The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof

Almeyda,I would like to agree some premises before I continue to post to you.
As such, I have made some fairly non-contentious points here that I would like your agreement on, or at least your reason for disagreement. This should form a fruitful basis for further discussion.Thanks,Mark

Bull. Evolution explains how one species can change into another, how living things adapt to the pressures they are subjected to. It has nothing to do with how life started.Evolution does explain why we are here, blind chance. There is no purpose for our being here, we are small insignificant specks in the universe made up of small particles, nothing important.Evolution most definitly does not attempt to explain morals. It may attempt to explain behaviours, but it does not try and imply a justice system based on morals.Evolution can be, and has been tested. This makes it valid science, you can then make predictions about what should be found, these predictions can be then confirmed or used to falsify the theory. If for instance a mammal in the wild was to suddenly grow a pair of functional wings, and still have all four normal limbs as well(so no bats arent evidence of this) Then that would be proof to falsify evolution. So it can be tested, these tests can be repeated, it can be falsified. It is science.Natural selection and mutation are grounded very much in fact. Watch a herd of gazelles, the good healthy runners arent caught by the cheetah, the weak slow runners are. Nature is selecting which animals survive. Mutation is observed all over the place, everyone has mutations in their DNA, its just most of them arent important, some however can be observed, leading to genetic diseases.I think the rest of the points have been already covered sufficiently (as have most of these, but it can never hurt to try and hammer them in once more)Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Hello, almeyda.

quote:

---

A religion can be defined as a worldview. And a world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement that provides an understanding of the world, God, mans understanding of the world etc.

---

This isn't bad. This is almost how I would define "religion", or at least what meant by "religion" when I started this thread.

quote:

---

Evolution is the ultimate means of perception so therefore the means of gaining knowledge is in the theory of origins, why are we here, what purpose, social and moral issues etc.

---

This is where I disagree with you. I don't know what you mean by "ultimate" means of perception". It is a theory of origins, but that is it. It is an attempt to answer the question: how did all the species of animals and plants (and fungi and bacteria and so forth) come about? We seem to see patterns, like the heirarchical classification of life - how did these patterns come about? That is what evolution does - it is an attempt to explain a certain set of observed phenomena in nature.The theory of evolution does not deal with purpose. It has nothing to say about the purpose of life, nor does it attempt explain moral issues. These are, and will remain, a question that we as humans have to answer for ourselves.

quote:

---

Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it.

---

Why is this? What do you mean by supernatural?

quote:

---

One time only historical events that seem impossible in the present fall outside the parameters of scientific methods then they cannot be observed, tested, or falsified.

---

This is false. Historical events can be "observed" in the sense that science means by observations, historical events can be falsified and tested. Take the example of George Washington, the first president of the United States. His existence can be verified. There are numerous documents that are written by him - diaries and letters. There are numerous documents written about him by contempories - letters and diaries. There are legal documents at the time related to him. And these documents all relate a consistent account of his life.It is possible that these are all forgeries. Perhaps people all wrote these documents around the year 1900 and made them look old. But there are so many of them. History books also, going right back to the time speak of Washington, and present the same consitent story. It would take an incredible well-organized, well-financed conspiracy to write these documents, plant them in the right places, and, at the same time, remove and destroy any and all evidence of the "real" history that happened at this time. I hope you will agree that this is absurd. No, the existence of George Washington is a fact, and it has been proven to be a fact beyond any and all reasonable doubt.Of course, there are periods of his life that we don't know much about, and there are events where the records are a bit sketchy and uncertain. We certainly don't know everything about Washington, but he do know, for a fact, that he existed and we know as facts most of the essential details of his life.This is how science works, and this is how it works in all fields. No one has ever seen an atom. But we know what evidence their should be if atoms are real, and this evidence is seen. There were alternate theories of how matter is constructed that doesn't involve atoms, but when evidence for these other constructions were sought, the evidence wasn't found. Due to the weight of evidence, most people are comfortable that atoms exist as a fact.And it is the same with the theory of evolution. One can state what evidence should exist if evolution were true, and when one looks one sees that evidence. One can state what evidence should exist if there was a world-wide flood in historical times, and when one looks most of the evidence is not found. Evolution has been "observed"- the evidence is there for anyone to see. The global flood has never been observed - if it happened it has never left a single trace.This is why I maintain that evolution is not a religious belief, no more that accepting that George Washington existed is a religious belief, and no more than the cold tea in my tea mug is a religious belief. They are all real events, they produce real consequences in the real world, and one cannot simply "interpret" all of the available data in a different way without looking very foolish.

quote:

---

A religion can be defined as a worldview. And a world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement that provides an understanding of the world, God, mans understanding of the world etc.

---

And the evidence that supports evolution can be repeated regardless of worldview. Unfornately for you, the evidence that falsifies creationism can also be repeated regardless of worldview. This is the problem that young earth creationists face, the existence of falsifying data. It is only the religious nature of creationism that keeps the whole movement going, not the evidence.

quote:

---

Why has modern day scientific communities ruled out creation? The truth is what many of you have already said. Science cannot observe or measure the supernatural and therefore is incapable of obtaining any knowledge about it. But by this definition science cannot render judgement on the theory of evolution either. One time only historical events that seem impossible in the present fall outside the parameters of scientific methods then they cannot be observed, tested, or falsified.

---

Let's end this nonsense now. Yes, the past can not be repeated, but the evidence it leaves behind can be. EVIDENCE, not first hand observation, is what supports evolution, forensics, astronomy, geology, and a myriad of other scientific fields. All of these field have theories that MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT FUTURE FINDS. Evolution, for instance, states that the differences in DNA for two species is in direct relationship to the span of time since they shared a common ancestor (as seen in the fossil record). Every time two species are compared with the fossil record, this prediction is tested. Guess what, the prediction is fulfilled. Evolution makes predictions about what we will find IN THE FUTURE. You have yet to tackle this part of science. Ask yourself this, what does creationism predict about the sorting of fossils seen in the geologic column? Frankly, it doesn't, and tries to give people the impression that no such sorting exists. Creationism looks to keep a religious idea going without caring if it's wrong or right while science looks to explain the natural world around us to the best of our human ability. I think we can understand which is a religion and which is not.

quote:

---

And the evidence that supports evolution can be repeated regardless of worldview.

---

Damn! I wish I said this.

Are all Clavinists unable to read? Maybe English is not almeyda's first language.

---

Reunite Gondwana!

CRASHFROG -

quote:

---

Again, nonsense. There are plenty of scientific alternatives to evolution. We just don't what they are, yet.

---

Now whos talking nonsense Crashfrog?. There is no alternative. It is either evolution or design by a creator. Evolutionists, humanists etc will not drop this theory at any cost. It is the only foundation to their theories, beliefs and religion. And again the dictionary does not specifically say JUST supernatural but a wide variety of examples such as strong beliefs, believing without proof etc. Several of the examples posted before had relevance to the theory of evolution.PAUL K -1. Yes but this has come from compromising, changing, interpreting Gods word. Moreover if you do not agree with Gods words how can you call yourself a christian?. I certainly would not be in this religion if i could not trust God with whatever he says. I am not a christian evolutionist so i am in no position to answer to this question but one thing i do know is that Gods Genesis contradicts evolution and therefore are not compatable. If the world came about naturally just when, why and how did God intervene?. So many other problems with theistic evolution that is a whole other topic. Once we cannot trust God with what ever he says one cannot trust him in anything he says. Luckily for us evolution is still a theory and creation scientist give us evidence for a literal Genesis.2. Evolution does rely on the big bang or any other origins theory at it is the only way the universe could have came into existence hence making it possible for life to evolve. If the origins theory is shaky and unreliable then this must also include the theory of evolution because without a solid foundation the rest of the theory cannot stand. What happens when the foundations are removed from a house? DOWN IT COMES!.3. Yes i do believe God has the capacity to produce the first cell. But this is not from the God of the Bible. Genesis clearly spells out how God made the world. And it does not give any indication of such an evolutionary coming of life. So once again such theories arise from reinterpretation, outside biblical influences etc.4. Evolution is not the foundation of humanism and never was???. Thats a very peculiar remark there. Humanist believe that science tells them that we are products of chance and have evolved over billions of yrs. Therefore humanistic thinking must act on that knowledge and formulate a worldview consistent with it. What other proof do humanist have for a natural world with no deity but the the "fact" of evolution?. Belief in evolution is as crucial to humanism as its athiestic and naturalistic philosophy. Without evolution humanist would have to rely on God as the only explanation for life. Which would naturally destroy there atheism and their humanism. For the humanist atheistic evolution is not just any option but the only option compatible with their worldview. The Humanist Manifesto 1 states "Humanism belives that man is a part of nature and that he emerged as the result of a continuous process. While Humanist Manifesto 2 states "Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces". Humanist rely on evolution for much more than a theory about the origins but a foundation worthy of use towards many ideas theology, philosophy, ethics, social & political ideals. In conclusion humanism belives human history is just biological evolution in a different form. The result of a purposeless and natural process.MONKEY BOY - You are the same person who has not yet found God. And are still searching. Evolution brings about a natural world with no deity needed. Just where does God fit in to this? Besides inthe imagination of people looking for purpose in life?. And for your fossil question im sure fossilization requires rapid burial in minerals. Just as the flood suggests. Creation geologists throughout the world have shown clearly that the fossil record is more consistent with the castastrophic proccesses of the flood. Than with slow processes over millions of yrs. But yes you are right i am not an expert in this field. You asked what is a natural/supernatural world. A natural world is an evolutionary worldview. Things came to being through natural processes (evolution). Supernatural is the complete opposite. God/creator created the world,universe,life etc. These are the two frameworks evolutionists and creationists build upon. Same science, same evidence, different interpretation. You asked about forms of science. Well when it comes to historical science one can make assumptions (Natural processes made all, God made all, aliens made all etc) These are the different forms. One can then build upon this assumption and check if evidence is consistent which is what evolution and creationists do. This is what i mean by forms. I do not mean practical science i am talking about historical science which is based on theories about what might or could have happened in the past.CRASHFROG -

quote:

---

For the same reason we've been telling you we rule it out - it's not true. It's false. We know that because it's contradicted by the evidence.

---

But evolution is not fact. Why? Because its based on the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientist. The evidence that disproves creation is evidence for evolution that is not fact. They both contradict each other but neither is fact. Evolution is the only one acceptable because it relates to a natural world without supernatural therefore only this can be taught. But again this does not prove evolution anymore. You asked what would make me refute creation? Well my only foundation is the Bible so you must attack my foundation as i try to disprove evolutions origins/theories.CHIROPTERA -

quote:

---

It is a theory of origins, but that is it. It is an attempt to answer the question: how did all the species of animals and plants (and fungi and bacteria and so forth) come about? We seem to see patterns, like the heirarchical classification of life - how did these patterns come about? That is what evolution does - it is an attempt to explain a certain set of observed phenomena in nature.

---

But these questions is what religion answers too!. Why are we here, theory of origins, the science of the bible 'creation' answers the other questions, is the evidence consistent with what God says etc. This is a religion. Evolution also answers these questions and gives a strong foundation to a belief/religion. This is clearly seen by athiest, humanist, ardent evolutionists. It is there belief and religion. It is the religion of origins in a natural no deity way. Once again religion is not classed as supernatural beliefs only. You talked about historical accounts. People were alive when Washington was here. He is in the history books we can be sure he existed by the evidence. He was a president for gods sake!. What i am talking about is events where no human was there and no historical record accounts. Evolution! No one was there to see it happen . It is based on theory and opinion. There is no emperical evidence the prove life evolved billions of yrs ago. There is only an assumption and presupposition to hold on to. This is their belief. This is what they believe happened. This is their religion. To be consistent with your view christians are not a religious as Jesus who was an historical figure did exist therefore we do not need to believe? But i bet you do not agree with this or maybe you do. Usually its just a bias that refuses people to believe in the religous nature of evolution.

Why is that? Design my space aliens is a possiblity with updates downloaded into the genome as needed. We just haven't seen an update yet. [qs]Evolution does rely on the big bang or any other origins theory at it is the only way the universe could have came into existence hence making it possible for life to evolve./qsNo, as has been pointed out to you this is wrong. If God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago it makes not a bit of difference at all to evolutionary theory. In fact this is what a lot of scientists believe. BS, almeyda, you have yet to give any of this evidence. You have given NOTHING! In fact, the literal Genesis has been shown to be false. It no longer matters what bits and pieces of evidence you point out you have to first handle the falsification of the creationist view. It doesn't matter if you prove biology wrong about evolution the literal Genesis is still toast. No, they have not! And you have done nothing to support your assertions on this. NOTHING! Stop making unsupported assertions. Back up what you say.You may start by explaining the sorting of the fossil record in ths thread:
Fossil sorting for simpleAt this point an honest debator would show ehre the interpretations are wrong. You always fail to do that.You aren't getting any better at this. You still think that assertions count. It just doesn't work that way. Back up what you say with reasoned steps of logic and facts.

There's plenty of alternatives. Moreover, evolution and design by a creator could be the same position. Evolution isn't atheist. Evolution works whether or not it's started by a miracle or by a lottery. Nothing in evolution says you have to stop believing in a creating God. Not everybody's like you, Almeyda. Why is it that you refuse to take our word for how we believe something? Why is it that you insist on telling lies about what we believe? But it is a fact. Why? Because the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That theory is supported by evidence from vastly different fields, some of that evidence unearthed by creationists.How can it all be based on interpretations if it's based partly on the work of creationists? Ok, that's a start. What would falsify the Bible? What would it take for you to stop believing in the Bible? What evidence would I have to show you? Be honest, please.

quote:

---

Ok, that's a start. What would falsify the Bible? What would it take for you to stop believing in the Bible? What evidence would I have to show you? Be honest, please.

---

Evolution becoming fact! would no doubt disprove the Bible. But evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale in the imagination of evolutionary scientist. I would like the missing link found, i would like to see the geologic stratums full of intermediate links (no bogus puntuated equilibrium theories), i would like to know how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules including amino acids & the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating system, proof of the age of the earth, reliable dating methods (not each layer equals 1millions yrs), radiometric dating is just not accurate, i do not want theories that continue to change and prove that there will never be truth, how did nothing become everything?These are just the ones in my mind atm that i can think of. I used to be a evolutionist for many yrs until i realised what a dead end it really is. Lucky for me im saved through God and his creation scientists showed me that his word is truth.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-19-2004 02:06 AM

I don't understand how. How does proving this statement:"The diversity of life on Earth is best explained by changes in allele frequencies due to natural selection and random mutation"disprove the Bible? I don't get it. How can a theory get more right if not by changing? If you're wrong, how do you get right except by changing? Why do you hate change so much that you're willing to believe something false just as long as it doesn't change? What's your problem with change? If you believe that evolution is the opposite of all that, you never were an evolutionist.If you had really known what evolution was you would have known it's totally consistent with Christianity and belief in God.

NosyNed you hit me with very hard to answer questions there but the point of the thread was the religous nature of evolution and i want to know your opinion of this as i made the religous nature of evolution very clear. In my mind at least. Because i resigned from a previous thread as this issue had not yet been settled and this thread i hoped we could resolve before we continued to discuss.

It disproves the Bible because it does not need God at all in the creation process. I dont care what theistic evolutionists believe it is my belief that evolution contradicts what God says and did. Therefore if evolution was fact i would no longer need Gods word as it is not relevant. Moreover God does not even exist!. He is not needed and i dont need some imaginary Higher being telling me what to do when to do it.But dont you see that creation is more right because it doesnt change!. Creation magazine and AiG shows all the wonderful discoveries as time changes on but it is always consistent with what God says. Its confirming Gods word in a great way. More over again it shows us the terrible flaws in the theory of evolution. Its not the change i hate, well it might be but the fact that evolution will always change and you will never have truth just the opinion of the current living evolutionary scientist. Nothing more. If i can trust God with what he says then i can trust someone whos worthy. Because his word changes not and the award for obedience is eternal life.I was an evolutionists. I was not an ardent one but i believed there was no God, evolution was true. Everything about religion was utterly stupid. But when i discovered that i could trust the Bible to give me a reliable account of what really happened in the beginning. When i saw that real science could be used to prove the Bible. Exactly how evolution does but without anything to base on just there own ideas. This is when i made my decision.No it is not consistent because it is not what God said. At least not what the God of the Bible said. Im not an evolutionary christian and will never be. I will only be a literal christian or a literal evolutionist (a literal evolutionist says no deity,just natural processes).

The thread is starting to get off topic. Some of that wouldn't be appropriate here.However, the request for evidence does demonstrate the difference between a science and a religion. In a science you don't get away with making assertions without support.You claim to have been an "evolutionist". You've supplied quite enough information in your posts to demonstrate that you've never understood a bit about it. And now you demonstrate that you don't even understand how the scientific process might be used to arrive at the answer to a question.You have sciences and religions so totally muddled in your mind that you see knowledge as dangerous to faith. This is one of the deep dangers that the more sophisticated faithful see in the simple minded world view of the creationists.The reason for the very existance of this forum is because of the dark danger to reason, clear thinking and a willingness to learn that creationism is.You've argued that "evolution" is a religion. I'd argue that creationism isn't. At least it certainly isn't on the plane that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddaism and Hinduism and others are. It is the simple minded worship of the thunder god that a primitive tribesman might have held too. It is the dancer in the dust trying to make rain. You are not religious in the deep, purely spiritual sense that a true, sophisticated Christian is. You hide from the truth. The light of knowledge is more than your flimsy excuse for a deep faith can stand. It turns to dust like the villian in a bad hollywood movie.It is the shallow view of the universe and the Christian God that the creationists have that has destroyed the faith of many, some of them here. If there is a God you and yours have some answering to do.

Right, but it's obvious to all of us that your belief stems from an ignorance of both the Bible and evolution.If you want to base your beliefs on ignorance, I guess that's your perogative. But what's the harm in exploring some beliefs that are a little different than your own? Ask some questions and find something out, for once. What does change have to do with rightness? If it's wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it doesn't change - if you never change from wrongness, you're always going to be wrong.Change is just a red herring, here. It's a distraction from the real issue, which is what's true and what is not. No. Those magazines and organizations only show you what's consistent with their interpretation of the Bible. Anything that's not, they don't tell you about.That's not very honest, don't you think? It's amazing to me to hear you say how much you want one or the other of these alternatives, but when we show you a way to have both, you reject it. What's your problem with that, exactly? If both those things are true - evolution is true, and God exists (I don't know if that's true or not, but apparently you do), why not believe both of them?There's no contradiction, except in your mind.