Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 212 (108690)
05-16-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by almeyda
05-16-2004 12:56 AM


Hello, almeyda.
I was hoping to get a response from someone such as yourself. I think you won't be surprised that I don't agree with your points. I have written my reasons in my original post why I don't believe that evolution is a religion. You really haven't commented on anything that I said. However, I do have some comments on some of your statements.
quote:
A religion does not have to be something related to God or morals.
But then what is a religion? I guess you answer it here:
quote:
It can be anything thats a belief system.
What do you mean by "belief system"? I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Is that a belief system? Does that make it a religion? If so, then what isn't a religion? If every belief is a religion, then why have the word? If it means the same as "belief" then is seems superfulous. I don't believe this is what you mean to say.
quote:
Yes this includes having a presupposition that no supernaturalism exists.
Science is the study of the natural world through the verification of hypotheses by comparing predictions of the hypotheses with observations made in the real world. Is it possible to study the supernatural with this method? What do you mean by the supernatural? I have some more question in this regard, but I need you to clarify before I ask them.
quote:
Since they cannot prove God does not exist how can they proclaim to be fact and not faith?
Who proclaims that God does not exist as a fact? It is true that I don't believe in God, and in fact it is true that I believe that it is a fact that God does not exist. But where have I ever claimed this is more than a belief on my part? Who proclaims as a fact that God does not exist? More to the point, who offers evolution as evidence that God does not exist?
Also, where does it say in the theory of evolution that there is no God? You are aware, aren't you, that there are many people who believe in God and accept the theory of evolution as a correct description of the real world?
quote:
There [sic] presupposition.
My presupposition? I used to be a fundamentalist Christian and a creationist. My presupposition was toward creationism. But the logic of evolution and the evidence managed to work itself through my prejudiced mind to convinve me that creationism is factually wrong.

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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 212 (108885)
05-17-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by almeyda
05-17-2004 8:26 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by almeyda, posted 05-17-2004 8:26 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 212 (108901)
05-17-2004 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Loudmouth
05-17-2004 7:07 PM


quote:
And the evidence that supports evolution can be repeated regardless of worldview.
Damn! I wish I said this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Loudmouth, posted 05-17-2004 7:07 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 212 (109300)
05-19-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by almeyda
05-19-2004 12:02 AM


Hello, almeyda.
You have generated a lot of responses, so I will only answer you comments to me.
quote:
But these questions is what religion answers too!
I disagree. Religion only answers questions about the purpose of existence and morality. It may incorporate certain beliefs about origins into its cosmology in order to justify the answers to these quesions, but this belief in origins must be added a priori. Of course, that is based on my definition of religion, which, as I admitted, is idiosyncratic. But you have to be careful how you define religion. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, if you make the definition religion too broad, then everything is a religion, and the word becomes useless.
-
quote:
People were alive when Washington was here.
But those people are not alive today. We only know of those people, and Washington himself, because they left records, that is, physical evidence that they existed. You have never seen, I bet, any of this evidence. If you have, I bet you never performed any sort of analysis to verify the evidence is what it claims it is. You have never tried to come up with another interpretation of that evidence. All you have is what "experts" have written in books. And you take their word for it. Yet when we say that evidence for evolution exists, you skoff. When we point out that the "alternate interpretations" of that evidence offered by creationists fall apart when other evidence is taken into account, you don't believe this.
-
quote:
But dont you see that creation is more right because it doesnt change!
I lied. I'm going to comment on a post not directed to me.
Why does this make creation right? If an idea does not change, no matter what the evidence is, no matter what discoveries are made, that seems to make it wrong to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 05-19-2004 12:02 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 212 (109894)
05-22-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by almeyda
05-22-2004 12:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 12:02 PM almeyda has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 212 (110227)
05-24-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by almeyda
05-23-2004 11:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by almeyda, posted 05-23-2004 11:31 PM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by almeyda, posted 05-25-2004 12:02 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 212 (110678)
05-26-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by almeyda
05-25-2004 12:02 AM


quote:
The truth is for evolutionists that man by himself can determine truth.
No, neither evolution nor science deals with "truth". All it attempts to do is to use available data to try to answer questions about the physical world we see, knowing full well that the answers we get might be wrong. You admit, youself, that ideas and hypotheses in evolutionary theory have changed over time, as new data have come to light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by almeyda, posted 05-25-2004 12:02 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 212 (114167)
06-10-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by DarkStar
06-10-2004 1:21 AM


Re: Hitler a Christian? Oh the lies that people will believe.
Jar is right -- there is nothing in this passage that indicates an acceptance of any kind of evolutionary theory.
Darkstar, can you quote some part of this passage and interpret it for us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by DarkStar, posted 06-10-2004 1:21 AM DarkStar 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