Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Monk Of Reason]

Sticks and stones..
Here's the larger context if it helps

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Dawkins

Keep going. Or rather I will help you.

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'

His whole point of that phrase you keep quoting was an opening statement used to hook people into his lecture so that he could go on to explain why that creationist interpretation is wrong.

 

[Marisa]

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.

Major props for quoting AronRa! He's one of my faves. He also has a series for YouTube videos he designed for use in the classroom which help to understand evolution.

As far as my own opinion as to why some religionists falsely equate evolution with religion is the need for us all to be on a "level" playing field. If evolution is a religion, then religion can't be wrong, right? And if it's "just" a religion, then all should be taught, right? Problem is just what Bill Nye said in his debate with Ken Ham: creationism makes no predictions, while evolution says "if this is true then we should find "x" at "y"", which continues to happen.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Keep going. Or rather I will help you.

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'

His whole point of that phrase you keep quoting was an opening statement used to hook people into his lecture so that he could go on to explain why that creationist interpretation is wrong.

One good reason might be ...
we can invent a reasonable

I'm talking about the actual observation, not the speculative excuses for it

Of course they go on to speculate on why they think the observations don't fit the prediction , that's symptomatic of any theory in it's death throes.

Just like steady state, classical physics and global warming-
all eventually transitioned to the stage where they focused mainly on trying to explain away the contrary evidence

Perhaps the expansion of space is an illusion? perhaps measurements are corrupted?perhaps the ocean gobbled up all the missing heat?
who knows? they may all still be right, but 'the dog ate my homework' certainly does not count as 'undeniable evidence'

Ideological theories like these were far too entrenched and beloved to let go of easily, that's why it's always skeptics like Lemaitre and Planck who are needed to advance science

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just like steady state, classical physics and global warming-
all eventually transitioned to the stage where they focused mainly on trying to explain away the contrary evidence

"Explaining away" things that don't work and being able to explain why they don't work is a basic feature of problem solving, because "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbably, must be truth." (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Explaining away" things that don't work and being able to explain why they don't work is a basic feature of problem solving, because "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbably, must be truth." (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Yes, hence our greatest discoveries formerly thought absurdly improbable- e.g.

The specific creation event atheists mocked as 'psuedoscience' (Big Bang),
& mysterious unpredictable phenomena operating behind a classical physics which had formerly 'made God redundant'

 

[Monk Of Reason]

One good reason might be ...
we can invent a reasonable

I'm talking about the actual observation, not the speculative excuses for it

Of course they go on to speculate on why they think the observations don't fit the prediction , that's symptomatic of any theory in it's death throes.

Ideological theories like these were far too entrenched and beloved to let go of easily, that's why it's always skeptics like Lemaitre and Planck who are needed to advance science

I"m glad you went into this. Because here is another bit from Richard Dawkins since you seem to think of him as an authority.

http://www.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345

While it would be benificial for you to read the whole thing here is the part pertaining specifically to this argument.

"Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively."

The observed evidence is overwhelming. The incredibly strong intermediary forms of fossils are extra. We have very strong fossil evidences in many cases but not most. However we know the way things are fossilized and we know why we have few to go off of. If fossils were the end all to evolution then we would be stumped. However the fossils are a neat little diagram at best in many cases. Evolution itself as a process is undeniable even without looking at a single fossil exclusively through the study of DNA and of the study of genetics. Biologist recognize that we are only an accumulation of different DNA traits and no trait is above change. Given the vast amount of time that life has been around as verified through geology and with the vast understanding we now have of DNA we know that evolution has occurred. We know it continues to occur.

Just like steady state, classical physics and global warming-
all eventually transitioned to the stage where they focused mainly on trying to explain away the contrary evidence
Perhaps the expansion of space is an illusion? perhaps measurements are corrupted?perhaps the ocean gobbled up all the missing heat?
who knows? they may all still be right, but 'the dog ate my homework' certainly does not count as 'undeniable evidence'

I snipped this part because it was irrelevant to the point. It was just you continuing to make the same claims that have been proven false over and over and over and over and over again. You are simply wrong. I have presented the evidence and you have presented none. Usually you stop for a little while only to start up once again as if everyone has forgotten (or perhaps you have forgotten) how you have been shown to be erroneous.

 

[leibowde84]

The main aspect- that species evolved through millions of small incremental lucky random changes- this has not been observed- it is assumed

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms" Gould

"It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history" Dawkins.


We can invent consequences for walking under ladders also, to acknowledge faith in our beliefs is one thing.

To insist they are fact regardless of evidence, is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself, superstition

They are scientific inferences based evidence and the possibility for accurate predictions that the inferences create. While I would agree there is SOME "faith" involved, that doesn't mean that they aren't valid. So, what is your reasoning for doubting them, beyond your point on lack of conclusive evidence, which I do understand? I just don't think that should provide even close to enough doubt to contend that these inferences are nothing more than "pop science".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I"m glad you went into this. Because here is another bit from Richard Dawkins since you seem to think of him as an authority.

http://www.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345

While it would be benificial for you to read the whole thing here is the part pertaining specifically to this argument.

"Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively."

The observed evidence is overwhelming. The incredibly strong intermediary forms of fossils are extra. We have very strong fossil evidences in many cases but not most. However we know the way things are fossilized and we know why we have few to go off of. If fossils were the end all to evolution then we would be stumped. However the fossils are a neat little diagram at best in many cases. Evolution itself as a process is undeniable even without looking at a single fossil exclusively through the study of DNA and of the study of genetics. Biologist recognize that we are only an accumulation of different DNA traits and no trait is above change. Given the vast amount of time that life has been around as verified through geology and with the vast understanding we now have of DNA we know that evolution has occurred. We know it continues to occur.



I snipped this part because it was irrelevant to the point. It was just you continuing to make the same claims that have been proven false over and over and over and over and over again. You are simply wrong. I have presented the evidence and you have presented none. Usually you stop for a little while only to start up once again as if everyone has forgotten (or perhaps you have forgotten) how you have been shown to be erroneous.

Right, so again, he goes into why he thinks the lack of evidence is irrelevant, just like Hoyle did, and of course classical physics was held as 'undeniable fact' for longer than evolution and with FAR more direct repeatable measurable empirical evidence apparently supporting it.

The common relevant thread here is ideology continuing where the scientific evidence leaves off

'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact' Mark Twain
Whatever our beliefs, It's always important to separate the two, remind ourselves of what the actual facts are. That's not misleading to do so, quite the opposite.
In this case the observation that species appeared highly evolved very suddenly and all over Earth, with no evidence of smooth transition or the millions of intermediate lucky flukes we must imagine to make the theory work.

Many kids grow up being shown graphics of hypothetical trees of evolution, with no disclaimer of Dawkins' or Gould's that these are 'invented' or 'might be'.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right, so again, he goes into why he thinks the lack of evidence is irrelevant, just like Hoyle did, and of course classical physics was held as 'undeniable fact' for longer than evolution and with FAR more direct repeatable measurable empirical evidence apparently supporting it.

The common relevant thread here is ideology continuing where the scientific evidence leaves off

'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact' Mark Twain
Whatever our beliefs, It's always important to separate the two, remind ourselves of what the actual facts are. That's not misleading to do so, quite the opposite.
In this case the observation that species appeared highly evolved very suddenly and all over Earth, with no evidence of smooth transition or the millions of intermediate lucky flukes we must imagine to make the theory work.

Many kids grow up being shown graphics of hypothetical trees of evolution, with no disclaimer of Dawkins' or Gould's that these are 'invented' or 'might be'.

Because the evidence is so substanciated that we need not say "well this is just a slight possibility" because it isn't a slight possibility. Evolution is fact. The very specific way that things evolve, not the process but specifically which traits develop exactly when and in what gene pool is obviously not something that can ever be fully known. However evolution as it is taught is exactly right.

You have beliefs that stop you from evaluating the evidence objectively. I am sorry for you for that. But evolution is not a belief and those that deny it are either, 1) ignorant of the evidence, 2) have bias axioms that prevent them from accepting evolution or most commonly 3) both. I have yet to find someone who doesn't fall into one of those categories that denies evolution based on evidence .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They are scientific inferences based evidence and the possibility for accurate predictions that the inferences create.

aka conjecture, speculation, as supported steady state, classical physics, global cooling or whatever

'Predictions' are a matter of heads we win, tails... let's flip again.

When the prediction of an eternal universe showing no expansion utterly failed- the prediction was simply changed to 'steady state' which incorporated the 'appearance' of expansion while maintaining the core belief in an uncreated universe.

Exactly what happens when climate variation doesn't comply with predictions- simply change the prediction, while still supporting the same core belief in an anthropomorphic climate system rather than a natural one.

A little like owning the same broom for 50 years, having only ever replaced the handle and brush?

just as a theory fundamentally built around a prediction of slow incremental change - simply alters it's prediction to incorporate 'sudden appearances with no evolutionary history', i.e. falsification is made very difficult

I don't think there is any easy slam dunk answer to ID v evolution, just like physics- the devil is in the details, nothing appeared so fundamentally undeniable as classical physics, yet it utterly and fundamentally failed to account for physical reality.

And for the same reason as evolution I'd argue: the laws of classical physics were likewise elegant, complete, intuitive, and superficially very convincing. Yet physical reality would quickly collapse into it's simplest state under those laws. It required very specific plans, blueprints, instructions specifying how matter would organize and balance itself, create fusion reactors producing more complex elements etc. None of this was the result of the same simple superficial laws that they themselves resulted in- that's a paradox.

So too I think with life, without specific instructions guiding specific emergent properties of life, we don't get them.

Just like all the specific functionality of physical reality, I think life, humanity had to be written in from the get go, not a chance result of simple laws.

 

[leibowde84]

aka conjecture, speculation, as supported steady state, classical physics, global cooling or whatever

'Predictions' are a matter of heads we win, tails... let's flip again.

When the prediction of an eternal universe showing no expansion utterly failed- the prediction was simply changed to 'steady state' which incorporated the 'appearance' of expansion while maintaining the core belief in an uncreated universe.

Exactly what happens when climate variation doesn't comply with predictions- simply change the prediction, while still supporting the same core belief in an anthropomorphic climate system rather than a natural one.

A little like owning the same broom for 50 years, having only ever replaced the handle and brush?

just as a theory fundamentally built around a prediction of slow incremental change - simply alters it's prediction to incorporate 'sudden appearances with no evolutionary history', i.e. falsification is made very difficult

I don't think there is any easy slam dunk answer to ID v evolution, just like physics- the devil is in the details, nothing appeared so fundamentally undeniable as classical physics, yet it utterly and fundamentally failed to account for physical reality.

And for the same reason as evolution I'd argue: the laws of classical physics were likewise elegant, complete, intuitive, and superficially very convincing. Yet physical reality would quickly collapse into it's simplest state under those laws. It required very specific plans, blueprints, instructions specifying how matter would organize and balance itself, create fusion reactors producing more complex elements etc. None of this was the result of the same simple superficial laws that they themselves resulted in- that's a paradox.

So too I think with life, without specific instructions guiding specific emergent properties of life, we don't get them.

Just like all the specific functionality of physical reality, I think life, humanity had to be written in from the get go, not a chance result of simple laws.

So, what evidence is there to support Intelligent Design beyond speculation? I would argue that, while there is obviously some "educated guessing" going on with all scientific endeavors, the theory of Intelligent Design merely rests on mistaken assumptions of the way we think things "ought to be". This should never even be a consideration. The mere fact that something "makes sense" to us doesn't mean a darn thing. We should come at this discussion only with evidence. From what I understand about the scientific theory of evolution, the evidence all leads to the same inference of modern evolution theory.

 

[leibowde84]

Because the evidence is so substanciated that we need not say "well this is just a slight possibility" because it isn't a slight possibility. Evolution is fact. The very specific way that things evolve, not the process but specifically which traits develop exactly when and in what gene pool is obviously not something that can ever be fully known. However evolution as it is taught is exactly right.

You have beliefs that stop you from evaluating the evidence objectively. I am sorry for you for that. But evolution is not a belief and those that deny it are either, 1) ignorant of the evidence, 2) have bias axioms that prevent them from accepting evolution or most commonly 3) both. I have yet to find someone who doesn't fall into one of those categories that denies evolution based on evidence .

I hate to say that anything is "fact" or "absolute", but it seems that the modern evolution theory is about as close as it gets. The greatest thing about science, though, is that it doesn't matter if we find out that we got an inference wrong. We alter the theory so that it describes reality more accurately.

Maybe the modern theory will become even more "modern" with time, but the only important factor is this: the ToE is the best explanation for the development of life/species throughout the billions of years they have been around, according to the evidence. Thus, there is no legitimate reason to doubt it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The specific creation event atheists mocked as 'psuedoscience' (Big Bang),

The Big Bang theory is falling out of favor.

& mysterious unpredictable phenomena operating behind a classical physics which had formerly 'made God redundant'

We've only had a very small glimpse of a very tiny part of the universe. Of course there are still many things we do not know and cannot predict. However, this is not any indication that there is some sort of god entity behind it all, rather it is a affirmation of our ignorance and limited knowledge.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because the evidence is so substanciated that we need not say "well this is just a slight possibility" because it isn't a slight possibility. Evolution is fact. The very specific way that things evolve, not the process but specifically which traits develop exactly when and in what gene pool is obviously not something that can ever be fully known. However evolution as it is taught is exactly right.

You have beliefs that stop you from evaluating the evidence objectively. I am sorry for you for that. But evolution is not a belief and those that deny it are either, 1) ignorant of the evidence, 2) have bias axioms that prevent them from accepting evolution or most commonly 3) both. I have yet to find someone who doesn't fall into one of those categories that denies evolution based on evidence .

For the record I was raised a staunch atheist, studied computer science at institution historically renowned for proponents of evolution, my first seeds of doubt were sown trying to simulate/demonstrate the power of natural selection. This despite any feelings of skepticism being overtly condemned as the worst kind of heresy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, what evidence is there to support Intelligent Design beyond speculation? I would argue that, while there is obviously some "educated guessing" going on with all scientific endeavors, the theory of Intelligent Design merely rests on mistaken assumptions of the way we think things "ought to be". This should never even be a consideration. The mere fact that something "makes sense" to us doesn't mean a darn thing. We should come at this discussion only with evidence. From what I understand about the scientific theory of evolution, the evidence all leads to the same inference of modern evolution theory.

Well I agree, the assumption that the universe ought to be eternal (explicitly to contradict a creator God) was not a productive one. Nor that the laws of physics should be extremely simple and self explanatory for the same rationale of making God redundant.

In the history of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time, it's often been a case of science v the atheism assumption. To seek to make God redundant rather than to seek the truth

 

[leibowde84]

The Big Bang theory is falling out of favor.

We've only had a very small glimpse of a very tiny part of the universe. Of course there are still many things we do not know and cannot predict. However, this is not any indication that there is some sort of god entity behind it all, rather it is a affirmation of our ignorance and limited knowledge.

Well-put. Great argument about the theist's "argument from ignorance".

 

[leibowde84]

Well I agree, the assumption that the universe ought to be eternal (explicitly to contradict a creator God) was not a productive one. Nor that the laws of physics should be extremely simple and self explanatory for the same rationale of making God redundant.

In the history of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time, it's often been a case of science v the atheism assumption. To seek to make God redundant rather than to seek the truth

That certainly isn't the case. Science is a method used to understand the Universe. There is no vendetta against the existence of God. Why do you think so many scientists are still theists? That seems like a mere conspiracy theory to me.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That certainly isn't the case. Science is a method used to understand the Universe. There is no vendetta against the existence of God. Why do you think so many scientists are still theists? That seems like a mere conspiracy theory to me.

We agree the on method itself that we both know and love. And again Lemaitre and Planck were notable skeptics of atheism

But come off it! I'm talking about how people like Hoyle, Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins approach(ed) it, Sagan and Tyson for that matter, people who very much influence popular beliefs. they can barely describe how to make a cup of tea without claiming it disproves God in the process. Absolutely it's been the Holy Grail for many atheist scientists for a long time.

 

[leibowde84]

We agree the on method itself that we both know and love. And again Lemaitre and Planck were notable skeptics of atheism

But come off it! I'm talking about how people like Hoyle, Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins approach(ed) it, Sagan and Tyson for that matter, people who very much influence popular beliefs. they can barely describe how to make a cup of tea without claiming it disproves God in the process. Absolutely it's been the Holy Grail for many atheist scientists for a long time.

That has nothing to do with the scientific theory of Evolution itself. Maybe it says to take what these men say about God with a grain of salt, but it doesn't speak to the inaccuracies of modern evolution theory whatsoever.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well-put. Great argument about the theist's "argument from ignorance".

quite the opposite, the universe has clearly validated several fundamental theistic predictions and refuted the opposite atheist ones.

Had the universe been static, eternal, uncreated, teaming with intelligent life, and physics was simple self explanatory- I'd accept the atheist implications of all those predictions

I'm also willing to accept the opposite ones, observed reality