Can Evolution be Described as a Religion?

I believe evolutionism is its own form of "religion". To me even atheism is like its own so called "religion". Its funny that you bring that up because pastor preached on that Sunday. It was an excellent sermon.

 

Those who are against anything except a literal 6 day creation for religious reasons will typically say that theories that contradict a YEC view are a religion. By adhereing to this view, it becomes easier to dismiss any support for that perceived religion, rather than discussing the support from a point of objectivity.

To answer the question in the OP, I would venture that if a theory is decuced from educated hypotheses based on evidentiary examination, then no. It does not follow the pattern of religion. That would go for any theories, not just the one pertaining top the topic.

 

Science is not religion. Period.

I really don't care how many quotes you can come up with where someone suggests philosophy based on some aspect of science. The science itself is a logical, empirical enterprise. There is nothing religios about it. Evolution specifically is based on a wealth of information and many, many parallel lines of information. The common descent of life on earth is without question and evolution explains the observations better than anything else.

The Merriam-Webster definitions of religion are
1 a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

None of these definitons can be applied to science. There is no faith involved in evolutionary theory. It falls out of the evidence.

BTW, Gup20, are you going to get around to meeting the new information challenge that you proposed? And please, no analogies about car engines that spring oil leaks. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/32/2438/3.html#000035

There are a number of other such threads floating about.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/10.html?
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/15.html?
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/18.html? - You were also challenged to back up one of your statements in this thread, also.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/16.html?
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? - This would be a good one as it looks at human specific evidence.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/20.html - You made the first post in this one and have not really bothered to try and support it. It did give the opportunity to point out more AIG quote mining. For others, checking out how AIG quotes scientists might be of interest as Gup posts links to AIG. In short, don't take their words at face value.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2807/10.html#000140 - The end of the other, more in depth, set of posts on information.

 

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

That is evolution in a nutshell

 

I agree.

But the question is: Is evolution a religion?

 

Evolution requires faith. To even discuss the origin of the universe puts the entire matter in the realm of metaphysics.
Science, of its very definition, requires an observer. There was no one to observe the creation of the universe, the creation of the world, the creation of man, nor anyone has ever observed evolution taking place. Thus evolution takes faith; not observation. By every aspect it fits the definition of religion not science.
DHK

 

By that reckoning, so does YEC. Hence, when someone argues that evolution does not belong in the classroom, then they must also conclude that YEC does not fit in the clasroom either.

 

"4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Some people may mistakenly attribute philosophical notions to evolution, but the science itself stands on its own. It has no cause. It has no principles. It requires no faith. It falls logically and empirically out of the data.

For example look at the threads I have linked to above. The first gives many examples of the ways in which mutation and natural selection are able to deliver to the genome of a population novel information and abilities. The second uses the geology of ice cores to show an ancient earth. The third gets again into information and other genetic data. The fourth uses the geology of the Snowball Earth Hypothesis to show things that are not able to be explained in a young earth. The next shows hao the geology of Mars is incompatible with a recent creation. The next shows some very powerful evidence for the common descent of humans nad the other apes. The next reviews some falsehoods spewed by AIG in an attempt to prop up young earth beliefs. The final link is to the end of a series of more in depth posts dealing with information and irreducible complexity.

"But the question is: Is evolution a religion?"

No. It falls under science. It is no more a religion (I would say less) that gravity.

"Evolution requires faith."

No faith needed. It falls out of the data.

"To even discuss the origin of the universe puts the entire matter in the realm of metaphysics."

Nope. God was kind enough to give us the intellect to look at His creation and determine its history. The creation is inconsistent with a recent creation.

"Science, of its very definition, requires an observer. There was no one to observe the creation of the universe, the creation of the world, the creation of man..."

We make those observations in the present. In the area of astronomy, we are able to make direct observations because of the finite speed of light. When you view something billions of light years away, you are by definition observing it as it was billions of years ago. In other cases we examine evidence from th past in the present. These observations can be repeated by others and tested by others to see if they come up with the same results just as any other scientific observations.

"...nor anyone has ever observed evolution taking place. "

We have observed the changes required for evolution. We have observed specieation. The fossil record is a testament to major changes. The genetic evidence matches the fossil record amazingly well. Even when looking at non-coding regions that eleminate the common designer aspect.

"Thus evolution takes faith; not observation."

Nope. As seen, evolution is like the other sciences in being based on observable, logical, empirical data. There are many things that could falsify evolution as a theory.

What is your theory on a young earth and what kind of data would you accept as falsifying it?

"By every aspect it fits the definition of religion not science."

Not at all. Evolution is as much science as geology or chemistry or physics. There is nothing religious about it.

 

No one argues that creation is religion, or better yet our faith. It indeed is. We do not deny that. We also believe that the Creation model fits the scientific facts far better than the evolution hypothesis.
DHK

 

UTEOTW, it seems you are talking more about the age of the universe. Are you saying an old universe means evolution is true, and what do you mean by evolution?

I tried to find out on another thread but no one would answer me. Isn't evolution believing that man came from a more primitive ape-like creature? That's what I learned in school as evolution.

If you believe this, then are you saying you do not believe the story about Adam and Eve in Gen. to be literally true?

 

"We also believe that the Creation model fits the scientific facts far better than the evolution hypothesis."

Put you money wher your mouth is. Here a few few threads you can jump in on.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/18.html? - This is about SNowball Earth. It is completely incompatible with a young earth. There is no young earth sequence of events to explain the data. Try if you really think the young earth model is best.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/16.html? - Try and explain how the features of Mars could be compatible with a young universe.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? - THis is a real good one for you to try. I have been looking for a young earth to seriously take this one one for a while. I think my favorite example in the list is the retroviral DNA insertions. At least a few percent of our genome is made of retroviral inserts. And they all match each other. And they match the other apes and primates. So you have the double challenge of telling us why the othr apes and primates have the same ones we do AND telling why all of the human inserts came in about 10 generations between Adam and Noah and none since. There are several other lines of genetic evidence derived from non-coding DNA in there that link us to the other apes through common descent.

Or try any of the other threads above that I have linked to. It should be interesting. But remember, you have to show that the mainstream science interpretation of the evidence is wrong and you have to show that there is a logical, empirical, falsifiable young earth theory that better explain what we see.

 

"UTEOTW, it seems you are talking more about the age of the universe. Are you saying an old universe means evolution is true, and what do you mean by evolution?"

Both. If you want to distill it to the most controversial, you can just deal with the evidence that man shares a common descent with the other apes. I have presented evidence for that in some of the threads to which I linked.

"I tried to find out on another thread but no one would answer me. Isn't evolution believing that man came from a more primitive ape-like creature? That's what I learned in school as evolution."

That would be part of it. Evolution shows that man and the other apes share a common ancestor. (Well actually, that would be a different common ancestor for different apes. Or primates. Or mammals. Or tetrapods. Or animals. Or life.) But it encompasses much more than that.

"If you believe this, then are you saying you do not believe the story about Adam and Eve in Gen. to be literally true?"

Honestly? I don't know. It is obvious that the overall creation story is non-literal, else Gos went through a lot of trouble to design it to look like evolution happened. But there still may have been a literal Adam. The first man given a soul by God and made sentient.

 

Evolutionism qualifies as blind-faith religion in many ways.

#1. It ignores the plain truths of science and clings to the wild imaginations of junk-science instead of what we "see in the lab". This was shown repeatedly in the discussions about entropy and about abiogenesis.

On the most dedicated devotee to evolutionism's doctrines could have missed that fact.

#2. Evolutionism teaches its members to listen only to its own high priests and ignore all others as "not worth placing your faith in". They argue that their high priests should dictate that thoughts allowed and even the words allowed to be printed. This was illustrated perfectly in the dispute carried out over the evolutionist exhibit at the British Museum of History and reported by NATURE and by Philip Johnson in Darwin on Trial.

3. Evolutionism delcares its "need" to edit and even obviate the text of scripture (Gen 1-2:3, Exodus 20:8-11 and many others pointed out here by evolutionists) - in order to maintain its own peculiar religious views of God, the Gospel, Origins and the value of scripture.

4. Atheist evolutionists readily confess that evolutoinism is the perfect fit for atheism and is "needed by them" as the alternative to what God teaches in His Word.

These most glaring, blatant and obvious facts about the gaffs, blunders, flaws and foibles of evolutionism are apparent to Christians of all denominations.

Oddly enough - much of it is even apparent to atheist evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is evolution a religion as defined by having faith in something you have not seen?
For example the day(s) that the universe came into being.
Ute says no, and then declares that it is a science based on historical facts.
By that reasoning then; Christianity is science.

If Christianity however can not be defined as science then by the same token, evolution cannot.

Clearly, evolution is a religion based on faith in its "facts".

In His service;
Jim

 

First, I see tha tno one has addressed the threads linked to above. Interesting.

The science of evolution is based on observable facts from extant life and from the fossil record.

The day the universe came into being is a different subject, astronomy. The heavens of God's creation speak a story of 13.5 billions years of existance. The great distance to the stars and the finite speed of light is testamony enough to that.

"Clearly, evolution is a religion based on faith in its "facts"."

Feel free to dispute those facts as you can. There are several threads linked to above where you are given that opportunity.

For Bob,

DO you yet have any reference for us on your claims about the archy conference. YOu told us that the participants declared archy just a bird. I have presented evidence from the conference that shows otherwise. Do you yet have a citation for those claims?

 

Very true - except it is having faith in "non-fact" and in "non-science".

It hopes that Archaeopteryx is NOT a true bird - but then "admits" that Archy IS a true bird.

It hopes that a horse series exists as IT publishes it and arranges it - but then finds out "it does not" and admits that its blunders are "positive embarrassments".

It hopes that abiogenesis EVER did happen - but cant manufacture it even by cheating in the lab.

It hopes that entropy in the local system is DECREASING - in fact "massively decreasing" to go from molecule to human brain -- but then "admits" that in fact human biological systems constantly SHOW INCREASEd entropy.

The faithful devotee of evolutionism can only respond in "hope and faith" by trying to misdirect and twist these clear, blatant undeniable fax in order to "confuse the few" who won't look them up.

Such is a false religion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW - I love the way UTEOTW twists the facts "just a little" and then says "now! Defend that!". "As if" I don't keep pointing out his blunder on that point.

What a hoot!

A better religious practitioner of evolutionism you could not hope to find.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"It hopes that Archaeopteryx is NOT a true bird - but then "admits" that Archy IS a true bird."

and

"BTW - I love the way UTEOTW twists the facts "just a little" and then says "now! Defend that!". "As if" I don't keep pointing out his blunder on that point."

Bob

If you wish to deny that you have claimed that the 1980's conference on archaeopteryx said that archy was just a bird, then I can go to the archives and pull out all the times that you have made that claim. While I am there, I can also pull out the dozens of times I have asked you to give us a citation from the conference for that claim. I will also pull out all those papers presented at that very conference that show that the presenters actually were asserting archy as a transitional. I will also pull out the quotes from the very authors you cited that show that they think that archy is a transistional. In short, you have lied to us about what went on at the conference. Worse, when your error is decisively pointed out and you are asked to defend it, you not only refuse to defend the assertion you also keep making it dispite the error being pointed out.

"It hopes that a horse series exists as IT publishes it and arranges it - but then finds out "it does not" and admits that its blunders are "positive embarrassments".

What has been repeatedly shown by giving the full quotes to your hatchet jobs of out-of-context quotes is that the early horse series was found to be incomplete as more and more examples of intermediate horses came in. Waht was thought to be a simple A to B to C progression when all you had was A and B and C was actually a very complicated and bushy sequence was you had over 50 fossil genera and hundreds of fossil species.

"It hopes that abiogenesis EVER did happen - but cant manufacture it even by cheating in the lab."

First, abiogenesis is not evolution. Second, you have been shown repeatedly methods to avoid the chiral problems you are so stuck on by using common materials as catalysts.

"It hopes that entropy in the local system is DECREASING - in fact "massively decreasing" to go from molecule to human brain -- but then "admits" that in fact human biological systems constantly SHOW INCREASEd entropy."

Another hatchet job of quoting. Your supposed expert disagrees with your conclusions in the very quote you are using to support your assertion. So you just clip that part and pretend it does not exist. You pretend that you know more about thermo than your expert.

"The faithful devotee of evolutionism can only respond in "hope and faith" by trying to misdirect and twist these clear, blatant undeniable fax in order to "confuse the few" who won't look them up."

There are links there to plenty of factual threads. Do you best. But I do not expect much.

Bob is one of the best examples of the problems with the young earth arguments. He makes claims which he cannot support. He makes the same claims after they have been shown to be false. He misrepresents what others have to say. He continues to do so even after the mistakes have been pointed out. He refuses to respond to direct questions and arguments.

 

Short answer: Absolutely!

Evolution is a religion. It has all the characterists of a religion. When you believe in evolution then it affects you whole life, you have a certain way of life when you believe this junk.