The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof

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..."

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).

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.

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: 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

Thanks for the tip. Hard to know who around here has been spouting the same stuff for ages without listening to refutations, and who hasn't...
Always worth mentioning once though I reckon.

---

"tellement loin de ce monde..."