Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 212 (108411)
05-15-2004 3:00 PM


This is a response to a claim by almeyda. She claims that evolution has a religious nature. This question seems off-topic for that thread. Since I cannot find an older topic directly related to this question, I decided to try to open a new thread about this. (There is one about whether evolution is good science, but I think this question is different.)
I claim that evolution, itself, is not a religious belief.
Evolution is simply the following hypothesis:
All living and past species (at least those known) are descended from a single or a very small number of ancestral species. New species arise from older ones by means of natural selection acting on naturally occuring variations in the species. A corollary is that there is a source for new variations.
This is a hypothesis, not a belief. This means that although a particular person may believe it to be an accurate description of the natural world, this belief and its details are subject to modification and even abandonment due to evidence - experiments and observations in the real world.
There examples of observations and experiments confirming evolution. For one, Darwin propose this hypothesis based on the observation that agriculture and animal husbandry shows that a selection process on naturally occurring variations can give rise to a wide range of new breeds, some of can be even described as new species.
Another example is that evolution very nicely explains the heirarchical classification of species, which was fleshed out by Linnaeus long before Darwin came up with this theory.
Another example: it was already proposed, based on morphology, that whales are mammals, and even shows some affinities with certain land mammals, namely a group related to contemporary artiodactyls. It was proposed, based on the hypothesis of evolution, that whales and artiodactyls evolved from a common ancestral species, and that it might be possible to discover fossils of animals that have characteristics that are in between these two groups of mammals, and that the more whale-like fossils will be found in strata dated to be younger, and that more terrestrial fossils will be found in strata that are dated to be older.
It is also a prediction of evolution that no fossils will be found that are intermediate between, say, whales and fish (excepting the proposed lineage that goes through terrestrial, amniotes, of course).
The purpose of this thread is not to debate the scientific merits of evolution, except in regard to the main question:
Evolution is not a religious belief. It is not based on any dogmatic tenets; it is a tentative hypothesis that is to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence. It has no implications for what ethics or morality that a person should adopt beyond what an individual reads into it herself. It has no implications for a metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality and our ability know about this ultimate reality, except, perhaps, as an example of the sufficiency and insufficiency of the scientific method. It has no direct implications for the place that humanity occupies in the cosmos, nor for the relationship of humans with each other, and the relationship of humans with the universe, except for what someone reads into it - I am speaking here of spiritual place and relationships. It certainly says nothing about an afterlife, or a purpose of life.
These last items are what I feel to be features of the concerns of "religion". Evolution has none of these features. It is true that it can be used by a particular individual as a part of her overall religious belief, but this involves an arbitrary interpretation of the facts of evolution (assuming there are any) beyond the legitimate purview of the scientific hypothesis.
In responding to this topic, it would be interesting to read what others think "religion" is, and how evolution fits into it. My own defintition of religion is somewhat idiosyncratic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 05-15-2004 3:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 4 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-15-2004 10:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 67 by DarkStar, posted 05-23-2004 10:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 212 (108412)
05-15-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
05-15-2004 3:00 PM


Good topic opener
This is a good topic opener. There other thread on this is:
Evolution: Science or Religion?
I don't think it hurts to pick that up in a new thread but I'd like to direct people to the previous discussion so we don't have to go over all the same ground.
This would be strenthened if you would at least supply some suggested general definitions of "religion" as well as ask others for theirs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2004 3:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 212 (108413)
05-15-2004 3:09 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6219 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 4 of 212 (108478)
05-15-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
05-15-2004 3:00 PM


Great post. It pretty neatly summarizes my position on this matter.
Evolution as a theory holds none of the basic properties of religion.
- It does claim to know anything about what morals/ethics we need to follow, or how to live our lives in general.
- It does not claim to know anything about the 'meaning' of anything.
- It does not claim any forms of Gods are involved, nor does it say they necessarily aren't.
- It doesn't require faith in anything, only (to some varying extent) trust in the scientific method, and the people who do science.
People who believe in evolution, however might very well incorperate it in a religious view of the world... As may people who believe in quantum mechanics for that matter.
This message has been edited by Kent, 05-15-2004 09:04 PM

"tellement loin de ce monde..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2004 3:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 05-15-2004 11:37 PM Maxwell's Demon has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 212 (108504)
05-15-2004 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Maxwell's Demon
05-15-2004 10:03 PM


Stunned by banality
This is one of the most absurd claims creos ever make. By definition, religion involves a belief in a god or gods. What god or gods is associated with evolution? Science and religion are opposites. The one one takes on evidence, the other on faith.
One must be of a shockingly low intellect to confuse science with religion. The fact that so many grown people do confuse them is evidence that our school systems are failing our kids and have been for quite some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-15-2004 10:03 PM Maxwell's Demon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2004 11:57 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 7 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 12:10 AM berberry has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 212 (108512)
05-15-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
05-15-2004 11:37 PM


One must be of a shockingly low intellect to confuse science with religion.
Hey, I for one love when they make arguments you can refute with just a dictionary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 05-15-2004 11:37 PM berberry has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6219 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 7 of 212 (108515)
05-16-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
05-15-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Stunned by banality
Not that I want to throw a wrench in your machinery or anything, but I do believe that a belief in gods doesn't necessarily follow from religion.
You may correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I do believe Buddhism is considered a religion, but says nothing of a god or gods.
It does say a lot about morals... how you should live your life, and about the 'meaning' of things though.
Of course Buddhism is also more than just religion, but that's a whole other matter...
It might seem like a small detail, but if we're going to discuss wether or not evolution should be considered religious, then it has some impact (if only upon the type of argument which is made).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 05-15-2004 11:37 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 12:32 AM Maxwell's Demon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 212 (108522)
05-16-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Maxwell's Demon
05-16-2004 12:10 AM


You may correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I do believe Buddhism is considered a religion, but says nothing of a god or gods.
I think you could make the case that the bodhisattvas have divine nature or are god-like. Godish? Certainly the iconography seems to deify them.
Of course Buddhism is also more than just religion
Why, just cuz it's associated with kickin' butts? Hell, the Irish Catholics have a martial art - it's called "gettin' wicked pissed and kicking your fookin' arse with a shillelagh."
The point is that religion necessarily involves details about the supernatural, and scientific theories necessarily involve ignoring the supernatural. It's hard to see where any of that converges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 12:10 AM Maxwell's Demon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 12:47 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 81 by Peter, posted 05-25-2004 5:19 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6219 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 9 of 212 (108525)
05-16-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
05-16-2004 12:32 AM


Quite true, there seems to be supernatural elements to all religion (I can think of), and the point is a good one if you want to challenge the statement that Evolution should in some way be considered religious.
What I tried to do with my post about Buddhism however, was to point out that while not all religion seems to have a god or gods, all religion (as far as I know) seem to have a set (or several sets ) of rules/morals, which need to be followed.
But... from the fact that species evolved we can derive no such rules or morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 12:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 212 (108528)
05-16-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
05-15-2004 3:00 PM


CHIROPTERA - This hypothesis you speak of is their belief system. This is what they believe and it requires faith. This classifies as religion because it is a belief system that requires faith. A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals. It can be anything thats a belief system. Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists. This is what they believe. Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?.
KENT - It requires alot of faith actually. As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance. And like i said religion isnt restricted to just things about God and morals.
BERBERRY - Your confused, Religion does not by definition involve worshipping a God. Yes there is no God associated with evolution that does not mean it is not a religion. Creation is the science of a religion. Evolution is the science of another religion which excludes all supernaturalism.
I am not saying Evolution is not science but a religion. Im saying that it is the science of a religion. A belief system. They have a presupposition and framework. So they build upon that with the evidence they find for evolution. Likewise creationists base there evidnce upon another religion which derives from the Bible therefore the evidence must be built upon that. Its not very difficult to understand this dilemna. It doesnt undermine evolution at all. Since evolutionists do not accept creation evidence (Not because its not evidence they found the same evidence remember just interpreted differently) but because it does not fit there ideology. There belief system. There presupposition. There religion. Its your willingness to refuse to accept it is a belief and a religion. It does not matter how much evidence there is it is still a belief because they werent there when it happened and the past cannot be repeated just the present observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2004 3:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 05-16-2004 1:14 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by jar, posted 05-16-2004 1:15 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 1:18 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 14 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 1:29 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 19 by Morte, posted 05-16-2004 2:03 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2004 7:34 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 24 by Gilgamesh, posted 05-17-2004 6:35 AM almeyda has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 11 of 212 (108534)
05-16-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


almeyda
This hypothesis you speak of is their belief system. This is what they believe and it requires faith.
No,it does not. It does require thinking on your part to establish what you propose is occuring.The hypothesis does not reqire you to believe in it,however,it does require that you actively pursue evidence to show that your hypothesis has merit.If no evidence can be found to back it up then it can be considered as invalid.If you can let go of it when no evidence is forth coming then how can we say it requires faith? Faith is the maintenance of a position regardless of the lack of evidence.

"For the mind of man is far from the nature of clear and equal glass,wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence;nay,it is rather like an enchanted glass,full of superstition and imposture.if it be not delivered and reduced." Sir Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 212 (108537)
05-16-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


almeyda
You keep saying
This is what they believe and it requires faith.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it still is not true. Simply, not true.
Science is not built on FAITH. It is built on observation.
If you get nothing else out of your sojourn here, let it be that SCIENCE does not require FAITH.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 212 (108538)
05-16-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


This is what they believe and it requires faith.
No, it doesn't. Evolution, like all science, isn't believed because of faith. It's believed because of evidence.
The proof of this is that all scientists stand ready to abandon evolution in the face of observation that proves it wrong. In fact if you ask the scientists they'll even tell you what observations you would have to make to disprove evolution.
I'm not aware of a single Christian that can tell me what it would take for them to stop believing in Christ. That's the difference between science and religion.
Evolution is the science of another religion which excludes all supernaturalism.
There can be no such thing as a "religion that excludes all supernaturalism", because religions, by definition, require supernaturalism.
Anyway, it doesn't presuppose anything. All science does is tell you about the natural world. It doesn't tell you anything about the supernatural world, just like the manual to my VCR doesn't tell me anything about the weather in Sweden.
But that doesn't mean the people who built my VCR think that Sweden doesn't exist. Likewise just because science doesn't say anything about the supernatural doesn't mean that science doesn't think the supernatural exists. You're confusing silence with refutation.
Science isn't a part of the supernatural debate. That's why it can't ever be religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by coffee_addict, posted 05-16-2004 1:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6219 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 14 of 212 (108541)
05-16-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


Almeyda:
I can assure you, it requires no faith from my part.
I trust in the scientific method because I have seen very strong, impressive results come from it. I most certainly would not sit here typing on a computer if it was not for the scientific method.
This is trust, not faith.
The theory that we all evolved from a common ancestor, is in itself scientific, because it is potentially falsifiable, and lends itself to testing.
Again, no faith required, only trust in the scientific method.
The evidence for this theory is ample, and again, I require no faith to accept this as evidence, only trust in science.
So what I have now is a scientific theory, with lots of evidence to support it, and none that falsifies it, and no need for faith.
I'm sorry, but nothing about the theory of evolution requires faith, any more than the current theory of gravity does. Is gravity a religion as well? When I drop a cup, am I exercising my faith in gravity when I yell out in anger because I know the cup will be shattered... before the cup has struck the floor?
Also I'd like to adress a certain part of your post more specifically:
almeyda writes:
It requires alot of faith actually. As nothing becoming everything is very hard to explain and although against all odds they say it did happen and this involves faith and chance.
Nothing becoming something is not for evolution to explain. Evolution explains that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor in the past. This by no means makes any claims of nothing becoming something.
The closest I can come to this "Nothing Becoming Something" you speak of is the Big Bang, and the Big Bang has no connection to the theory of evolution whatsoever.
So again, no faith required for evolution. We could of course discuss the possibility that believing in the Big Bang is a religion, but that's a whole other topic alltogether...
This message has been edited by Kent, 05-16-2004 12:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by almeyda, posted 05-16-2004 12:56 AM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 212 (108542)
05-16-2004 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
05-16-2004 1:18 AM


Guys, do you think it's worth it to continue to repeat over and over for almeyda? He's never going to comprehend the difference between empirical evidence and faith. To him, both are the same. We continue to see the same crap from him without any support whatsoever thread to thread. Just do what I do and ignore him.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2004 1:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-16-2004 1:38 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024