Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Many creationists call "Evolution" a religion, but they know it isn't. This is most likely facilitated by a steam of failures in court to force Creationism into our classrooms; and over and over again, the courts have ruled that Creationism is not scientific and that Creationism is a religious stance; and teaching the same in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.

Creationists wish to see Evolution as a religion or Creationism as a science in a futile attempt to "level the playing field". Many individuals who subscribe to Creationism and fail to understand or accept Evolution are misled by those who would have them believe that Evolution is a religion; i.e. "Evolutionism". This is very apparent in our forums where creationists assert that one must have "faith" to believe Evolution (the same that one must have "faith" to believe Creationism).

This is utterly false.

To quote Aran Ra:

Every belief-system which is commonly accepted as a religion by both its adherents and its critics -is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and the associated dogma of faith-based belief systems which all include the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul or portion of consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This applies to every religion and only to religion, but doesn’t apply to evolution or atheists either, unless they happen to be Druids or Shaman or one of those other religions which don’t happen to include gods.

Some Buddhists believe in a god and some don’t. Some traditional Chinese beliefs are the same way. Not all religions have creative deities, but every religion must propose something paranormal, beyond tangible existence which they believe we’ll experience after we die. You can’t posit something like that without faith, and if you don’t have faith, you can’t have religion.

And when creationists complain about atheists, they’re not talking about Buddhists or Shaman. They’re referring to material empirical rationalists, people they know don’t have any faith in anything supernatural at all –which only makes their lie that much more brazen.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not Dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.

=========================================================================
However, when dealing with Evolution, we see no dogma; we see no adherence to rituals; we see no demands to accept any given thing without evidence. With Evolution, we see the practical application of science and questions answered, to the best of our ability, by following the critical thought processes and stringent requirements of that which defines "evidence".

Evolution does not require faith and evolution is not a religion.

 

[Skwim]

Many creationists call "Evolution" a religion, but they know it isn't. This is most likely facilitated by a steam of failures in court to force Creationism into our classrooms; and over and over again, the courts have ruled that Creationism is not scientific and that Creationism is a religious stance; and teaching the same in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.

Creationists wish to see Evolution as a religion or Creationism as a science in a futile attempt to "level the playing field". Many individuals who subscribe to Creationism and fail to understand or accept Evolution are misled by those who would have them believe that Evolution is a religion; i.e. "Evolutionism". This is very apparent in our forums where creationists assert that one must have "faith" to believe Evolution (the same that one must have "faith" to believe Creationism).

This is utterly false.

I've always felt it came from either blatant trolling; knowing it isn't true, but throwing it out there to get a rise out of evolutionists. OR, they aren't hitting on all cylinders, and having read the troll believe it to be true. As for the "faith" ploy, it's laid on evolution in attempt to bring it down to dubiety and fragility that infuses faith, the bedrock of creationism.

 

[Baladas]

Many creationists call "Evolution" a religion, but they know it isn't. This is most likely facilitated by a steam of failures in court to force Creationism into our classrooms; and over and over again, the courts have ruled that Creationism is not scientific and that Creationism is a religious stance; and teaching the same in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.

Creationists wish to see Evolution as a religion or Creationism as a science in a futile attempt to "level the playing field". Many individuals who subscribe to Creationism and fail to understand or accept Evolution are misled by those who would have them believe that Evolution is a religion; i.e. "Evolutionism". This is very apparent in our forums where creationists assert that one must have "faith" to believe Evolution (the same that one must have "faith" to believe Creationism).

This is utterly false.

To quote Aran Ra:

Every belief-system which is commonly accepted as a religion by both its adherents and its critics -is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and the associated dogma of faith-based belief systems which all include the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul or portion of consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This applies to every religion and only to religion, but doesn’t apply to evolution or atheists either, unless they happen to be Druids or Shaman or one of those other religions which don’t happen to include gods.

Some Buddhists believe in a god and some don’t. Some traditional Chinese beliefs are the same way. Not all religions have creative deities, but every religion must propose something paranormal, beyond tangible existence which they believe we’ll experience after we die. You can’t posit something like that without faith, and if you don’t have faith, you can’t have religion.

And when creationists complain about atheists, they’re not talking about Buddhists or Shaman. They’re referring to material empirical rationalists, people they know don’t have any faith in anything supernatural at all –which only makes their lie that much more brazen.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not Dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.

=========================================================================
However, when dealing with Evolution, we see no dogma; we see no adherence to rituals; we see no demands to accept any given thing without evidence. With Evolution, we see the practical application of science and questions answered, to the best of our ability, by following the critical thought processes and stringent requirements of that which defines "evidence".

Evolution does not require faith and evolution is not a religion.

Yes, it is patently false.

As a side note (and not to derail the thread) I would like to point out that many schools of Taoism do not define an afterlife, taking an agnostic stance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Many creationists call "Evolution" a religion, but they know it isn't. This is most likely facilitated by a steam of failures in court to force Creationism into our classrooms; and over and over again, the courts have ruled that Creationism is not scientific and that Creationism is a religious stance; and teaching the same in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.

Creationists wish to see Evolution as a religion or Creationism as a science in a futile attempt to "level the playing field". Many individuals who subscribe to Creationism and fail to understand or accept Evolution are misled by those who would have them believe that Evolution is a religion; i.e. "Evolutionism". This is very apparent in our forums where creationists assert that one must have "faith" to believe Evolution (the same that one must have "faith" to believe Creationism).

This is utterly false.

To quote Aran Ra:

Every belief-system which is commonly accepted as a religion by both its adherents and its critics -is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and the associated dogma of faith-based belief systems which all include the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul or portion of consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This applies to every religion and only to religion, but doesn’t apply to evolution or atheists either, unless they happen to be Druids or Shaman or one of those other religions which don’t happen to include gods.

Some Buddhists believe in a god and some don’t. Some traditional Chinese beliefs are the same way. Not all religions have creative deities, but every religion must propose something paranormal, beyond tangible existence which they believe we’ll experience after we die. You can’t posit something like that without faith, and if you don’t have faith, you can’t have religion.

And when creationists complain about atheists, they’re not talking about Buddhists or Shaman. They’re referring to material empirical rationalists, people they know don’t have any faith in anything supernatural at all –which only makes their lie that much more brazen.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not Dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.

=========================================================================
However, when dealing with Evolution, we see no dogma; we see no adherence to rituals; we see no demands to accept any given thing without evidence. With Evolution, we see the practical application of science and questions answered, to the best of our ability, by following the critical thought processes and stringent requirements of that which defines "evidence".

Evolution does not require faith and evolution is not a religion.

I think we agree on something here! evolution would have to acknowledge it's own faith to rise to qualify as a religion, as is it's more of a superstition, pop science.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I do believe you missed the whole point.

 

[Riverwolf]

While I certainly don't agree with everything the quoted support states, I'm instead going to resist my temptation to nitpick such matters and say that the overall point is spot on. Regardless of whether or not religion must inherently involve the supernatural, faith as defined, or an afterlife, acceptance of evolution is not even remotely approaching religious belief, unless you, say, believe in a misconception of evolution blindly and dogmatically without question as if it were a religion, speaking to my 13-year-old self!

Speaking as a religious theist, I keep matters of my religion and matters of the sciences separate to a strong enough degree that they don't overlap except perhaps in ritual imitation of some natural phenomenon (which I've never really done, anyway). As such, I pretty much just trust whatever the current scientific consensus is on matters of the physical world. That trust is not akin to religious faith, however. My religious faith is a personal interpretation of my experiences, while my trust in the scientific consensus is based on what I see whenever I look at the world with a scientific eye.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think we agree on something here! evolution would have to acknowledge it's own faith to rise to qualify as a religion, as is it's more of a superstition, pop science.

Well, evolution as depicted in Star Trek and Pokemon certainly are.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think we agree on something here! evolution would have to acknowledge it's own faith to rise to qualify as a religion, as is it's more of a superstition, pop science.

For those that don't acknowledge determinable evidences or have any form of respect for empiricism this that or the other is as good as any. It could be a well established scientific fact with a full consensus within all accredited biologists and have uncovered new evidence every year that has constantly lent support and greater understanding of the theory for over a hundred years, or it could be a fad that will fade any day now. You know...fifty fifty.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Many creationists call "Evolution" a religion, but they know it isn't. This is most likely facilitated by a steam of failures in court to force Creationism into our classrooms; and over and over again, the courts have ruled that Creationism is not scientific and that Creationism is a religious stance; and teaching the same in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.

Creationists wish to see Evolution as a religion or Creationism as a science in a futile attempt to "level the playing field". Many individuals who subscribe to Creationism and fail to understand or accept Evolution are misled by those who would have them believe that Evolution is a religion; i.e. "Evolutionism". This is very apparent in our forums where creationists assert that one must have "faith" to believe Evolution (the same that one must have "faith" to believe Creationism).

This is utterly false.

To quote Aran Ra:

Every belief-system which is commonly accepted as a religion by both its adherents and its critics -is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and the associated dogma of faith-based belief systems which all include the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul or portion of consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This applies to every religion and only to religion, but doesn’t apply to evolution or atheists either, unless they happen to be Druids or Shaman or one of those other religions which don’t happen to include gods.

Some Buddhists believe in a god and some don’t. Some traditional Chinese beliefs are the same way. Not all religions have creative deities, but every religion must propose something paranormal, beyond tangible existence which they believe we’ll experience after we die. You can’t posit something like that without faith, and if you don’t have faith, you can’t have religion.

And when creationists complain about atheists, they’re not talking about Buddhists or Shaman. They’re referring to material empirical rationalists, people they know don’t have any faith in anything supernatural at all –which only makes their lie that much more brazen.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not Dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.

=========================================================================
However, when dealing with Evolution, we see no dogma; we see no adherence to rituals; we see no demands to accept any given thing without evidence. With Evolution, we see the practical application of science and questions answered, to the best of our ability, by following the critical thought processes and stringent requirements of that which defines "evidence".

Evolution does not require faith and evolution is not a religion.

Religion is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system in which men believe that nature is "blind". Religion, however, believes God is "sight for the blind". Men being the blind ones. All science and no philosophy makes for a lame mind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Religion is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system in which men believe that nature is "blind". Religion, however, believes God is "sight for the blind". Men being the blind ones. All science and no philosophy makes for a lame mind.

What are the "beliefs" of evolution and how do you define "belief"? If you say that 'belief" is anything we accept to be true then anything and everything is a religion. Chemistry is a religion. History is a religion. And this removes the venom from the viper so to speak. If everything is a religion they what makes a religion a "religion"?

Or do you feel that the other definition of belief "something held to be true in the absence of evidence. Taken on faith" in which case evolution is not.

 

[leibowde84]

Religion is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system in which men believe that nature is "blind". Religion, however, believes God is "sight for the blind". Men being the blind ones. All science and no philosophy makes for a lame mind.

You obviously don't even know what the scientific theory of evolution is, so I'll help you out. And, the process of natural selection leads evolution, so it is not really accurate to say that evolution claims nature to be "blind". Here is what evolution is:

"The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

What are the "beliefs" of evolution and how do you define "belief"? If you say that 'belief" is anything we accept to be true then anything and everything is a religion. Chemistry is a religion. History is a religion. And this removes the venom from the viper so to speak. If everything is a religion they what makes a religion a "religion"?

Or do you feel that the other definition of belief "something held to be true in the absence of evidence. Taken on faith" in which case evolution is not.

There is absence of evidence in evolution. I know that evolution is the study of how life comes to be as it is, however, for the sake of this "religions'" stature within the world, as the scientist's stature within the world, they (the scientists) avoid the very thing that should be the genesis of their argument--Life's Conception. Since the conception of life does not fit within their "science" as a practical explanation they avoid it all together. They cannot explain with any amount of science the very moment dead matter is made into what is living.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

You obviously don't even know what the scientific theory of evolution is, so I'll help you out. And, the process of natural selection leads evolution, so it is not really accurate to say that evolution claims nature to be "blind". Here is what evolution is:

"The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Anything done without guidance is blind. For instance, the theory that natural selection may be made through mutations is exactly how evolution is blind guidance. So the universe came out of nothing. Life is blind in its living process...These are all the claims that science makes. Anyone with any intelligence would know this is all wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is absence of evidence in evolution. I know that evolution is the study of how life comes to be as it is, however, for the sake of this "religions'" stature within the world, as the scientist's stature within the world, they (the scientists) avoid the very thing that should be the genesis of their argument--Life's Conception. Since the conception of life does not fit within their "science" as a practical explanation they avoid it all together. They cannot explain with any amount of science the very moment dead matter is made into what is living.

Many have avoidied claiming truth behind it because we don't have the evidence. It is likely that the conception of life, if abiogensis for example is correct and has proven to be possible already, is a slow process that leaves little to no trace behind. It doesn't make fossils for us to research and the only thing that we can really do is look into the DNA of living things today.

If there is no hard evidence, even if the answer fits, of course the scientific community will not push it as fact. They haven't avoided ti as an explanation as abiogensis is well defined and commonly accepted. It just isn't portrayed as scientific fact.

And again, it has been explained, it is even currently being tested and have had promising results. However there is no hard evidence, and we don't suspect there will be, of abiogensis in a fossil record of any kind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Anything done without guidance is blind. For instance, the theory that natural selection may be made through mutations is exactly how evolution is blind guidance. So the universe came out of nothing. Life is blind in its living process...These are all the claims that science makes. Anyone with any intelligence would know this is all wrong.

And yet the smartest people in the world accept it as true. And natural selection is a "guidance" of sort if I am interpreting your usage of the term correctly. It isn't a blind process in that it is totally random with nothing to push it in one direction or another. I also don't know of anyone that claims the universe comes out of nothing.

Please get the claims of science right before you try to argue against them.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

And yet the smartest people in the world accept it as true. And natural selection is a "guidance" of sort if I am interpreting your usage of the term correctly. It isn't a blind process in that it is totally random with nothing to push it in one direction or another. I also don't know of anyone that claims the universe comes out of nothing.

Please get the claims of science right before you try to argue against them.

The Big Bang came out of a singularity, right? And before the singularity there was nothing, right? You claim that guidance exists within evolutionary theory, you call this guidance circumstance. Last time I knew the word guidance related between a guide who is living and those who are guided who are living. There is no life in pure circumstance. How could circumstance be a guide unless it was directed by someone (supernatural)? Circumstance by chance is ultimately destructive, yet we live to this very day. Tell me the circumstance that brought about the very moment life began from dead matter then if it is logical I will believe you. The fact is is that you cannot scientifically prove any theory that deals with the moment of life's conception. It's not that you don't know. It's because your unwilling to accept the touch of the supernatural. And yet you say O if the supernatural is real then how come we can't prove it? You can't prove it for one reason, you do not believe in anyone greater than yourselves.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Big Bang came out of a singularity, right?

Possibly. The singularity itself should be impossible. What we call the singularity may or may not have existed and if it did exist it may have existed in a way far different than we can even theorize.

And before the singularity there was nothing, right?

Totally unknown. In fact probably unlikely. In fact some schools of thought state that prior to the big bang time did not exist so there was literally no "before".

You claim that guidance exists within evolutionary theory, you call this guidance circumstance. Last time I knew the word guidance related between a guide who is living and those who are guided who are living. There is no life in pure circumstance. How could circumstance be a guide unless it was directed by someone (supernatural)?

By the evolution and natural selection of what is successful and what isn't successful. Its that simple.

Circumstance by chance is ultimately destructive, yet we live to this very day.

Not always. If there is rules they create order. For example If i dumped a bucket of water on the ground the shape of the puddle should be "random". However if there is a hole in the ground that will always be filled up every time. This is a bad example but it shows out circumstance mixed with "chance" can and does create order in systems.

Tell me the circumstance that brought about the very moment life began from dead matter then if it is logical I will believe you.

You want a crash course in Abiogensis? Okay. Here is a link
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you don't wish to read the link here is a brief summary.
1) Amino acids exist in nature. We see them. They are inherently inorganic and non-living. However they have the habit of synthesizing into chains called polymers. Amino acids are natural monomors.
2) These polymers come together to create what are called complex organic molecules and proteins.
3) Proteins can self replicate. This is the first essence of life. Replication. Simple proteins replicate and will gradually move upwards in complexity as more and more additions and "mistakes" during the replication process happens. Now proteins with "mistakes" during the replication process that prove to be detrimental to the process will kill off that strand. But strands that have "mistakes" that actually help the replication process will only be better replicatosr.
4) Proteins can link together. They can do so spontaneously. Once they replicate they can even "swap" bits of their chains in a pseudo-sexual reproduction during replication.
5) Long chains of these proteins, which are inevitable from the protein replication chains will create what is called "RNA" or a simpler form of "RNA".
6) At some point in time RNA which exists naturally bonded with another RNA. This would have been a replication error that favored it as the coils would wrap around each other to create "DNA". The double helix is our famous model now for DNA.

What we call "life" most likely arose sometime between the 5th and 6th step.

The fact is is that you cannot scientifically prove any theory that deals with the moment of life's conception. It's not that you don't know. It's because your unwilling to accept the touch of the supernatural. And yet you say O if the supernatural is real then how come we can't prove it? You can't prove it for one reason, you do not believe in anyone greater than yourselves.

The way we prove abiogensiis is to find a way to speed up the process into a manageable amount of time so we don't have to take half a billion years to show that it works. We have already had several experiments on different levels of development all acting in the way that was predicted.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Possibly. The singularity itself should be impossible. What we call the singularity may or may not have existed and if it did exist it may have existed in a way far different than we can even theorize.

Totally unknown. In fact probably unlikely. In fact some schools of thought state that prior to the big bang time did not exist so there was literally no "before".

By the evolution and natural selection of what is successful and what isn't successful. Its that simple. Not always. If there is rules they create order. For example If i dumped a bucket of water on the ground the shape of the puddle should be "random". However if there is a hole in the ground that will always be filled up every time. This is a bad example but it shows out circumstance mixed with "chance" can and does create order in systems. You want a crash course in Abiogensis? Okay. Here is a link
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you don't wish to read the link here is a brief summary.
1) Amino acids exist in nature. We see them. They are inherently inorganic and non-living. However they have the habit of synthesizing into chains called polymers. Amino acids are natural monomors.
2) These polymers come together to create what are called complex organic molecules and proteins.
3) Proteins can self replicate. This is the first essence of life. Replication. Simple proteins replicate and will gradually move upwards in complexity as more and more additions and "mistakes" during the replication process happens. Now proteins with "mistakes" during the replication process that prove to be detrimental to the process will kill off that strand. But strands that have "mistakes" that actually help the replication process will only be better replicatosr.
4) Proteins can link together. They can do so spontaneously. Once they replicate they can even "swap" bits of their chains in a pseudo-sexual reproduction during replication.
5) Long chains of these proteins, which are inevitable from the protein replication chains will create what is called "RNA" or a simpler form of "RNA".
6) At some point in time RNA which exists naturally bonded with another RNA. This would have been a replication error that favored it as the coils would wrap around each other to create "DNA". The double helix is our famous model now for DNA.

What we call "life" most likely arose sometime between the 5th and 6th step.

The way we prove abiogensiis is to find a way to speed up the process into a manageable amount of time so we don't have to take half a billion years to show that it works. We have already had several experiments on different levels of development all acting in the way that was predicted.

That doesn't seem absurd to you, something coming out of nothing? So this "place" beyond the Big Bang which could very well have been nothing, which this nothing has no attributes at all (even without time), something which is nothing that is completely without any representation (qualities) at all could produce the universe? So a completely irrational argument is sound thinking to you?

Abiogenesis does not explain the very moment of life's conception; where dead matter becomes living matter. What you're doing is the old birdie trick, where you say look at the birdie (science), look at the birdie (science) to distract from the idea of life's very conception.

 

[leibowde84]

Anything done without guidance is blind. For instance, the theory that natural selection may be made through mutations is exactly how evolution is blind guidance. So the universe came out of nothing. Life is blind in its living process...These are all the claims that science makes. Anyone with any intelligence would know this is all wrong.

You are wrong, sir. Science does not claim that the universe came from nothing. We don't have enough scientific understanding to make that claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That doesn't seem absurd to you, something coming out of nothing?

What SEEMS absurd to us is irrelevant. Have you read up on quantum physics? The Universe doesn't conform to our mental sensibilities. It is full of things we may even never be able to truly comprehend, but they are still tangibly true.

So this "place" beyond the Big Bang which could very well have been nothing, which this nothing has no attributes at all (even without time), something which is nothing that is completely without any representation (qualities) at all could produce the universe? So a completely irrational argument is sound thinking to you?

Monk already explained that what came "before" the big bang (were such a concept valid) is unknown. They never claimed this was true, just that it was currently unknown and we have no way (currently) to know.

Abiogenesis does not explain the very moment of life's conception; where dead matter becomes living matter.

That's exactly what it's attempting to explain.

What you're doing is the old birdie trick, where you say look at the birdie (science), look at the birdie (science) to distract from the idea of life's very conception.

And what you're doing is called obfuscation. It's what people do to avoid the arguments being made because they lack the ability to actually debate them in a meaningful fashion. Monk gave you a thorough explanation of the current position with regards to abiogenesis - instead of playing the fool, perhaps you could read and respond to it, or at least show some grace.