[_ Old Earth _] Why Evolution Cannot Be A Religion

[Evointrinsic]

Brian this one's for you ;)


Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
1: Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
2: Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
3: Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
4: Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
5: Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
6: Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
7: Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

(claim)Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).


(the original version to these arguments can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html)





References:
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 1982. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Ruse, Michael. 2000. Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. National Post, 13 May 2000. http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_2_2.htm
Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

[GojuBrian]

Evolution can be someones god.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds a little, um, unlikely. I guess a lamp post could be someone's God, but still...

 

[Evointrinsic]

Evolution can be someones god.

It's a very provocative and (can be taking as) offensive claim you seem to be spreading around. Yet i havent heard why you believe this, you just keep re-stating "evolution can be someones god" and even "Most atheists, or at least all of them who believe in evolution, considers it a god and is their religion".

So could you please explain to me/us why this is true and you evidence behind it?

as The Barbarian stated, Anything could technically be a god to someone. But because of that reason, that anything could be considered a god by someone, it is extremely unlikely that even a small group of people believe that, that it makes the statement virtually irrelevant. Especially if your unable to prove and decent number of people do. (as you also claim that all atheists who believe in evolution believe it's their god, that is nearly one billion people)

 

[Guest]

It would be difficult for evolution, in and of itself, to be a religion. Without clear and concise definitions of both religion and evolution, the former being the more difficult to define, this would be hard to tell. However, there are "myths" which surround the theory of evolution. I do not mean myths as in things which are not true, but rather the beliefs which build up around ideas and taken as part of the idea. These myths can often take on qualities often associated primarily with religion, and are often adhered to for reasons other than evidence and reason. So, in this sense, 'evolution' could be understood as a religion.

Thus, it is my contention, that claiming evolution is a religion or evolution is not a religion both lack the descriptive power to explain the complexity of reality. Or, in other words, evolution is both a religion and not a religion.

 

[Evointrinsic]

It would be difficult for evolution, in and of itself, to be a religion. Without clear and concise definitions of both religion and evolution, the former being the more difficult to define, this would be hard to tell. However, there are "myths" which surround the theory of evolution. I do not mean myths as in things which are not true, but rather the beliefs which build up around ideas and taken as part of the idea. These myths can often take on qualities often associated primarily with religion, and are often adhered to for reasons other than evidence and reason. So, in this sense, 'evolution' could be understood as a religion.

Thus, it is my contention, that claiming evolution is a religion or evolution is not a religion both lack the descriptive power to explain the complexity of reality. Or, in other words, evolution is both a religion and not a religion.

I assume you mean when Evolutionary Biologists give their thoughts on why something came to mutate in the way it did? That's what you mean by "Myths" correct?

If so, then that is the basis on how science works. The evidence is there, the scientists attempt to explain it the best they can with the evidence they have. The most likely theory to the reason would then be most widely accepted as what most likely had happened. in which case it is still not taking as part of the idea (to be factual), perhaps mistakenly so by the people who do not know about the information at hand or misinterpreted.

If you are still saying that to be correct, then all of science would be consider a religion, yet not (which is a paradox if you havent realized it yet). Gravity is the theory trying to explain why objects fall. It is generally taken as fact by the majority of the world because they do not understand that the theory of gravity is just the theory. It is obvious that gravity happens and it is perfectly evident that gravity exists, just that the theory that explains it has a few clashes in it. is gravity considered part religion? no...

There is no "almost religion" or "nearly religious" there is only religious and non religious when it comes to this example. Simply because it is (mistakenly) viewed as having parts that seem to be similar to that of a religious belief doesn't make it part religion. If the part that seemed to be similar to a religious belief were to be true it still would not make it part religious.

A sticky note is not a book. it is paper yes, but it is not a definition of a book. (poor example, i know)

 

[Guest]

I assume you mean when Evolutionary Biologists give their thoughts on why something came to mutate in the way it did? That's what you mean by "Myths" correct?

Nope. By myth, I mean "a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal" (Source: Answers.com). An example would be the theory of evolution as truth.

There is no "almost religion" or "nearly religious" there is only religious and non religious when it comes to this example. Simply because it is (mistakenly) viewed as having parts that seem to be similar to that of a religious belief doesn't make it part religion. If the part that seemed to be similar to a religious belief were to be true it still would not make it part religious.

Can a definition of religion necessarily be deduced to a list of discrete attributes? I would argue it cannot. Religion, as a concept, is extremely vague. Therefore, I would suggest the "either/or" application to be creating a false dichotomy. Ideas, though we would like to think they are discrete and well segregated, are rarely that simple.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

I could state the other quotation but I believe it goes against forum rules.

Gravity is a fact, I believe we all agree to that. The theory of gravity is still a way to show how the fact of gravity works.

Evolution is a fact. For some reason we do not agree to this... The theory of evolution is simply an attempt to show how the fact of evolution works.

I can give you multiple reasons why evolution is a fact yet the theory of evolution is still a theory. I can show you how All but around 300 scientists agree that evolution is a fact and how they came to that conclusion.

 

[Guest]

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact.

Even creationists consider evolution to be a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation. You are confusing the "fact of evolution" and the "theory of evolution." Gould makes this distinction clear.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

And, oddly, you make this distinction as well.

Evolution is a fact. For some reason we do not agree to this... The theory of evolution is simply an attempt to show how the fact of evolution works.

Therefore, to tie this back in, the belief that "the theory of evolution is a fact" is a myth.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I agree with Gould that evolution is a fact and the theory is describing it... as i thought i clearly showed. I think you got a false interpretation when i said "prevailing view". but yes, i agree with Gould.

And yes, i would consider the statement "Theory of Evolution is absolute truth" is false. but that doesnt make it any more of a religion. just a incorrect statement. This can be said for anything. Saying "a light bulb produces darkness" is a myth as well.

One definition of myth is

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Another is

an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

the myth in which you are talking about is not the same as it is within some religions.

Just like evolution can be defined in biology as change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. and in a general noun as any process of formation or growth.

 

[Guest]

I agree with Gould that evolution is a fact and the theory is describing it... as i thought i clearly showed. I think you got a false interpretation when i said "prevailing view". but yes, i agree with Gould.

Perhaps I did misread your comment, though for different reasons. My apologies.

the myth in which you are talking about is not the same as it is within some religions.

Yes, we agree, and I was not equating the two. However, religions are often built upon myths.

Thus, bring it back to point, what is religion? This is the central core issue here. Can we provide a definition of religion which will be accepted by the majority, if not all? Or, must religion remain as a vague notion, thereby affording the opportunity for evolution to be seen as both a religion and not a religion?

 

[Evointrinsic]

good point. I have a quote somewhere about Theologists attempting to define religion as best as could be without ignoring (nearly) any religions in the discription. i can look for that.

but then, if we cant clearly define religion, how can we say something is part religion? If anything it has a similar aspect.

 

[Guest]

but then, if we cant clearly define religion, how can we say something is part religion? If anything it has a similar aspect.

Or, say it is not?

 

[Evointrinsic]

I understand what you are trying to get at minnesota, but we can clearly define the theory of evolution as scientific. The fact that some people claim the theory of evolution to be the correct and infallible theory is what science is all about. Debating between evidences and facts to find out what explains what. Because Darwinian Evolution is most widely accepted, some people think it is the only one and the founder of Evolution because they are misinformed. And some truly believe it is the correct way to explain evolution, there for it is up to them to give the facts to prove that. And because the biologists who believe Darwinian evolution to be fact and are required to prove it to be confirmed it cannot be myth since myth derives from no facts.

 

[Guest]

And because the biologists who believe Darwinian evolution to be fact and are required to prove it to be confirmed it cannot be myth since myth derives from no facts.

The definition of myth as "a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal" does not preclude myths from being derived from facts. In fact, they are often built around facts. Perhaps, one of the best examples of a myth built around evolution and the theory of evolution was social Darwinism.

 

[Evointrinsic]

The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name. Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal. Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

You are correct, however now your saying that Social Darwinism is a myth, not the theory of evolution. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with that.

And sorry i meant has no facts, not derives from. my mistake.

 

[Guest]

You are correct, however now your saying that Social Darwinism is a myth, not the theory of evolution. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with that.

Social Darwinism is an example of a myth which was built around evolution and the theory of evolution. That is my point.

And sorry i meant has no facts, not derives from.

You still seem to misunderstand how myth is being employed. Myth does not mean "something which is not true." Myth means "a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal." This latter definition does not make judgments on the truth of the "popular belief or story." So, when I call social Darwinism a myth, I am not claiming it is false.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I see, but why is that relevant then, i dont understand how social darwinism has anything to do with showing how the theory of evolution is a myth or not.

 

[Guest]

I see, but why is that relevant then, i dont understand how social darwinism has anything to do with showing how the theory of evolution is a myth or not.

I don't understand how it does either. Who was the one making such a point?

 

[Guest]

The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name. Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal. Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

Geez. Now, I understand why you're misreading my posts now about social Darwinism. You're not thinking for yourself. Plagiarism is unethical. This marks the second time you have been nailed for it.