Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Sailingflutist-SF]

Milk dud, I wouldn't have said what I did if I hadn't. I wrote a thesis over 35 yrs ago which established essentially the title of this thread. I don't hold on to old stuff so it is gone but I do hae some of the biblio cards (b4 computers) around s I just moved this past yr and saw them but they are some box now out in our new pole barn waiting to be sorted thrown or sold. If I find them I'll share the exact book or books. I had that book by the Russian evolutionist checked out among other pro-evolution material. Our Comp 3 professor said to first be well-informed of the antithesis beofre you develop your draft and I was.

 

[Barbarian]

I think your post would have been stronger if you focused on Darwin and science, instead of humanism (which as someone else here pointed out, is a Christian philosophy). Evolutionary theory does not in any way suggest that God didn't create living things. Indeed, Darwin, in The Origin of Species, suggested that He did. It wasn't part of the theory, of course, science is too weak a method to talk about the supernatural. But it was Darwin's personal belief at the time.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

Regarding your position on humanism exclusively being a philosophy please see: http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume28/GOT028221.html --- http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm --- http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html --- http://www.dianedew.com/seculhum.htm If I had any idea where my biblio material was I could find my resources, also. One of these dates it back to 1875 as one of my resources did 35 yrs ago for the paper.

Now that I have had time to think about it, that thesis or term paper (yes, I worked on it for a whole semester) turned out to be a monster of a chore. There were three full card files of books and volumes on evolution. I can't tell you how many times I had to narrow down the focus and scope and rewrite the draft and outline; BOY!!! Not because of my position losing credibility as a result but due to the time and length limit (I don't even think a docorate disortation would allow for the required length to adequately address the issue of creationism vs. evolution) which was my original intent. I ended up with something akin to: "Because Evolution is a Religion, Creationism and Other Beliefs are Due Equal Time in School." In my original quest of ____ vs. _____ whcih was very time consuming I inadvertingly made a discovery: I had observed how many of the scientific community clung to and defended their belief in evolution with subjective (as opposed to objective) reasoning and a religous fervor. I had observed how the scientific community which embraced this mere theory so strongly (something which the scientific method demands a loose hold upon) that they refused to follow the scientific method and drop it and start all over again with new material, approaches, processes, and reasoning in spite of uncovered hoax after uncovered hoax and new discoveries which negated existing dating methods or processes; they subjectively, unscientifically, clung on to whatever part of the fromer they could and "adjusted" the theory; probably feeling the need for sustaining longevity of origin of belief. I REALIZED that as long as one's ideas are their belief and they are strongly devoted to that belief, whether it is Christianity, Humanism, Evolutionary theory, Buddism, Native Indian, the American way, and etc. it is a waste of time to debate the validity or credibility thereof as their faith in their belief will cause them only to build a defense, even if it is a self-dillusion precipitated by subjectively examining and processing the evidence/contradiction as opposed to an objective approach of humble consideration towards Truth.

I would suppose that this thing I inadvertingly discovered is just what Jesus was thinking of in Matt 10: 14-15 when He told His disciples to leave a town or village who would not receive the message as opposed to stay and debate the issues.

 

[Barbarian]

Not because of my position losing credibility as a result but due to the time and length limit (I don't even think a docorate disortation would allow for the required length to adequately address the issue of creationism vs. evolution) which was my original intent. I ended up with something akin to: "Because Evolution is a Religion, Creationism and Other Beliefs are Due Equal Time in School."

It's ironic that the same people who think science is a religion, think that creationism is a science.

In my original quest of ____ vs. _____ whcih was very time consuming I inadvertingly made a discovery: I had observed how many of the scientific community clung to and defended their belief in evolution with subjective (as opposed to objective) reasoning and a religous fervor.

I notice that scientists generally cite evidence, and creationists generally avoid it. Take a look at the threads here. In general, creationists like to find quotes that often turn out to be faked or edited to misled, while scientists generally point out evidence.

I had observed how the scientific community which embraced this mere theory so strongly (something which the scientific method demands a loose hold upon) that they refused to follow the scientific method and drop it and start all over again with new material, approaches, processes, and reasoning in spite of uncovered hoax after uncovered hoax and new discoveries which negated existing dating methods or processes

Show us that. I imagine one would find ten creationist hoaxes for every one advanced for evolution. Let's see if we can put a number on it. And certainly, I'd be interested in the "new discoveries" that invalidate evolution. Let's talk about it.

they subjectively, unscientifically, clung on to whatever part of the fromer they could and "adjusted" the theory; probably feeling the need for sustaining longevity of origin of belief.

It probably seems like cheating to creationists, that science will drop a theory or parts of a theory that turn out to be inconsistent with evidence. But that's how it works. Parts of Darwin's theory are no longer part of evolutionary theory, and things Darwin didn't believe are now part of the theory. I'm sure it must seem like cheating to people who must adhere to their beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

I REALIZED that as long as one's ideas are their belief and they are strongly devoted to that belief, whether it is Christianity, Humanism, Evolutionary theory, Buddism, Native Indian, the American way, and etc.

Do you believe that's true? I believe I'll go to the kitchen now, and get a drink. "Belief" is such a nice, flexible word, isn't it?

it is a waste of time to debate the validity or credibility thereof as their faith in their belief will cause them only to build a defense, even if it is a self-dillusion precipitated by subjectively examining and processing the evidence/contradiction as opposed to an objective approach of humble consideration towards Truth.

It's actually productive. In these dust-ups, the principals rarely change their stand, but a lot of onlookers pay attention, and they are often swayed by the arguments and evidence presented. It's worth doing.

I would suppose that this thing I inadvertingly discovered is just what Jesus was thinking of in Matt 10: 14-15 when He told His disciples to leave a town or village who would not receive the message as opposed to stay and debate the issues.

It's not like spreading religion. At least it's not like that on the science side. For a person willing to look at the evidence, it's just a matter of reasoning out what the evidence says.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Regarding your position on humanism exclusively being a philosophy please see: http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume28/GOT028221.html

Sorry, I'm not going to take the word of a propaganda site that is under no obligation to fairly asses a position. I'd rather read the root sources. Its like asking a liberal to tell me what a conservative is. There is going to be a bias.

--- http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm --- http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html --- http://www.dianedew.com/seculhum.htm

Do you have any sources that aren't from Christian websites? I'd accept a wiki article.

Now that I have had time to think about it, that thesis or term paper (yes, I worked on it for a whole semester) turned out to be a monster of a chore. There were three full card files of books and volumes on evolution. I can't tell you how many times I had to narrow down the focus and scope and rewrite the draft and outline; BOY!!! Not because of my position losing credibility as a result but due to the time and length limit (I don't even think a docorate disortation would allow for the required length to adequately address the issue of creationism vs. evolution) which was my original intent. I ended up with something akin to: "Because Evolution is a Religion, Creationism and Other Beliefs are Due Equal Time in School."

Well you should probably just cut to the chase then and make your case. As a college educated individual you should be aware of the concept show, don't tell.

In my original quest of ____ vs. _____ whcih was very time consuming I inadvertingly made a discovery: I had observed how many of the scientific community clung to and defended their belief in evolution with subjective (as opposed to objective) reasoning and a religous fervor.

I have a feeling you are pulling my leg here.

I'm not wowed by the whole subjective/objective nonsense because you are trying to force scientific theories to adopt philosophical view points, which is not the point of scientific theories. Theories are tools based on observed evidence. The theory of evolution is based on a mountain of evidence and has been modifed when newer evidence. Science is a subjective field based on objective observation. I went to college to dude and took classes on world religions, philosophy, and several science courses. Mostly biology. You can't fool me here. I know what subjective and objective mean in context.

I had observed how the scientific community which embraced this mere theory so strongly (something which the scientific method demands a loose hold upon) that they refused to follow the scientific method and drop it and start all over again with new material, approaches, processes, and reasoning in spite of uncovered hoax after uncovered hoax and new discoveries which negated existing dating methods or processes;

Show, don't tell. Don't tell me that all this stuff has been found. Show it to me. Stop dancing around and make your point. Unlike a public debate I can isolate what you say, and show where the fallacies are. What hoaxes are you talking about? How does this effect the legit evidence? Stop dancing, and start explaining.

they subjectively, unscientifically, clung on to whatever part of the fromer they could and "adjusted" the theory; probably feeling the need for sustaining longevity of origin of belief.

Examples would be nice. Maybe give some names. Maybe, explain how evolution is a religion. So far you have yet to provide a single citation.

I REALIZED that as long as one's ideas are their belief and they are strongly devoted to that belief, whether it is Christianity, Humanism, Evolutionary theory, Buddism, Native Indian, the American way, and etc. it is a waste of time to debate the validity or credibility thereof as their faith in their belief will cause them only to build a defense, even if it is a self-dillusion precipitated by subjectively examining and processing the evidence/contradiction as opposed to an objective approach of humble consideration towards Truth.

Still waiting for your to actually back up any of what you are saying.

I would suppose that this thing I inadvertingly discovered is just what Jesus was thinking of in Matt 10: 14-15 when He told His disciples to leave a town or village who would not receive the message as opposed to stay and debate the issues.

I guess you can rationalize your lack of actual effort to back up anything you said with evidence by blaming everyone else.


The question is simple.

What makes the theory of Evolution a religion?

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

Debate and argue with yourself. It will go nowhere on this subject no matter what as both ARE a religion and if credible they are supported by God's science. We humans are too ignorant to see the science in supernatural but I am sure it is there. Just because WE can't explain or understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a scientific explanation. Can't you see that or do you love to argue, just to argue? Your creationsim vs.evolutionism debate is something I considered when I was young and foolish, however intelligent (agpa 3.975 and I was taking 15 -20 cr hrs/sem AND working three part-time jobs), but as I said my eyes were opened to the wasteful folly.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

One last thing: My cousin, the nuclear physicist who designed the cyclatron (electron accelerator) for MSU, told me once that the more we learn, the more we realize we DON'T know and he added, the more one, if they are honest and objective, sees there IS a God.

I add to the immediate previous post, I was never "intellegent" although others thought I was/am due to relativity and I have become only "dumber" since, although I would like to think I have become wiser, although I still do foolish things; like maybe posting on this thread. I am sorry if I have offended anyone but the thread was SO similar to my thesis of years past that it lit me up and I couldn't refrain.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Debate and argue with yourself. It will go nowhere on this subject no matter what as both ARE a religion and if credible they are supported by God's science.

Can you provide a link that explains what God's science is? I'm aware of science, but not god science.

We humans are too ignorant to see the science in supernatural but I am sure it is there. Just because WE can't explain or understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a scientific explanation.

If we don't see or understand it. Then it isn't science. It's just assertions.

Can't you see that or do you love to argue, just to argue? Your creationsim vs.evolutionism debate is something I considered when I was young and foolish, however intelligent (agpa 3.975 and I was taking 15 -20 cr hrs/sem AND working three part-time jobs), but as I said my eyes were opened to the wasteful folly.

Yet you are still here posting large summations of nothing. it's nothing because your points are nothing but assertion with nothing to back it up. If it's such a waste, I would expect you to not respond to this.

 

[Milk-Drops]

One last thing: My cousin, the nuclear physicist who designed the cyclatron (electron accelerator) for MSU, told me once that the more we learn, the more we realize we DON'T know and he added, the more one, if they are honest and objective, sees there IS a God.

Ignorance does not prove or disprove the existence of a God. I also have a hard time believing your cousin is this physicist. This isn't my first day on the internet. Care to post an actual name there dude?

I add to the immediate previous post, I was never "intellegent" although others thought I was/am due to relativity and I have become only "dumber" since,

Intelligent means you are self aware and capable of rational thought. I think you meant o say omniscient.

although I would like to think I have become wiser, although I still do foolish things; like maybe posting on this thread. I am sorry if I have offended anyone but the thread was SO similar to my thesis of years past that it lit me up and I couldn't refrain.

Yet you did not support a single assertion and did nothing but repeat the same assertions I can find on event the most basic creationist site.

Your claim is that evolution is a religion, if your paper was anything like your posts here, I would have handed back to you and told you to actually address the assertions or you fail.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

At one time, really not too long ago, we thought that the earth was flat and had no idea how to make light or heat a home by flicking a switch or to fly through the sky across the world or travel and walk on the moon or..... If we imagined such, that is all it was but there existed no known science to man to explain or provide such feats. But the science EXISTED, unknown to man, but known to God as part of our understanding of God is that He is omnicsent. The Bible describes Him as the Creator AND Sustainer. He could not sustain if He didn't know the science/His design of things.

You said, "If we don't see or understand it. Then it isn't science. It's just assertions."
The Oxford American College Dictionary says science is, "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject"
I say that just because man hasn't discoverd it yet DOESN'T mean that it doesn't exist. If what you say is true then gravity never existed before that day the apple fell on Neuton's head, plants and humans had no DNA, and etc.
You are so full of just what I am pointing out. You embrace evolution with such an unscientific subjective perspective that when presented with contracdictory data instead of showing consideration you immediately proceed to labeling it as propaganda or ignorant or unbelievable and such. A true scientist is intrested in finding truth and open-minded and objective. You show clearly that you are not.

He is my cousin. And he is/was VERY intellegent. And what he said is just what I told you. We become MORE ignorant and aware of God the more we learn. For example, (my example, not his) we learn about centrifiacal force and momentum and friction and entropy and that unlike charges gavitate towards each other, but the last I knew, when all those forces affects upon a spinning elctron are contemplated noone was/is able to explain why the negatively charged electrons aren't pulled inward to an atomic collapse by the positively charged protron and why they don't spin in an ever-increasing orbit diameter around the nucleus by the centrifical force of their mass until the atom explodes/whatever and why the entropy and friction don't significantly slow the electron down to some significant impact on the atom or what in the heaven is creating a perfect balance of all of these forces upon the electron in order to sustain its orbit. Now we have/had many more complex questions created; more ignorace from less from learning..

 

[Milk-Drops]

You said, "If we don't see or understand it. Then it isn't science. It's just assertions."

Nope, you are misrepresenting what I am saying. I said that if you can't demonstrate or back up your claim. It isn't science. Science is a tool used to understand the world around us. How science works is observations are tested and observed. An assertion that doesn't come from either observation or any means of which to test for, is not science.

The Oxford American College Dictionary says science is, "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject"

Yes dictionaries are nice to help give a general idea of what something is in common language, but not great at giving detailed information. Many dictionaries define Christianity as just a system of belief centered around Jesus. However any Christian will tell you that its way more then that.

I say that just because man hasn't discoverd it yet DOESN'T mean that it doesn't exist. If what you say is true then gravity never existed before that day the apple fell on Neuton's head, plants and humans had no DNA, and etc.

I'm going to cut out a lot of the misrepresentation and break it down to the simplest argument. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean its probable. If a concept exists, but the evidence is lacking, then until the evidence is strong enough to support the claim, its just that, a claim. You can claim a god exists. That doesn't mean its science, because we'd have test and define what a God is. The god would have to have specific traits.

You are so full of just what I am pointing out.

Hardly. You have not asked me any questions to clarify why I accept the Theory of Evolution. Yet you are making projections of why I accept it. That makes you incredibly dishonest, and tells me you don't actually care about the discussion, but just establishing a predesignated sermon.

You embrace evolution with such an unscientific subjective perspective

You never asked, nor have I given my perspective. What you are doing is projection.

that when presented with contradictory data instead of showing consideration you immediately proceed to labeling it as propaganda

First, you didn't show any data against the theory of evolution. You linked me to sites from Christian ministries about Humanism. I did explain why its propaganda. I even asked you if you had anything else for the conversation. I even read the articles. Do you wish to discuss Evolution, or pretend to be a victim?

or ignorant or unbelievable and such.

I never said that, stop being dishonest.

A true scientist is interested in finding truth and open-minded and objective. You show clearly that you are not.

How would you know without actually asking me any direct questions?

He is my cousin. And he is/was VERY intellegent. And what he said is just what I told you.

So what? Unless you can demonstrate what you are saying, it doesn't matter what credentials you claim this person has. Its called put up or shut up. People who spend a lot of time saying they are important without demonstrating it, usually aren't that important.

We become MORE ignorant and aware of God the more we learn. For example, (my example, not his) we learn about centrifiacal force and momentum and friction and entropy and that unlike charges gavitate towards each other, but the last I knew, when all those forces affects upon a spinning elctron are contemplated noone was/is able to explain why the negatively charged electrons aren't pulled inward to an atomic collapse by the positively charged protron and why they don't spin in an ever-increasing orbit diameter around the nucleus by the centrifical force of their mass until the atom explodes/whatever and why the entropy and friction don't significantly slow the electron down to some significant impact on the atom or what in the heaven is creating a perfect balance of all of these forces upon the electron in order to sustain its orbit. Now we have/had many more complex questions created; more ignorace from less from learning..

Yet, none of that means there is a god. You are free to believe so. Yet this doesn't actually provide evidence of a God existing or not existing. I'm of the position of not being convinced.

The theory of Evolution is not a religion. Its a collection of observed facts used to make experiments, models, and predictions. Same as the theories of gravity, germs, relativity, etc. They are just tools used to help understand the world around us.

The theory of Evolution does not offer what religions offer, as in a way to live life. Its just observations of life. If you are actually interested in what I really think then ask. Stop boxing people into made up religions and concentrate on actually trying to reach them. You do come off as ignorant though, not because you believe in creation, but because you immediately went into classifying me based on very little information. You sound rehearsed and dishonest.

I'll say that this is one of the biggest mistakes of the modern church. It spends less time trying to understand those it wishes to convert, and more time trying to divide and create enemies.

 

[Barbarian]

At one time, really not too long ago, we thought that the earth was flat

That was a very, very long time ago. The story that people told Columbus that the world was flat, that's just a myth.

and had no idea how to make light or heat a home by flicking a switch or to fly through the sky across the world or travel and walk on the moon or..... If we imagined such, that is all it was but there existed no known science to man to explain or provide such feats. But the science EXISTED, unknown to man, but known to God as part of our understanding of God is that He is omnicsent. The Bible describes Him as the Creator AND Sustainer. He could not sustain if He didn't know the science/His design of things.

You're not being respectful of God, if you want to demote Him to a science-using designer. These are things that we do because we are not God. God is the Creator, not a mere designer.

You embrace evolution with such an unscientific subjective perspective that when presented with contracdictory data instead of showing consideration you immediately proceed to labeling it as propaganda or ignorant or unbelievable and such.

You never showed him any evidence. But I'm sure we'd be willing to look at it. What do you have?

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

Very long ago??? How many years do you believe man has been around? A couple of thousand is nothing. I said nothing about Columbus. Another attempt to assainate.

God is the Creator of science. He used it in His design. We are merely the evntual discoverers of His design/science.

God loves you very much Barbarian and Mild-Dops. And so do I. I can see your intenet so go ahead and say what you will, May the Lord bless you with Truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Very long ago???

Well before Christ was born. Maybe 400 BC, people knew it's circumference. Roman coins showed the Earth as a sphere.

How many years do you believe man has been around?

A lot longer than 3000 years, which is the minimum for which people knew the Earth was spherical. Sailors first noticed, so the Megalith Culture, which was capable of sailing beyond the sight of land, probably knew it.

God is the Creator of science. He used it in His design.

Nope. Science makes inferences about creation, because we don't know all the rules. God made the rules. He had no need of inferences or science, and He did not have to figure things out. He is the Creator.

We are merely the evntual discoverers of His design/science.

IDers say that their god could be a "space alien." Not mine. He's the God of Abraham, and He had no need of science or design. He knew it all from the start.

God loves you very much Barbarian

So He told me, and He is Truth. He also says that He created living things by using nature. Do you believe everything He tells you? You should.

 

[Sandy Zalecki]

Evolution is in no way a religion despite what any one would like to say. Evolution is a scientific fact described by various theories, not a belief system. Atheism might be considered a belief system depending on how you look at it, but beliefs are opinions and facts are facts and there's no two ways about it.

Evolution is based on scientific fact? I can give you at least two or three scientific facts that completely refute evolution. It is a theory that has somehow became fact because we don't want to believe that God created everything and that He has a well thought out plan for the world. Most scientists are humanistic and they want to believe they are in control not God.

 

[Free]

Creation and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution is a mechanism and could very well have been used as the method for creating.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Creation and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution is a mechanism and could very well have been used as the method for creating.

No way!
I'm no monkey!

 

[Milk-Drops]

Evolution is based on scientific fact?

Yes, organisms adapt and change based on the observed evidence. Or are you confusing common decent with evolution?

I can give you at least two or three scientific facts that completely refute evolution.

Such as?

It is a theory that has somehow became fact because we don't want to believe that God created everything and that He has a well thought out plan for the world.

As mentioned by Free, the thoery of evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. Also the theory of evolution is accepted due to 150 plus years of observation and study.

Most scientists are humanistic and they want to believe they are in control not God.

Actually, most scientists are Christian and I'd like to know where you got your definition of humanism.

 

[Milk-Drops]

No way!
I'm no monkey!

You are actually a great ape of the hominid line.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is based on scientific fact?

No, evolution is based on God's creation. Evolutionary theory is based on scientific fact. It's been that way since the beginning. Darwin's book is very little but a large collection of evidence.

I can give you at least two or three scientific facts that completely refute evolution.

Sounds interesting. You forgot to show us, though.

It is a theory that has somehow became fact because we don't want to believe that God created everything and that He has a well thought out plan for the world.

Seems very unlikely. Darwin, in the last sentence of his book, suggested that God created the first living things.

Most scientists are humanistic and they want to believe they are in control not God.

If you think so, you don't know many scientists. Humanism, BTW, is a Christian philosophy. You're probably thinking of "Secular Humanism", which is an oxymoron. The reason atheists had to add "secular" to the term, was that if they didn't, educated people would laugh at them.