Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ...
Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
If you want to build bridges, then I suggest you start from a realistic position.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old
Curiously, it appears that you did not read my post with complete comprehension. An astute reader would know that I did not even imply you were a YEC, but was replying to your point:
To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" ...
Those that look to understand the universe through science, the scientific method, and objective evidence, can refer to mountains of objective evidence that shows the earth to be old. For an example of the evidence see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
To think that this kind of evidence can just be swept away because of personal belief is not just ridiculous but delusional:
'creationist' vs 'evolutionist' is a false dichotomy
Hi again bridgebuilder,
There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists ...
As others have pointed out, "evolutionist" is a term used by creationists to try to categorize non-creationists, with the implication that it is some kind of 'ism = a belief system.
In fact there are many people who are non-creationists that are also theists of various types, people who accept\trust science as providing testable concepts of reality, and who accept\trust the results of science as providing the best explanation of the evidence.
... unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen.
Yet it has already happened.
As others have pointed out, this is not true. Personally, I am a Deist, one who believes that what we see (objective evidence) and how we think it works (physical 'laws' theories, etc) is due to the universe having been created that way. Thus science is in harmony\consilience with my faith - science is how we better understand how the created universe works. You should also look at:
quote:We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests ...
Religious leaders of may faiths have signed this letter.
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. ...
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, ... In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is ... to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Dr Robert Bakker is a paleontologist who was instrumental in molding latest theories about dinosaurs being warm blooded, and he is an Ecumenical Christian minister.
... So far not one creationist has responded to my initial post. That is the audience I was seeking when I made my initial post. I disagree with the creos who think God didn't create anything until 5000-6000 yrs ago. ...
You will note that evolution does not date the age of the earth, that this information comes through geology, physics, and some other sciences. Using 'evolutionist' is thus misleading. The fact remains that creationism is in conflict with almost all branches of science in some way.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
™ Version 4.2
