The Religion of Evolution

[Paul of Eugene]

You left out the possibility that God created the heavens and earth and used Evolution as part of the process! And you left out many other creation mytholoogies.

 

[Helen]

Paul, why are you willing to take the first sentence of Genesis as truth and reject the rest as at least partial myth?

 

[Timmy]

Originally posted by InHim2002:
I think it might be useful to define the term religion before we start applying it as a label - I think Karl Popper defined it best as a closed belief system - I do not think that evolution fits this definition

InHim, I have to disagree with you, you see, evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up. You can't prove it. Therefore I believe it is, in fact, a religion.

 

[Timmy]

Originally posted by Preacher Nathan Knight:
EVOLUTION = ZERO FAITH

I'd seriously have to disagree with you Preacher, because you must have some faith to believe it actually happened! Like I've said, there is no evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Timmy]

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...

II Peter 3:3

 

[Timmy]

 

[Timmy]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Whoah! Evolution is not based on the religion of man! Like all scientific disciplines, evolution is based on the evidence. Some men may take anything, I suppose, including evolution, and use it in their religion.

No...evolution is based purely on the imaginations and fantasies of scoffers of the Bible. There's no science involved.

 

[Timmy]

Originally posted by Helen:


To Timmy
Be careful of some of the 'evidences' put forward by creation popularizers. The moon dust argument is not a good one for a number of reasons -- none of which have to do with evolution and creation, actually! If you want to discuss any of the evidences, though, please start a thread on one of them so we won't get sidetracked here, OK? Thanks

I've started another thread. The moon dust argument has something to do with evolution. If the universe was billions of years old...then where's the dust? 6000 years fits perfectly since the rate is about 1 inch per 10000-12000 years. Doesn't it?

 

[InHim2002]

InHim, I believe the Supreme Court of the United States has declared secular humanism to be a religion...

dicta of the supreme court are not law Helen and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the court as a whole -

The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force

source

so once again, is it a defining characteristic of religion that it is a closed belief system or not?

Scientologists certainly do have a concept of the divine - all be it a very strange one!

Most definitely. In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the eighth dynamic—the urge toward existence as infinity, as God, or the Supreme Being. As the eighth dynamic, Scientology’s concept of God rests at the very apex of universal survival.

In his book Science of Survival, L. Ron Hubbard wrote: “No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical, and less valuable to themselves and society .... A man without an abiding faith is, by observation alone, more of a thing than a man.”

source

evolution has no scientific evidence to back it up. You can't prove it. Therefore I believe it is, in fact, a religion.

er?

that just makes no sense - for example we can directly witness micro evolution, the argument is not whether evolution per se exists but whether macro evolution is a viable theory to explain our species.

 

[Matt Black]

A couple of comments to make.

Firstly, Helen, my faith journey has been the opposite to that described by you. When I was a 'young Christian', I was in the charismatic movement here which was heavily infiltrated by fundamentalism, so I got fed the Young Earth Creationist view with all the literalism and speaking on tongues stuff. I've moved on from all of that now, with God's help and the help of close Christian friends and have no desire to return to the same; I go to a Baptist Church whose website I believe you've visited already via another thread, which practises responsible Biblical scholarship.

Secondly, I do not see any contradiction in theistic evolution. Not all of the Bible is meant to be literal historical truth - some of it is myth, some poetic (quite clearly for example the Song of Solomon falls into this category) some allegorical etc. You don't seriously believe do you, that the scenes described in Jesus' parables actually happened? None of this means that the Bible is any less inspired by God. I don't see what the problem is here, (unless you've been raised like I was in a narrow fundamentalist mindset).

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[The Galatian]

I have Michael Ruse's book (signed to me by him at Concordia, June 2000), Mystery of Mysteries; Is Evolution a Social Construction? in which he spends far too much time to quote here on his opinion that evolution involves religion.

Check back to Ruse's statement I posted. He says that there are certainly people who do take the fact of evolution and draw religious or teleological ideas from it. However, he also points out that it is neither necessary nor desirable, and that such ideas are out of place in science.

The vast majority of scientists I have known agree with that idea.

As for the rest, you are welcome to your opinion. I, too, have spent and continue to spend a tremendous amount of my time involved with science and often among scientists. I'm talking about something I know about firsthand as far as the disillusion many are feeling with evolution now.

I'm not seeing that. In fact, the number of journals of evolutionary science have increased, and the number of scientists who accept evolution seems to be changed little if any. Do you have any evidence for that idea?

That won't change you, Galatian, or what you post.

As I said, evidence is what counts in science. I'm open to your personal experience, but it's contrary to mine, and I don't see any documented studies that would lead me to change my mind. Perhaps you and I associate with different kinds of PhDs.

Science is quite religion-neutral, which is why Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all other sorts can do science. We would see quite a diversity of religious views amoung scientists who accept evolution. I happen to know one who is a Southern Baptist.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

If Ruse says some people are treating evolution like religion, he is deploring that notion, isn't he?

I'm sure there will always be some people who misuse ANY philosophy, science or religion - even some who claim to be baptists will misuse the Baptist religion!

That doesn't change the truth that men need Jesus as savior, nor the truth that all DNA based life on earth shares common ancestry dating back millions of years. It's not the fault of our evolutionary past that some people worship it, or that others deny it exists.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
If Ruse says some people are treating evolution like religion, he is deploring that notion, isn't he?

No. Just the opposite. You may be able to find some of his material or discussion about what he is saying on the web using a search engine. I'll try to follow up on this one Sunday when I get back if it is still an active thread.

ITM, the common ancestry thing and millions of years things are both interpretations of data, not the data themselves. Best to keep them separate..

 

[The Galatian]

Actually, he says that while it may be all right to draw religious ideas from the fact of evolution, it is not, and should not be part of evolutionary science.

And that's about right. I can be very impressed and greatful to God for his creation, while still being able to scientifically understand the universe.

That doesn't mean that geology, biology, astronomy, etc. are religious. They aren't.

 

[Helen]

No, Galatian, that's not what he's saying. Read his material first.

 

[The Galatian]

I did. I read his statement from the link you provided. He says:

"So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today’s professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time."

That's what he said. Unless your link is misquoting him. Is it?

 

[BobRyan]

Biology, Chemistry and Physics have nothing to do with evolutionism. The objective verifiable facts they present are indepentant of evolutionism's mythologies. I know this is an irritation to evolutionists that had "hoped" to hold hard sciences hostage to the doctrines and mythologies of evolutionism - but the facts remain - the myths of evolutionism play no part in hard verifiable sciences.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Biology, Chemistry and Physics have nothing to do with evolutionism.

It is evidence from those sciences (and others) that leads the vast majority of scientists to aknowledge evolution. The lack of evidence for creationism from those scientists is the reason that the vast majority of them reject creationism.

I suppose we should move this to another thread if we want to redo "evidence for and against".

The objective verifiable facts they present are indepentant of evolutionism's mythologies.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Cartoon Theory of Evolution. What do you think the "mythologies" are?

I know this is an irritation to evolutionists that had "hoped" to hold hard sciences hostage to the doctrines and mythologies of evolutionism

I'm a very patient guy. Let's take a look at your facts, and talk about them.

 

[Helen]

Galatian, the only 'facts' evolution has are those regarding speciation and simple variation. There is absolutely nothing in biology, genetics, or anywhere else to show us that one entire kind of organism ever became another kind. Yes I know researchers got a new metabolic pathway out of an E.coli. But it was still an E.coli, wasn't it? No one ever decided it was a new kind of thing, did they?

The 'vast majority' of scientists do not even think about evolution or creation, as the 'vast majority' of scientists are busy with technical matters and lab work in such highly specified areas that origins have nothing to do with it. As such, they simply accept what they were taught was true in school and don't think much more about it. They assume what they were taught was true.

HOWEVER, among those who have researched into this area of origins and evidence, there is a growing exodus out of the evolutionary camp into the "I don't know" and "creation" camps of various varieties.

Genetically, evolution is bankrupt. The idea is to keep the bank open through hype and declaration rather than through any real science. I've been watching this for too long now and seen too much to think any differently.

There are interpretations which declare evolution happened, but no extant evidence or process known which supports that.

edit: for the purposes of definition here, let's acknowledge that we are talking about the changes that had to occur to get a one-celled original organism to change enough through time to become ferns and grasshoppers and elephants and people and pine trees and such.

 

[BobRyan]

The salient points of evolutionism are a fact-less mind-less void. The "tactics" it employs to prop up its doctrines are deception and obfuscation.

Notice that when evolutionism's priests "speculate" they appeal to the most unverifiable aspects of hard sciences so that the "guesswork" is not easily "falsified" - indeed it can not be since it is pure guesswork - and tautology mixed in a stew of myth.

In the "mean time" we have hard science facts that are independent of the mythology.

Biochemistry, all of chemistry, physics and biology may be fully explored today without drinking the koolaide of evolutionism.

This has proven to be the bain of the high priests of evilutionism in their efforts to shackle science to evilutionism as IF the former EVER needed the latter to advance.

There is not a single fact of science today that is dependant on the myths of evolutionism for its discovery, experimentation or "proof".

For example -

Abiogenesis is key among the myths of evolutionism - and can not be found in any hard science as a precursor TO ANY new technology, ability, experiment, demonstration, observed principle.

We have no advancement in any science based on the myths of evolutionism. At "best" we have advances in evolutionism based on new ways to co-opt hard science and rework it back into evolution's tale.

So what use is that worthless mythology of evolutionism? It has a great use - that of destroying the foundation of the Gospel. Hence great magnitude of the forces driving evolutionism's minions.

Bob