purposes perfectly well.

Secondly, a fish with 'fully formed' feet, or hooves or claws etc would be sufficient grounds to refute evolution altogether.

The creationists should be out actively looking for fish with fully formed feet because that would be 'checkmate' for evolution. The fact creationists demand scientists produce such a creature to support evolution is somewhat, well, humorous.