The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof

quote:

---

What i said was that if the evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent then we can have real trust and faith in God.

---

This is the essential point. The evidence around the world does not fit within a literal reading of Genesis. Quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Their theories will always continue to change therefore how can they ever trust their own ideas?

---

This is the point of this thread. The theories change - because they are not held on faith, but are based on evidence. As more evidence comes in, as we know more, the theories will change because no one believes they must be believed in at all costs.

You're changing subject again. How life first began is not part of the TOE and we can return to that in a different thread.But there is no FAITH involved in any of it.Of course the theories will change as new observations are made. That is why it is NOT religious in nature. Religious explanations for what is observed are a Dead End. They do not change, even when the facts out there for all to see show they are incorrect.That is the difference between Science and Religion. And it is a major difference. Science is not concerned with WHY. It is concerned with What and How.You ask a good question... They trust ideas that explain what is observed, and that can be used to make predictions about what will be discovered. And so far, Evolution has performed very well for many, many years and from many, many different areas of exploration.You also mention... And that is a very important part. That is exactly what happens.Part of the problem is that the English language is very slippery. Often, a word can have two or more very different meanings depending on the context.Evolution is just such a word.When an astronomer speaks about evolution of a galaxy or solar system, he is speaking about something that progresses from one state to another following fairly well known and understood rules.When an engineer speaks of a design evolving he means that the design is changing from some less efficient model to some more efficient version.But Evolutution when used to describe the life we see around us is entirely different. It is simply a statement of what happened.The TOE is not a progression from less efficient to more efficient. The only real answer is, "Did the species survive".Consider the Wolly Mammoth.Long, long ago, there were elephants living over most of the world. Some were living in what today is Siberia, Canada and Northern Europe. As conditions changed, and the Ice grew, the ones that had longer hair did better in the cold. That doesn't mean that only those with long hair did well or that those with long hair didn't fall, break a leg and so starve to death. But looking at the population as a whole, the long haired ones did better, reproduced and passed the genetic traits for long hair onto thier offspring. Gradually, they changed from a population of Elephants to Wolly Mammoths.There was no plan, only chance.edited to fix spellingThis message has been edited by jar, 05-22-2004 11:53 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You seem to have a talent for cramming a lot of errors into a small post. Let's look at this in little pieces, simplest first."over billions of years"
Where did you get the idea that any one think that the origin of life took billions of years? This is simply wrong."Since they say it happened by chance"
Who is 'they'? Please offer some evidence that anyone is claiming it happened by chance. In fact, there isn't a "theory" of how life arose yet. There are now a lot of pieces of how it might have but the final synthesis of these hasn't been completed. Individual steps can happen by chance but no one suggests that a complex life form arose in one step by chance."What about the origins of evolution on how non-life became life?.
"Once more time: Evolution deals with the changes in living things. It works very well if God created the first life. It works if life arose through natural processes. It just doesn't matter. If you wish to show how ideas about abiogenesis are like a religion then start thread on that. This is about the evolution of living things. Yes and no. The ideas will be trusted to the degree that they have and continue to be supported by the evidence and to explain what we see has happened. The really important ideas will never be simply "trusted" and never reconsidered again. As an example the Gravity Probe B is in orbit now to check, yet again, Einstein's general theory of relativity (his theory of gravity).If, at any time, a new way to test an important theory is devised then the theory will be subject to that test and modified or discarded if it fails the test. That is why these theories are "the best we have right now". They will always be only the best we have. If you don't like any one of them then suggest a better one that can stand up to the tests that the current idea has passed.You managed to get this all wrong and confused. You have a talent there.However, there is something here that you haven't explicitly mentioned. It is the part that you haven't been able to articulate that is probably nagging at you and making you think the "evolution" is a religion. It is off topic here (sort of) so if you want further discussion just ask me to propose a topic and I will.[off topic]There are researchers working on the origin of life topic ([b]not/b evolution and so really not on topic in this thread.} They are working looking for natural mechanisms that would allow for life to arise from non-living matter. Why are they looking for natural mechanisms? You might suggest that this is "religious" and "having faith" that there isn't a god involved.OK, let's say, just for a moment, that there is a natural way for life to arise. What happens if we decide, in advance, that 'god did it'? Nothing happens, we never learn what really happened. No new knowledge is gained.On the other hand let's say we do keep looking for the natural mechanisms. Then we do have some chance of increasing our knowledge of the world.Now, let's say that there are no natural ways for life to arise. God did, in fact, 'do' it. If we keep trying to find a natural mechanism we may learn a lot but we will never be successful. At least we didn't give up too soon and at some point the exercise will be given less and less attention as it stops makeing any progress. Currently lots of progress is being made so there is no reason to give up yet.Can we tell which is the case yet? NO! we can not.The idea that 'god did it' has been tried a number of times in history. So far it has proven to be an un-useful explanation for the weather, disease, mental illness and the development of life on earth. It may also prove to be un-useful for the origin of life. We may never know the ultimate start to the whole universe. But we sure as heck won't if we give up too soon.The choice is:"If you think you can, you are right. If you think you can't you are also right."If we think we can never explain something then that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems there are those in the world who are not afraid of learning new things and those who are terrified of the light that reason can shine on our small peek under the covers of the universes workings. I choose the light. What do you choose, almeyda?

Almeyda, Well what exactly were you juxtaposing with "naturalism", then?You go on. No, you didn't say that at all. You said. Your comment was specifically about how science goes about it's business, & how evolution is in some way different. So, I am waiting for an example of how other scientific methodology functions without dealing exclusively with naturalism.Moreover, "if evidence around the world fits within Gods word and the biblical framework and is consistent...". But it doesn't, & it isn't. There's no if about it. I've given you the odds of certain rocks not being less than 65 million years old, & the incredible odds of cladograms matching stratigraphy as well as they do. These studies alone falsify the biblical account.Now, I have tried to agree premises with you on a few non-contentious points. Please adress the outstanding point of disagreement ,here, so we have a basis for future discussion. Thank you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

That's what we're telling you, Almeyda, but you refuse to listen.We don't trust our own ideas. That's why they're constantly checked against the evidence.It's called "tentativity" and it's a basic scientific principle. It means that we only believe things in so far as they explain evidence. The minute - the instant - that evolution stops explaining the evidence, we'll drop it like a hot potato.Maybe you're not comfortable living that way. Maybe you need to be "sure". That's an unfortunate need of yours that keeps you from understanding and participating in science.

Almeyda, You don't think atoms consist of neutron & protons combined in a nucleus surrounded by electrons?Are you aware of how many revisions atomic theory has undergone to get where we are now?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I have heard this argument, (if that is the correct term), several times and while there are any number of adherents to the TOE who may indeed have some religious beliefs, and while evolutionary thinking is nearly as old as man himself, I found only one reference to religion that could apply to the TOE.Searching the dictionary definition of religion, it was not until I reached the 4th example that any correlation could be made. The given definition is as follows; Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.By using that definition, nearly every aspect of life could be considered as being religious in nature, depending on the person involved, and the cause, principle, or activity in which they were engaged.Personally, I would have say that I am extremely religious when consuming a taco supreme. I attack it with a zeal, perhaps even extreme prejudice, devoting my full attention on it until it has been completely devoured.I have read some articles about the roots of evolutionary thoughts and ideas being linked to some ancient pagan practices but there is little evidence to support this claim. For the life of me, I can't remember the last time I ran across an acient pagan civilization preaching the tenets of evolution.However "religiously" devoted to the TOE a person may be, the common understanding of religion, or being religious, denotes a recognition of, and a devotion to, some sort of higher power, whether it be referred to as god or spirit or whatever. Anyway, that is my thinking on this matter.

Welcome to EvCForum, Dark starEnjoy your visits and please do review the forum guidelines

If you want a taco as your religion then fine by me. But its unlikely its your whole belief system on origins of life and the universe. Or that it answers the questions of how, why, when did you get here. I doubt you can build evidence of the universe upon your religion of a taco. I doubt that men have joined your faith to help with their own philosophical theories as people have done with the Bible, or as evolutionary athiestic philosophies have done to the theory of evolution. I doubt any evidence can be accepted to your taco as a subject with the credentials of a real religion/ belief system as evolution claim with science and as creationists claim with science and the Bible. You can make whatever you want as your religion but like someone said on another post, this will just reduce the word religion to nothing and meaningless.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 10:37 PM

Crashfrog what dramatic advancement has evolution made since its inception?. Ive already told you how its hindered progress with useless/left over organs and junk DNA. Now your turn.

quote:

---

If you want a taco as your religion then fine by me. But its unlikely its your whole belief system on origins of life and the universe. Or that it answers the questions of how, why, when did you get here. I doubt you can build evidence of the universe upon your religion of a taco. I doubt that men have joined your faith to help with their own philosophical theories as people have done with the Bible, or as evolutionary athiestic philosophies have done to the theory of evolution. I doubt any evidence can be accepted to your taco as a subject with the credentials of a real religion/ belief system as evolution claim with science and as creationists claim with science and the Bible. You can make whatever you want as your religion but like someone said on another post, this will just reduce the word religion to nothing and meaningless.

---

Hi Almeyda, this is the point. I missed you too. Hope to see you next time....

A) It's the unifying theory of biology, drawing together a number of separate inferences about living things into one interrelated theory.B) Evolution allows us to make accurate predictions about the capabilites of organisms to adapt to changes in their environment. In the case of medicine this allows us to predict the effectiveness of antibiotics, for example.C) We utilize the creative power of random mutation and natural selection to design jet planes and electronics so efficient, we simply can't understand how they truly work. They're way better than anything humans can design.That's just for starters. How come you didn't address tentativity? Didn't you understand it?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-23-2004 10:44 PM

Hi Almeyda,Message 64, pls. Particularly the last bit with the link to the other thread.TY,Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

almeyda,You have come close to making my point as to why the theory of evolution is not a religion.

quote:

---

You can make whatever you want as your religion but like someone said on another post, this will just reduce the word religion to nothing and meaningless.

---

I'm glad to see you say this. It is best to be careful how we define "religion" so that it doesn't become too broad. Now, in critisizing DarkStar's Faith of the Primordial Taco, you mention that it fails to answer the question of why we are here, nor does it help much with questions of ethics and morality. It would appear to me that purpose in life and questions of morality are essential ingredients of anything that is going to be called a religion, and the theory of evolution does not address these.

Your age of rocks is not accurate as much as you want it to be. All it is is a bunch of numbers calculating pretending to be able to mark an age of millions of yrs. This is not true. There is no such dating method without adding your own opinion to the fact that can add a date of millions/billions of yrs. (I dont have anything to add to your link question. I disagree because i believe historical science is very different to practical science. You however believe they are on the same wave length).