What is more faith than religion?

quote:

---

Basically, religion is belief--by their very nature (no pun intended), creationism and evolutionism offer assumptions that have ethical implications. Both may be evaluated according to scientific considerations as well. Evolutionism (macro) is not more scientific than Creationism if the type of "science" we're talking about is comparable to the math equation parallels. I see how things change over time also--those things can be considered as scientific facts, but it is outside the "Magesterium" of ACTUAL science to CONCLUDE that the classic bait and switch strategy of the nats (naturalistically assumptive, temporally speaking) is true, i.e., "Macroevolution is true. Here, let me prove it . . . see these MICROevolutionary findings" (that are, by the way, just as consistent with "creation science" as they are with "evolution science").

---

A few thoughts:Biological evolution has nothing to do with moral imperatives. You can claim ethical implications from factual discoveries till you're blue in the face, but the discoveries themselves do not compel action of any kind. I, as one who is convinced by factual evidence for evolution from a common ancestor, make no ethical judgments based on the facts; nor do most who think as I do.As concerns "macro" and "micro", these are relative terms. Nobody has demonstrated a mechanism that prevents micro+micro+micro=macro. The time is there, the transitions are there (though generally lacking fine grain, due to the extremely small sampling rate of the fossil record), and the diversity of life is there.As for evolution requiring faith, consider the following.Your ear bones are descended from a reptile's jaw. The transition is clear and gradual in the fossil record, where they shrink and migrate from old reptile species to young mammal species. 98% of your genes are shared by chimpanzees. The middle of one of your chromosome pairs still contains the remnants of end sequences where two pairs fused. Those two pairs are still present in the other apes, as is the mutation that made them and us (and our common ancestor) unable to synthesize Vitamin C. The gene for synthesis is still present in all great apes, its function destroyed in the same manner by exactly the same mutation.None of this requires faith. It is known to be true. This is the tip of the iceberg of evidence, a sampling off the top of the head of a minimally educated layman. And you call evolution a religion?

Gee, I feel like kind of an ass for not responding to this. I left poor Martin hanging 6 months ago when I'm sure I intended a reply. Since the thread is now alive again....Point #1: evolution results in the promotion of a meaningless existence.Response: This is by no means a necessary corollary to a mechanistic understanding of the natural history which precedes us. Nor does a well-ordered and fact-based naturalistic explanation of phenomena preclude supernatural belief or any other religious system in the mind of the person who creates or uses it.Point #2: 20 billion years is not enough time for the observed complexity to be produced at known rates of change.Response: We observe minor changes taking place in species during periods of weeks, months and years. Evolution on some scale is thus an observable fact. You argue that the rates are not fast enough. How fast do they need to be? It is accepted that several mutations are present in each individual born.Point #3: Reptile jaw/ear bones and transitionals.Response: I won't excessively rip off mark24, who has posted about this topic enough to make any idiot into an expert on the process and inspired my offhand mention thereof... you can find what he's posted and learn the following: there are forms in the middle with two jaw joints, and the jaw bones were always part of the hearing system. Thus, their migration is part of a specialization process by which their chewing function was phased out and their hearing function was greatly expanded.Point #4: Genetic and chemical composition erroneously equated.Response: We are talking about genes which show signs of past mutations. Thus, if the formula for H20 were complex enough to bear the signature of past change, you would have a point. But it's just H20. We have a broken gene whose loss of function can be clearly identified as a particular type of random mutation. All the other apes possess the same pseudogene. This is clear evidence that the mutation was fixed in our common ancestor at a time that species had no requirement for the function provided by that gene.Point #5: unsupported assertion merits no response.

Um.???Oh, and Almeyda... all those types are observed.