Is Evolution a religion?

[s2a]

CMIYC said:

"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."

1) "Lack of evidence" of...what exactly?

The topic of the thread is "Is Evolution a religion?", not "Prove Evolution Theory to My Satisfaction".

{At the risk of being confronted with yet another non sequitur deflection, I invite you to present/suggest the "one bit of evidence" that you deem to be lacking as compelling and acceptable "proof"/evidence that - if subsequently discovered and produced to your standards of satisfaction - would lead you to conclude that evolution [theory] is valid and acceptable explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only might that potentially proffered piece of evidence "entertain us all" [ ;-) ], but it would avoid having to pointlessly reference and produce endless amounts of evidence you evidently either don't understand or won't accept anyway. So, what "lacking" evidence do you require to accept Evolution theory on it's merits? If you wish to remain on-topic in this thread, I invite you to instigate a new thread that would provide appropriate forum for you to define and delineate your unmet demands of what would constitute satisfactory evidence. The opportunity is but yours to partake of...)

2) Please detail (and or reference) the alleged evidence I have provided as "cover". Which (or what) questions did I specifically pose of you? Having just reread my initial reply to you (post #95), I can't seem to find one interrogatory contained within. If you're referring to my other previous contribution within this thread (post #87), I concede that it offered a few rhetorical questions, left purely to the discretion of the reader to ruminate upon for themselves, subsequently address if so inclined, or otherwise ignore accordingly. None of the rhetorical questions in that initial post were offered as rebuttal to a directly pointed question, nor implemented as a reflexive "cover" in "answering a question with a question". Perhaps you're not "stimulated" by debate when spurious and unfounded allegations are met with concrete refutations.

Instead of changing the topic with your "stimulating" suggestion that I: "...bring one bit of macro evolutionary evidence yourself for a change and entertain us all.", howzabout you support a stated position that Evolution (theory) either is, or is not, a religion.

I offered you the courtesy (along with referenced, dictionary-sourced definitions of "religion") of defined parameters that would satisfy an equating of Evolution as being equal to, or defining of, a religion. (If you'd like to offer a differing set of parameters that equally satisfy a [legitimate reference work's] definition of religion, and how Evolution mirrors/meets those standards of applicability as a religion, I'd be glad to consider them).

To this point, you have but offered me evasion, unfounded allegation/innuendo, and non sequitur topic change.

"Unstimulating" exchange indeed.

 

[s2a]

NetDoc said (to Deut 32.8):

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.

One major difference is extant between assumptions or lent inferences of "equal" merit. One needn't "accept the word" of astronauts to verify their (or NASA's) claims of a successful moon landing. If one had a powerful enough telescope, with sufficient resolution (just wait...it's being constructed), then anyone could observe firsthand the direct physical evidence left behind by the six different manned moon missions (including observing lower halves of the LEM's, the boot-prints, tire-tracks, and even Alan Shepard's thwacked golfballs and tossed javelin). It would not be necessary to "take on faith" the claims offered (and returned evidence - just a few hundred pounds of moon rocks and soil), when repeatable independent observations and verifications would allow virtually anyone to conclude (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the claims are indeed veritable and factual. No requisite "leap of faith". No need for "taking someone's word". Either the claims are verifiable and/or falsifiable, or they are not.

All of the claims of a manned moon landing are (potentially) verifiable and/or falsifiable. Can the same be said of Scriptural evidence? Can any of it be falsified, objectively, even by a "believer"? Can any of it be verified (methodologically) by an "unbeliever"? Or, are we merely left to "take their word for it"?

NetDoc said (to JerryL):

So what makes YOU believe that the US government has not pulled the wool over your eyes about the moon landing? Nothing but faith. There is no difference between YOUR belief in landing on the moon and MY belief that Jesus walked on the water or more importantly, that he was raised from the dead. Nada, squat, zilch.

Men landing on the moon is not a "belief". As illustrated above, no "faith" or "belief" is requisite to accept the methodolgically verifiable/falsifiable claims of an actual moon landing and human presence there. The physical evidence of such (repeated) events is overwhelming, compelling, and not subject to any specific test of faith, spiritual "revelation", or an acceptance of any claimed supernatural cause/effect/entity. Most Christians readily concede that their beliefs are predicated upon faith, and faith alone. You either believe Biblical claims and accept them as true (or "the Truth"), or you don't...but there is no (available, physical) "evidence" to support the extraordinary (miraculous) claims of the Bible beyond "eyewitness testimony", of which credibility is certainly questionabl...but impossible to either completely substantiate or discredit by any available objective means (lacking requisite faith, of course - as you so often insist).

To suggest that there is NO difference between: claims predicated upon "eyewitness testimony" absent any practical empirical evidence (which can neither be verified nor falsified); and claims predicated upon mountains of (virtually) universally accessible empirical evidence (with no requisite reliance whatsoever upon "eyewitness testimony" alone) - is, to be blunt, patently absurd.

The "burdens of proof" of your two "no difference" examples are in fact diametrically opposite to one another.

But there is a certain amount of arrogant pride and arrogance that makes us all put our beliefs above others. We see them as more noble, more intellectual, more this or more that. We do the same for our evidences as well. But in the end, it all boils down to FAITH. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. Welcome to the human condition.

Welcome instead to the conditional aspects of religion...whereupon faith, and faith alone - is all that's required to "believe" that adherents are favored by deities/spirits with some ultimate afterlife reward, and that unbelievers are eternally punished (or just left out of any afterlife reward) for their nonacceptance of unprovable and/or unfalsifiable claims of invisible deities and supernatural cause/effect phenomena.

"Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others"....

..."arrogant pride" defined, indeed.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If one had

Greater faith, I have never seen!

Most Christians readily concede that their beliefs are predicated upon faith,

Yes, they are indeed honest with themselves. Unfortunately, your faith in the moon landing is so blind and pervasive that you don't even see it as faith. What incontrovertible evidence HAVE you seen that we have landed on the moon? Go ahead and trot it out.

 

[s2a]

NetDoc said:

"Greater faith I have never seen!"

It might be time for you to revisit a "true believing" house of worship real soon , if that's true...

"Unfortunately, your faith in the moon landing is so blind and pervasive that you don't even see it as faith. What incontrovertible evidence HAVE you seen that we have landed on the moon? Go ahead and trot it out."

Your response hardly merits serious reply, but I shall indulge your challenge just the same.

May I suggest that you indulge this resource first...
http://www.readingupgrade.com/html/cucomprehension.htm

Upon subsequent and successful course completion, feel free to ponder and please acknowledge that I previously said:
"If [a powerful caveat] one had a powerful enough telescope, with sufficient resolution (just wait...it's being constructed), then [it's an "if...then" premised Conditional Argument - look it up] (and, therefore...) anyone could observe firsthand the direct physical evidence left behind by the six different manned moon missions (including observing lower halves of the LEM's, the boot-prints, tire-tracks, and even Alan Shepard's thwacked golfballs and tossed javelin). It would not be necessary to "take on faith" the claims offered (and returned evidence - just a few hundred pounds of moon rocks and soil), when repeatable independent observations and verifications would allow virtually anyone to conclude (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the claims are indeed veritable and factual. No requisite "leap of faith". No need for "taking someone's word". Either the claims are verifiable and/or falsifiable, or they are not."
[Editorial exposition/emphasis added]

If you had exercised even a modicum of reading comprehension and retention skills before effusing yet another vain attempt to mischaracterize a valid argument, you might have lent better discretion it's proper due, before reiterating your demonstrably unfounded insistence that rational acceptance of manned lunar landings as fact is tantamount to a "belief" founded upon some "blind and pervasive" faith alone.

It was an absurd notion beforehand, and it remains unmistakably so.

Here is the requested evidence (sourced with links) that I leave for you to controvert, or falsify, beyond a reasonable doubt:

NASA substantiates it's claims with real science, not ignorant speculation:
[ http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r.../y2001/ast23feb_2.htm&ei=mVUVQ8uhMcbSaPrH1OkN ]

Author ("Bad Atronomy")" Phil Plait deconstructs and debunks the most popular "moon landing Hoax" claims/arguments in a palpable, indexed format (just to give you a head start with your own proffered falsifications of "the evidence"):
[ http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html ]

As I imparted before, falsifiability is a critical element in establishment of credibility of any theory, claim, or counter-claim. Just as "moon landing Hoax" adherents are borne with the self-imposed burden of disproving/falsifying the claims of NASA, their own counter-claims ("It's all a Hoax!") are subject to the same falsification parameters.

For your consideration:
"The moon hoax theory is falsifiable. Observations could be made – via new Moon landings – of the physical evidence (for example landing bases, equipment and footprints) that would disprove the theory.

For example, Apollo missions 11, 14, and 15 left retroreflectors on the Moon, which scientists routinely use to measure the distance between Earth and the Moon to high precision (see Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment). Although these data could be faked it would require collusion by scientists in many countries. Reflectors could have been placed by robot missions (the Lunokhod 2 mission left a French-built mirror for this purpose). On the other hand the Apollo retroreflectors are more accurate and more precisely placed than the Lunokhod mirror.

It is possible for unmanned spacecraft in orbit around the Moon to produce high resolution images of the Apollo sites. NASDA's SELENE, for example, will carry instruments that are capable of detecting leftover Apollo hardware. However, since the mission is primarily intended for geological study, there is uncertainty as to whether or not SELENE will photograph the Apollo landing sites. ESA's SMART-1 might also be able to photograph the Apollo with its AMIE camera, but, like SELENE, considering (1) the fact that SMART-1 is a purely scientific mission and (2) the camera's resolution and altitude, such an opportunity is unlikely. A NASDA or ESA press photo of Apollo hardware is not an impossibility, however.

Although not an image of the actual hardware, the Clementine mission has returned images of what appears to be the scuffed up landing site of Apollo 15 [3].

European scientists announced in 2002 that they intend to use the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope to obtain images of the Moon landing sites, which they expect to show the Moon lander bases still in place. No firm date has been given when the telescope will be used for this purpose, or when the results will be released. In any event, as with mirror-ranging evidence, pictures of the lander remains would only prove that a mechanical mission arrived, not that it was manned.

In terms of formal testing, the required experiments that would falsify the claim that the landings did not take place have not yet been carried out."

Source: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Source_material ]

OK. I have done you the courtesy (at your request) of not only providing you (in excess of my initial predicated Conditional argument) with the incontrovertible extant evidence that inherently supports historical manned moon landings as veritable fact, but I have even gone the added step of providing you resource that directly debunks the most popular "hoax" counter-claims (demonstrating specifically why such counter-claims have no scientific merit, nor present any sustainable level of reasonable doubt...beyond wishful thinking).

You are still invited to scientifically falsify any of NASA'a proffered "evidence".

You are also invited to address and answer my premised assertion that Biblical claims are both unprovable and unfalsiable, rendering them even less credible (or veritable) than alleged manned moon landing "hoaxes".

I said it before, and reiterate again:
"To suggest that there is NO difference between: claims predicated upon "eyewitness testimony" absent any practical empirical evidence (which can neither be verified nor falsified); and claims predicated upon mountains of (virtually) universally accessible empirical evidence (with no requisite reliance whatsoever upon "eyewitness testimony" alone) - is, to be blunt, patently absurd."

I feel a vision coming upon me....

...it suggests that you will offer, engage, or allege:
no scientifically credible falsifications of the extant evidence;
deflection or misdirection;
some invocation of "personal attack" or "unreasonable" behavior on my part;
...or (even) perhaps that an "if..then" conditional argument is a "cop-out" (if so, then here is the support [one of many available sources] for such an argument, and the prospective instruments of verification/falsifiability:
[ http://www.inconstantmoon.com/lim_0307.htm ]

Care to make a wager as to whether my initially premised conditional argument realizes fruition before any "moon landing hoax claims" are validated (I plan/hope to hang around long enough to either pay or collect upon such a bet)?

Or do you not have the same "faith" that I retain in accepting/validating incontrovertible fact?

 

[Scuba Pete]

My friend,

you have written much and said little.

Have YOU seen the foot prints on the moon? Not via the television or printed material, but have YOU visited the sight where we landed. No? Then your belief or disbelief is based on YOUR FAITH in the evidence that you have seen. You seem to want to debate the QUALITY of that evidence as if somehow that relieves you from using faith. It doesn't. But then I am a simpleton who obviously needs lessons in reading comprehension. You in your GREAT INTELLECT show GREAT FAITH that the scientists will indeed perform as they said, but at this writing you claim is NOT verifiable.

Now please, castigating my apparent lack of reading comprehension is a red herring. It has no bearing on the discussion. You can join the others to mock and deride me in this way if you want, but then it effectively ends our conversation. I have made no claim to being other than a simpleton, and if you can not accept that then we can move on. The biggest problem with intellect, or at least with a pseudo intellect, is intellectual arrogance. Instead of arguing the points, the pseudo intellect rails against their opponent's capacity to discern or discuss the issues rather than the issues themselves. Stay focused.

 

[michel]

My friend,

you have written much and said little.

Have YOU seen the foot prints on the moon? Not via the television or printed material, but have YOU visited the sight where we landed. No? Then your belief or disbelief is based on YOUR FAITH in the evidence that you have seen. You seem to want to debate the QUALITY of that evidence as if somehow that relieves you from using faith. It doesn't. But then I am a simpleton who obviously needs lessons in reading comprehension. You in your GREAT INTELLECT show GREAT FAITH that the scientists will indeed perform as they said, but at this writing you claim is NOT verifiable.

Now please, castigating my apparent lack of reading comprehension is a red herring. It has no bearing on the discussion. You can join the others to mock and deride me in this way if you want, but then it effectively ends our conversation. I have made no claim to being other than a simpleton, and if you can not accept that then we can move on. The biggest problem with intellect, or at least with a pseudo intellect, is intellectual arrogance. Instead of arguing the points, the pseudo intellect rails against their opponent's capacity to discern or discuss the issues rather than the issues themselves. Stay focused.

Ah, sorry 'wrong room' *quickly shuts the door hoping I haven't been noticed* - I am just so tempted to be drawn into this one, and will have to satisfy my need by saying that I agree with you. NetDoc, about the fact that no one could conclusively prove to me that man has set foot on the moon - not without accepting that a mass of the evidence is from heresay, most of which could have been enacted on Earth......................*help!!, and dives for Feather's Kitchen table once again*.......:biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have YOU seen the foot prints on the moon? Not via the television or printed material, but have YOU visited the sight where we landed. No? Then your belief or disbelief is based on YOUR FAITH in the evidence that you have seen.

"YOUR FAITH in evidence" What a transparent, preposterous, and fundamentally disingenuous piece of semantic crap.

 

[JerryL]

Have YOU seen the foot prints on the moon? Not via the television or printed material, but have YOU visited the sight where we landed. No? Then your belief or disbelief is based on YOUR FAITH in the evidence that you have seen.

You're right. And having never seen you (or indeed, having never seen video of you, nor met people who claim to have met you, nor seen hundreds attest to your existance), I no longer believe in you.

Since I refuse to talk to imaginary people....

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know they get testy when they get proven wrong, don't they Michel! Bwahahaha!

The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem, gentle people. You are infected with faith. There is no cure. You will be using your faith in many things until the day you die, and then you will learn just how accurate your faith was. I think it's too funny that you now resort to insults instead of logic.

Deut; Name calling is unwarranted. Emotional outbursts do little to further your arguments and they only augment the perception of you being some kind of cyber bully.

Jerry; I think you are finally getting my point. You may not want to admit it, but you are beginning to understand the pervasiveness of faith.

 

[JerryL]

Jerry; I think you are finally getting my point. You may not want to admit it, but you are beginning to understand the pervasiveness of faith.

You are making the presuppositional argument. That all positions reliy on presuppositions which cannot be proven.

It's a boring argument that I agree with then dismiss as irrellevent and move on.

Now what you are ignoring is the concept of evidence, of belief based on reason and probability rather than propiganda, desire, or simple random decision. If you want absolute proof, there is no such thing. Even if you remember seeing it with your own eyes, you cannot establish that your eyes are dependable (nor, indeed your memory). You assert a position which is ignoreable for it's utter lack of function.

You also do something I've seen over and over in this board. You make a definition of a word that is all-inclusive, making the word meaningless. In this case, you argue that everything is faith, making a discussion of faith purely symantic and entirely irrellevent. You are not discussing what everyone else means when they say the word, and your meaning has no valid use; especially sicne your definition does not relate to whether something is a religion (which is the topic at hand), unless you want to assert that everything is a religion, in which case you've made that word moot as well.

 

[Pah]

You know they get testy when they get proven wrong, don't they Michel! Bwahahaha!

The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem, gentle people. You are infected with faith. There is no cure. You will be using your faith in many things until the day you die, and then you will learn just how accurate your faith was. I think it's too funny that you now resort to insults instead of logic.

Deut; Name calling is unwarranted. Emotional outbursts do little to further your arguments and they only augment the perception of you being some kind of cyber bully.

Jerry; I think you are finally getting my point. You may not want to admit it, but you are beginning to understand the pervasiveness of faith.

I have to agree with Jerry. Faith is being taken from a specific meaning to one whose inclusiveness is unwarrented. You do not seem to recognize a synonym has nuances that are important.

I do not have the faith you have and to include me in your's is wrong. That you extend my faith to a faith of the supernatural is a horrendous mistake. Not only am I not a "gift from heaven", as some of faith would have me termed, I am a product of sex - the evolution mechanism. No faith involved in evolution, not trust, not religious belief, not religion, not loyalty, not dedication, tor commitment, and not allegiance.

So when you talk of faith, which of those synonyms do you mean? Hehe there are even two with a religious slant.

 

[Sunstone]

Loosely defining faith does not make evolution a religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut; Name calling is unwarranted. ... they only augment the perception of you being some kind of cyber bully.

Oh, my - hypocrisy run amok. How clever of you to share your sermon on name calling and your eagerness to rely upon it all in the same sentence.

Nonetheless, your reference to "YOUR FAITH in evidence" remains little more than a transparent, preposterous, and fundamentally disingenuous piece of semantic crap. That you find it necessary to denegrate evidence and adulterate the meaning of faith is far more instructive than your posturing against cyber bullies.

 

[Sunstone]

Religions have other characteristics associated with them besides faith. For someone to convince me that evolution is a religion, they would need to show that evolution has at least some of the other characteristics of religion besides faith. So far in this thread, no one has done that.

 

[Quiddity]

Religions have other characteristics associated with them besides faith. For someone to convince me that evolution is a religion, they would need to show that evolution has at least some of the other characteristics of religion besides faith. So far in this thread, no one has done that.

Like what?

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

For instance, If evolution is a religion, then where in the evolutionary sciences do we find ritual? Rituals are associated in one form or another with nearly all (or perhaps all) genuine religions. Yet, there do not seem to be any rituals at all associated with evolution.

 

[Quiddity]

For instance, If evolution is a religion, then where in the evolutionary sciences do we find ritual? Rituals are associated in one form or another with nearly all (or perhaps all) genuine religions. Yet, there do not seem to be any rituals at all associated with evolution.

Don't some monkeys wash their food before eating it? Would this be considered a form of ritual?

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

Don't some monkeys wash their food before eating it? Would this be considered a form of ritual?

~Victor

That's an interesting question, but I think it's irrelevant to whether humans who believe in evolution are practicing a religion.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Don't some monkeys wash their food before eating it? Would this be considered a form of ritual?

By your definition of "ritual", (ie, religiously sponsored), I would say "no". Monkey's washing their food before they eat is no more ritualistic than me washing my food before I eat. Monkeys' wash their food before they eat because they have learned that the food then tastes less like dirt, and that they reduce their chance of getting worms--pretty much the same reasons why I wash my food.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let's look at the "definition" of faith, shall we?

Faith - Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at [size=-1]BIDE[/size]
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : [size=-1]LOYALTY[/size] b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see [size=-1]BELIEF[/size]
- in faith : without doubt or question : [size=-1]VERILY[/size]

It can have something to do with religion, but it is NOT confined to it. Look especially at #3. Now if you contend that you DON'T have FAITH in the evidence, then I am led to believe that you doubt it. Is THAT what you are trying to say???

You guys get even MORE pissed off when I talk about the fact that you have been proven wrong. Get a grip. YOU HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE. It's not a sin. I HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE TOO. But, I have far more faith in God and in the evidence that surrounds me.

The belief that man landed on the moon is based upon your interpretation of the evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is based on FAITH. FAITH in NASA to do their job, FAITH in the system to not decieve you, FAITH in the validity of the pictures that they sent back. ERGO, your belief that man landed on the moon is most definitely a function of FAITH.