Is Evolution a religion?

[Jayhawker Soule]

CMIYC:

Meanwhile, you seem to be carefully avoiding any discussion on the absurd errors made by you previously.

 

[michel]

Sure he did. What a sneaky kidder! :biglaugh:

Think about this while you're laughing: If God wouldn't of "sneaky kidded", YOU wouldn't be here today thinking it was funny.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Think about this while you're laughing: If God wouldn't of "sneaky kidded", YOU wouldn't be here today thinking it was funny.

Sorry, but I see nothing warranting a belief in your mythology.

 

[michel]

Sorry, but I see nothing warranting a belief in your mythology.

That's for two reasons:

1) It's not myth.

2) You're living proof of 1 Corinthians 2:14 --- thus you yourself are proving the Bible to be correct.

Thanks!

 

[JerryL]

No point just sticking toes in the water...

That is probably correct and the probable reason is most likely to be, DNA will not allow Anything more then micro evolution. For the species to survive they would have to do the whole yard and become something else. Not a likely option, this might cause imbalance in nature.

There is nothing in DNA which would even lead to the false dicotomy of "micro" and "macro". Can you give me a real definition of either? Which DNA change in particular is impossible and what is the barrier?

"Imbalance" in nature is a very common thing. The effect of Homo Sapiens is one easy example, as are the many examples of introduced species (Cane Toads in Australia, for example). The system eventually finds equilibirim, even if equlibirum is cyclic rather than steady-state.

That's because God created the Universe with age embedded.

Had he not done so, the Earth would be too young to sustained life. (Reference the Anthropic Principle.)

Note that Adam and Eve were created full-grown; and so was the Universe.

Ahh yes, the "God did it" defense.

Its first problem is, of course, the complete lack of evidence in favor of it. I could just as easily explain the appearance of age by saying that aliens are using mind-conotrol to make anyone who looks get the wrong answer.

The analogy "God created Adam an adult" doesn't function though. The Earth doesn't simply have things which would have required time to form, it has evidence of the passage of time. The Atlantic Basin, for example, has an ever decreasing age as you approach the mid-Atlantic ridge. Spiral fracture dating looks at the accumulation of damage to crystal-structures in rock caused by the decay of radioactive elements (typically Uranium). It's not like Adam being 6' tall, it's like him having childhood scars and liver-spots.

Since CMIYC's post is a cut-n-paste job I won't bother a point-to-point response. If anyone wants to discuss a specific issue from that I'm happy to. vbmenu_register("postmenu_215295", true);

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is nothing in DNA which would even lead to the false dicotomy of "micro" and "macro". Can you give me a real definition of either? Which DNA change in particular is impossible and what is the barrier?

Bingo! Welcome aboard.

 

[s2a]

Late to the party...but words tend to hang in the air around here...long after the original participants have departed...

I note for thread record that:
1) NetDoc could not/would not define/explain/quantify what "spiritual evidence" IS. Non-support is non-support. Period.
2) CMIYC's very own referenced sources discredited his (her?) own stated suppositions. Offered pointed rebuttal (in light of this pointed fact) by CMIYC is notably lacking and absent in follow-up response.
3) Unsubstantiated (and Scripturally unsupported) allegations were introduced suggesting that God (of the Bible) "created the Universe with age embedded". YEC apologetic contortions noted...I'd like to see referenced any Chapter and Verse that suggest that God made the cosmos "look older" than it "really" is. -- no call for scientifically derived "disproofs" here...just dogmatic ones.

In answer to the thread's initial question, the inescapably responsive conclusion is...NO.
[In my personal experience, the only folks that would equate another's acceptance of evolution theory as most probable fact (beyond a reasonable doubt) to be adherents of a "religion", or "religionists of evolution theory" - are fundamentalist (literalist) Christian/Jewish adherents. Odd that such illegitimate allegations do not predominantly originate or propagate within mainstream adherents of Hinduism, Islam, or even "moderate/liberal" Christianity.

Why religious fundamentalists would insist and cling to such an absurd notion that acceptance of a sound scientific theory is therefore equivalent to a qualified "religious belief" is beyond me. Not once, ever...have I encountered an allegation substantiated by any definitive evidence that satisfies a modest burden of proof that scientific methodology/theory are predicated upon unreasoned or unsupportably evidenced conclusions (guesswork/unfounded personalized opinion alone).

Where are the religious fundamentalists railing against the (potentially) unsound "theory of gravity"? Why aren't these folks equally concerned with the false indoctrination of young people's minds to readily accept the inherent (scientific) consequences of jumping off a 3000 foot cliff? If gravity is only a "theory", why should any person of faith believe it to be true?

Why does our understanding of microwaves allow for quick heating of frozen burritos in our homes, yet this very same understanding commensurately have NO MERIT in validating/confirming cosmic background (microwave) radiation as direct evidence supportive of a Big Bang theory? Why does one application of relevant scientific understanding of a known quantity present no challenge to religious belief...while the very same understanding considered in another context therefore represents an alleged "conspiratorial" denial/rejection of a religiously claimed supernatural deity? If I reject the "religion of gravitational theory", is it safe to assume that I may walk off the edge of a 3000 foot precipice and be upheld by pure faith alone? If I fall, do I validate the scientific theory, or do I represent predictable consequence from lacking requisite faith?

If "evolution theory" is a religion, then what is "Intelligent Design Theory"? Is it "science", or something else? Which theory insists upon a "higher intelligence" as validation of it's conclusions? How does equation of "evolution theory" as a "religion" serve the interests/motivations/purposes of deistic religious beliefs? I'd really like to have an answer to that...really I would.

 

[CMIYC]

Late to the party...but words tend to hang in the air around here...long after the original participants have departed...

I note for thread record that:
1) NetDoc could not/would not define/explain/quantify what "spiritual evidence" IS. Non-support is non-support. Period.
2) CMIYC's very own referenced sources discredited his (her?) own stated suppositions. Offered pointed rebuttal (in light of this pointed fact) by CMIYC is notably lacking and absent in follow-up response.

In light of the two “Evolution” vs Creation, both are so far apart they cannot be explained unless you understand the theologies of both. Faith is just that, it comes with no proof and if you could prove god’s existence without doubt, then it would not be faith. Evolution supposedly is based on fact, but that fact is so minimal it becomes less then faith…just a speculation.



And now for Deut. 32.8……the errors I made were due to relying on my memory, things I’ve learned over 20 years ago. I should have done the research prior to the post not afterwards. Don’t forget, you yourself have made few due to lack of knowledge, same as me. But knowledge of correctness is far from overall knowledge of understanding. So if you pardon my ignorance I will pardon yours.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And now for Deut. 32.8……the errors I made were due to relying on my memory, things I’ve learned over 20 years ago.

The errors you've made were due to willfull ignorance effetively insulating you from the possibility of learning anything pertinent to this discussion. But, as much as I loathe such ignorance, my central issue with you is your persistent disrespect for responsible debate which leads you to repeatedly make the most assinine of claims and then steadfastedly evade each and every demand for substantiation.

 

[Steve]

Abiogenisis is working on telling us where life came from

And you have faith that it will find a naturalistic answer dont you? Yet at the moment their isnt one so you rely on your faith that their is no God and that their dosnt need to be one.

Evolution doesn't ask for faith... it is constantly working to find more and better evidence to justify its existance... after 146 years its only growing stronger thanks to this.
Evolution like all scientific ideas is thrown to the masses to be picked at and prodded to see if it holds up to scruteny. If it can't it dies and is thrown onto the heap of junk science, such as the theroy of Ether and Lamarkian genetics.

:biglaugh:
It almost sounds as if you actually belive that the theory of evolution is able to be questioned like other scientific theories. Tell that to Dr. Richard Sternberg (who holds two PhDs in theoretical biology and molecular evolution and is also an agnostic), then ask him about what happens when you bring up evidence against the theory.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It almost sounds as if you actually belive that the theory of evolution is able to be questioned like other scientific theories. Tell that to Dr. Richard Sternberg (who holds two PhDs in theoretical biology and molecular evolution and is also an agnostic), then ask him about what happens when you bring up evidence against the theory.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

The glee with which people like you propagate distortions is instructive.

In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a “shoddy scientist” and a “closet Bible thumper,” according to a Washington Post article (August 19). [ibid]

Really? Let's see ...

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic” (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Coddington

- see Posted by JAC on February 3, 2005 09:36 AM

Be it out of malice or willfull ignorance, you are fully responsible for the reprehensible lies you use to prop up your backward superstitions.

 

[michel]

I must admit I find it hard to understand how evolution could be seen as being a religion. The various definitions of the word that I have seen all appear to imply the observation of dictates which all have their roots in accepting something in Faith.


I would say no.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Okay. What is spiritual evidence?

This seems to be inordinately hard for a few of you to grasp.

I Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NIV

I hope this helps.

 

[drekmed]

I Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NIV

so basically what this is saying is that, the people that dont hear voices in their heads have fallible reasoning, but yours is infallible because the voice in your head says so and you dont have to listen to what anybody that doesn't hear voices says, because they must be wrong, because they dont hear the voice in your head......................................................gotcha

drekmed

edited cause i can't figure out the originally posted by thing on the quotes:bonk:

 

[s2a]

CMIYC said:

In light of the two “Evolution” vs Creation, both are so far apart they cannot be explained unless you understand the theologies of both. Faith is just that, it comes with no proof and if you could prove god’s existence without doubt, then it would not be faith. Evolution supposedly is based on fact, but that fact is so minimal it becomes less then faith…just a speculation.

Without delving into the most obvious aspects of such a self-serving conclusion, I would simply request that you provide documented (enumerated, specified, or otherwise published and directly attributed) and referenced sources (by title and author) the exacting "theology" of "Evolution Theory".

Please insure that your reference satisfies the definition of "theology" within it's
applicable context and implication/assertion.

"'theology', noun.
"1.The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
"2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

'1: the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
2: a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings..."'
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

To suggest that Evolution Theory retains/evinces a true stated "theology", your supporting sources must demonstrate/illustrate/enumerate:

1) Evolution Theory studies (or examines/experiments with/upon) the nature of [a] God.
2) Evolution Theory renders (direct) opinions (or conclusions) regarding God and other religious/faith-based questions.
3) List "seminaries" that teach the "religion" (or theology) of Evolution Theory as being such.
4) Quantify which "religious truths" (exactly and specifically) Evolution Theory suggests or concludes as veritable fact.

Or, barring provision of support of such an absurd allegation, submit contrite retraction of such spurious claim and attribution.

 

[Yerda]

This seems to be inordinately hard for a few of you to grasp.

You don't appear to be having much luck defining it either.

 

[CMIYC]

CMIYC said:


Without delving into the most obvious aspects of such a self-serving conclusion, I would simply request that you provide documented (enumerated, specified, or otherwise published and directly attributed) and referenced sources (by title and author) the exacting "theology" of "Evolution Theory".

Please insure that your reference satisfies the definition of "theology" within it's
applicable context and implication/assertion.

"'theology', noun.
"1.The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
"2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

'1: the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
2: a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings..."'
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

To suggest that Evolution Theory retains/evinces a true stated "theology", your supporting sources must demonstrate/illustrate/enumerate:

1) Evolution Theory studies (or examines/experiments with/upon) the nature of [a] God.
2) Evolution Theory renders (direct) opinions (or conclusions) regarding God and other religious/faith-based questions.
3) List "seminaries" that teach the "religion" (or theology) of Evolution Theory as being such.
4) Quantify which "religious truths" (exactly and specifically) Evolution Theory suggests or concludes as veritable fact.

Or, barring provision of support of such an absurd allegation, submit contrite retraction of such spurious claim and attribution.

Both you and Deut 32.8 have the strongest argument in lack of evidence on your part. But, what you both do is hide behind this non existent evidence with more questions. Not really a stimulating debate. How bout you bring one bit of macro evolutionary evidence yourself for a change and entertain us all.

 

[JerryL]

How bout you bring one bit of macro evolutionary evidence yourself for a change and entertain us all.

That would be off-topic. There are already several threads which have devolved into macro/micro debates (usually ending where I ask someone to define the difference from a genetic perspective). This is about whether Evolution meets the criteria to be a religion.

Let me reiterate and expand on something I said frmo another thread. Even if creationism is right, it's still not a science; and even if evolution is wrong its still not a religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This seems to be inordinately hard for a few of you to grasp.

I Corinthians ... 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. ... NIV

I hope this helps.

But NetDoc, how is this not functionally the same 'rationale' offered to prop up all delusions?

"If you're not open to IT, you can't ... and will only ..."​

By wrapping your apologetics in circulus in demonstrando, you perfectly insulate your position, but you do so at the expense of rendering it indistinguishable from that offered by similar apologists for a wide spectrum of contradictory world views.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But NetDoc, how is this not functionally the same 'rationale' offered to prop up all delusions?

I am not sure how you think Deut, so I can't answer that for you.

There are many people who think that our landing on the moon was a mere delusion. They find myriads of problems with the "evidence" much like you do with Christianity. Their assertion that the facts and conclusions of this event are delusion do little to change the reality. However, I accept the words of the astronauts just as I accept the words of the apostles. All the facts needed for belief are in the Scriptures (Old or New). If you won't believe them you won't believe me much.