The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof

Hey, I for one love when they make arguments you can refute with just a dictionary.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Nonsense. Not everybody's like you, Almeyda. Not everybody takes a position of rabid dogmatic acceptance, like you do.I've given you examples of what would falsify evolution in other threads. If anyone could provide examples of those things we'd have to abandon the theory, and we would. Who cares? The humanists will find another theory, I'm sure. They'll get over it. In the meantime us scientists will do science, and that means rejecting positions that have been falsified by observations. Again, nonsense. There are plenty of scientific alternatives to evolution. We just don't what they are, yet.What you get all sore about is that the rules are about rejecting unscientific alternatives, of which creationism is one. Sorry, chief. If you're going to do science you gotta play by the rules. If you refuse to make creationism scientific, then it's never going to be science. Like I said, not everybody is like you, Almeyda. The rest of us are scientifically honest. Says you. The people who write dictionaries, who would be presumed to know what words mean, say otherwise.Sorry but I'm going with them on this one. Religions are inherently referential to the supernatural. Otherwise "religion" can mean anything, and I'm not about to let you redefine words as you see fit.

No, it can't.Certainly a religion can inform a worldview, or provide one. But it's possible to have a worldview that has no relationship to any religion.Science is such a worldview. The method it provides for examining the world is the scientific methodology, which is not religious in nature. 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. Right, that's because that's what they are, as we've shown. It's you who keeps repeating the contrary without support. You're confused again - it's you who's doing that. You can't seem to distinguish between the way you believe something and the way we believe something.You believe stuff because it's what you want to believe. We believe in the things the evidence supports. I honestly can't believe you don't understand that, so I don't see why you keep lying about us.As evolutionists, we only have belief in the model as far as the evidence shows. If the evidence showed evolution to be false, we'd abandon it in a heartbeat. We'll even tell you what it would take to prove that.On the other hand, you refuse to tell us what would cause you to believe creationism is false. I can only believe it's because nothing would. That's why we're honest science-minded folks, and you're a liar who keeps saying we believe the same way you do. Right. We refuse to accept that which is not true.Evolution is a fact. It's also a theory. At such time as the evidence proves otherwise, we'll change our minds.What evidence would disprove creationism for you, Almeyda?

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.

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.

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.

Ludicrous. Science can only study what is apparent to our senses, though instruments (the natural world). By definition, the supernatural can't affect the natural world - or else it would, by definition, be a part of the natural world and not the supernatural.Therefore we know, by definition, that the supernatural is not only not apparent to science, but can't ever effect anything we can observe. That means it's not only outside of the purview of science, but of human experience altogether.If science could address something purported to be supernatural, the fact that science could address it would, by definition, make it natural.

Right. Of course, the truth is, there's no evidence of the flood because the flood didnt happen. Does that make God a liar, or what?Anyway, even if the flood happened the way it says in the Bible - just because anything happens the way it says in the Bible - still isnt proof that anything supernatural - including God - exists. Checked and discarded - by creationists, btw, in the 1800's.

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.

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

Says you, but the existence of Christians who accept evolution - the majority of Christians, as I recall - would seem to prove you wrong.They're still basing their morality on what they believe God wants, after all. Clearly evolution doesn't conflict with that.

Using galvanic skin resistance sensors to awaken the psychic potential left in all of us by an ancient race of alien spirit beings?Yeah, that sounds pretty fuckin' supernatural to me.

Just as a hypothetical excercise to explore an idea...Alien 1 has phenomenal psychic powers that enable him to move objects with his mind.Alien 2 has phenomenal technology that allows him to interface mentally with an indetectable magnetic field projector and basically, move objects with his mind.Short of an autopsy is there any way to tell the difference?By the strictest definition, any power that you can take advantage of and interact with can't be supernatural - the supernatural can't affect the natural or it ceases to be supernatural. So neither alien has supernatural powers.By a loose definition, any power you can use that defies understanding is supernatural. So both the biological power and the technological power are supernatural.I bring this up simply to point out that trying to pin down what fictional abilities constitute supernatural and what do not is rather tricky. To me, aliens with advanced, incomprehnsible powers are supernatural, because they're trans-mundane.