Evolution is a Religion.

Wowsers.......I recently found this very fascinating and informative article detailing that, in truth, "Evolution is a Religion."

Link:
www.delusionresistance.org...

Excerpt:

"Evolution Is The Religion:"

"There are some of you who are probably thinking that I have gone crazy for making the statement that evolution is actually a religion. Before you judge any further, let us look at what a religion is and what one has to do to participate in a religion. Below is a definition of religion found on the Internet at the Webster's site:

I suppose we should look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

I like to read articles in the newspapers that promote evolution theory. It is the only reason that I take the paper at all. If you examine the articles you will notice that the scientists are not very sure of themselves. There are in many instances phrases like: "scientist's hope," "scientist's suppose," and "scientist's surmise," all phrases that should be big red flags for the reader. The articles are filled with other words, such as: "could," "if," "may," and "might." Think about what is being said. There is not a great deal of confidence in those words.

I think that a person who believes in such a doubtful religion is really grasping for straws. I know that as a practicing, Bible believing Christian, I have a great deal of faith. For instance, I know that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived here on Earth, died for my sin, and was resurrected. I also know, like I know the map of my own hand, that He will return again. Now, my hope is that it will be during my life time, but I know it will happen. But where evolution is built on suppositions without any evidence at all, I have a book, called the Bible, which has been proven to be ancient. That book has prophecies, many of which have been proven by their fulfillment with many more to be fulfilled in the future, and that, might I add, is more scientific than evolution...."



The whole article is well worth the read.

What is your opinion on this...thoughts and comments are certainly welcome. The article is a great find though that is simply my opinion.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-9-2003 by Seekerof]

If you use the definitions presented then yes I would certainly agree..evolution can be catagorized as religion. So wouldn't this be the case for all/anything one might put faith in? If I put all of my faith in something where there is no specific proof, then it might be considered religion as well...

But I'm sure evolutionists would frown upon this. Because that it the whole point of evolution. Evolving without belief in religious based aspects. When I personally think of evolution, I leave out God or a god completely..but that just might be me? And I might be talking out my rear..

Interesting nonetheless..

Interesting, tho flawed somewhat.

We do have certain proofs that support factors of evolution.

For starters, the fact that humans and animals share about 97% of the same DNA. Add to that Humans and Simians share even more DNA than that.

Add to that that human blood is chemically almost identical to sea water, giving a boost for the evolution of life from the oceans. Physically, it is different from sea water, in the way its arranged and set up, but chemically, they are so similar its scary.

Although most scientists tend to be flawed in many of their theories, including the big bang. The big bang is just abntheory, and could be classified as a religion. But then again, science, politics, even artistry could fall into the category of religion.

Belief differs from logic, however, when presnted with most facts. Thus, i wouldnt classify evolution or scientific study as religions.

The flaw of religion, mainly, christianity: Something cannot come from nothing, thus, there must be a god. if that were the case, who created god? Because if god is something, how can he spring from nothing? He cant exist without something or someone creating him. And gods creator, who created them?

Eternal questions of the musing mind.

However, most Christians would not. People who follow religious beliefs put faith in what they follow and believe, they do not see the flaws as someone like you or I-for instance-might. The same could be said for someone you love, a child for instance with a severe handicapp, I as the mother of a child like this would see my child as perfect-flawless-beautiful-pure, but someone passing by with unimmune eyes would see something flawed and even ugly, not perfect..

The question is: Who is right & who is wrong?

These are not evolution science:

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.
2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

Plenty of transitional species have been found in fossil form... and even produced in fruit fly experimentation.


What these people fail to examine is that evolution science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by magestica
If you use the definitions presented then yes I would certainly agree..evolution can be catagorized as religion. So wouldn't this be the case for all/anything one might put faith in? If I put all of my faith in something where there is no specific proof, then it might be considered religion as well...

But I'm sure evolutionists would frown upon this. Because that it the whole point of evolution. Evolving without belief in religious based aspects. When I personally think of evolution, I leave out God or a god completely..but that just might be me? And I might be talking out my rear..

Interesting nonetheless..

This is a good point. I would, do and have for a long time now agree that Evolution is certainly a system belief similar to religion. However, Religion also usually includes a form of Worship and Practice based upon active participation within it. Belief in Evolution requires nor has any expected duties for one to perform to be considered a member. Membership in fact doesn't exist in the Religious Membership form as I'm aware of.

This is why I don't think "Religion" is exactally the right word for it, but I do agree "Evolution" is a belief system very similar to "Religious" belief systems. In fact I would also have to say that "Science" in it's many forms make up a huge Belief System too. Atheism in fact seems to just as much of a "Belief System" as any other since none of them can prove beyond doubt to be the absolute Factual Truth. The difference is whether or not someone views "Belief" or "Faith" the same as "Religion", which I personally do not.

Urgh... where to start....

First of all, the writer has NO understanding of what evolution is!

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

And right there, in a nutshell, is revealed how little the person knows. Evolution is not about "the big bang." Big Bang is abiogenesis ("where things came from... but not where living things came from")

Evolution is "dire wolf changes over milennia to become the modern dog families."

Evolution is "tiny eohippus (dawn horse) changes through millions of years and gets bigger and stronger and eventually becomes modern horse (something that we could do by selective breeding if we had eohippi running around and a thousand years to do the selective breeding in -- just look at the differences in the wolf and the English Bulldog as an example of what we can do with breeding.)

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

Beyond laboratory studies, he means. Apparently the writer thinks that scientists believe that a bolt of lightning hit a primordial swamp and fish suddenly walked out of it.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

This is true if you stick your fingers in your ears and recite "lalalalalalaaaa I can't HEAR you! Nyaahnyaahnyaah" every time a science program or paleontology program comes on tv. Lots and lots and lots of proof.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

The writer has to put this one in because he assumes that in order for evidence to be there, we have to find every intact skelton of every creature that ever died on the planet. By this logic, we could never prove a crime was committed because we didn't have witnesses standing around to view the actions. Using the writer's rules of evidence, police couldn't deduce that a murder had been committed if they find a body on the ground and there's a bullet wound to the head and several stab wounds in the chest.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

Another two-for-oner.

Okay... everyone who believes that rain does NOT erode away bare soil no matter how long or how hard it rains... raise your hand.

Everyone who believes that earthquakes do NOT break apart bedrock... raise your hand.

Everyone who believes that hurricanes do NOT knock over trees and flood coastal areas... raise your hand.

This person is claiming that Mysterious Forces once caused the Earth's process to behave differently (and maybe earthquakes produce winged monkeys instead of shattering rocks and knocking things down.)

Now... I see no proof of Flying Monkeys rearranging the earth. I can believe that hurricanes that happened three million years ago (and there would be some) behaved just like hurricanes today and that they had the same causes back then as hurricanes today... and that they weren't created by Flying Monkeys.

I see no proof of his allegations. I do see a lack of understanding about science and various branches of it and a rather deliberate ignoring of things because it contradicts his religion.

Of course, the extremist mullahs teach that the Jews created dinosaurs to eat Muslim children. And any effort to show the mullahs that dinosaurs died long before humans evolved is met with scorn... because their religion says so.

every belief is a religion hahah
also big bang no evidence thing, how can u have evidence of the first thing that happened?

Originally posted by banjoechef
every belief is a religion hahah
also big bang no evidence thing, how can u have evidence of the first thing that happened?

Not quite. This is what I was trying to point out earlier. Religion does include Belief. But Belief doesn't always include Religion. So they are very similar but not always the same thing.

be�lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

re�li�gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A set of beliefs, values, and PRACTICES based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I think what the author was getting at, for which he failed to somewhat explain, was that in his eyes, as with many others, is that "evolution by natural selection" deals ultimately with 'origins'. Hence the postion the author took with the first 4 points.

Besides the authors lack of "knowledge" on the 'proper' definition of "evolution", I do believe his contention to be somewhat factual. Evolution may or may not be a "religion" but it certainly is a belief system.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
"evolution by natural selection" deals ultimately with 'origins'.

No it doesn't. It deals with the systemic progression (advancement or regression) of physical attributes of plant and animal species. Evolution as a science, does not dabble in origins at all. It's the creationists who attempt to discredit evolution science by inaccurately marrying it with cosmology and earth science... thus using the so-called "absurdity of the big bang" as a means to discredit evolution in the eyes of theists.

well when you put it like that how can you prove anything. there is always room for doubt and never enogh proof to make every one belive anything

As an agnostic I kindof have an outside view of everything. The way I see it is that most religions are afraid to accept a new idea, this is ofcourse one of the reasons why the 300 year long crusades occured. The way I see it is why cant they both co-exist. Is it not possible that a diety created the universe and let things go from there? Is it possible that everything is in "god's" (allah, God, Istar, Me....whatever your god is) image and so he let the natural way of life take place? I believe that both religion and Evolution can coexist, and people are just ignorant and won't allow themselves to try to believe something new

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Creepy]

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.
A: Proof? No, but supporting evidence, based on know processes, yes. Far more solid than basing your view of the universe on superstitious folk tales.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
A: Actually, in essence, amino acids and other life building blocks have been created in experiments resembling primordial Earth conditions.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
A: Convincing evidence has been found, in the form of geographic layers. Convincing? Yes, to anyone with common sense, who can see the history of ages past in such layers, just as you can tell a tree's age and life through it's rings.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
A: Hell, just go to the Galapagos islands, or look at Australia...

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
A: The only "proof" of anything is actually witnessing it for oneself. Since this all happened billions of years ago...all we can do is surmise. However, surmising, with supporting evidence, we have seen similar environmental processes all over, and even on other planets of the solar system (wind erosion, etc.) so it's pretty solid assumptions we're making. Far more solid than the idea of the universe, with all of it's empty space...being solely for one species' enjoyment, who exist on but a flyspeck of it's entirety....

Evolution as a science, does not dabble in origins at all.

Maybe I am wrong here but isn't Evolution:
"A scientific theory which explains, in detail, how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The "theory of evolutions" are so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it."

If it, ultimately, doesn't deal with "origins"? What science does "primordial soup" fall under?

Evolution may be a observable fact...I just find it a bit odd that most of the proofs for evolution turned out to be fakes or frauds. I mean, its apparent that "species" change of time, but not into "other species." Besides, adaption does not necessarily equal increasing complexity, which is the requirement for the supposed "self-replicators" to become organisms, and thus, climb the evolutionary tree. But since Evolution has become the 'bedrock' foundation of all modern life science over the past 100 years, plus or minus, its taken and taught as "ever-changing fact." It has also become fundamental to modern science dealing with the mind and to social theories. Maybe "bedrock was the wrong word...maybe a better word would be "quicksand?"


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Maybe I am wrong here but isn't Evolution:
"A scientific theory which explains, in detail, how everything in the universe came into being --

No... that is the realm of high-energy physics and cosmology, with string theory increasingly becoming a part.

Evolution doesn't presume to describe how life began, but instead, how it progressed from simple to complex.

Again, it is a common tactic of creationists to pick and choose pieces from other fields of science, call it evolution (lie), and use the hodge-podge as an absurd mix to discredit science. Kent Hovind is a particular expert with this creationist's lie.

[Edited on 29-9-2003 by William]

I was just asking William.
I will state for the record that I am not a 'creationist.'
I do believe in Intelligent Design though.
Thank you for the clarification.

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Gazrok
1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.
A: Proof? No, but supporting evidence, based on know processes, yes. Far more solid than basing your view of the universe on superstitious folk tales.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
A: Actually, in essence, amino acids and other life building blocks have been created in experiments resembling primordial Earth conditions.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
A: Convincing evidence has been found, in the form of geographic layers. Convincing? Yes, to anyone with common sense, who can see the history of ages past in such layers, just as you can tell a tree's age and life through it's rings.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
A: Hell, just go to the Galapagos islands, or look at Australia...

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
A: The only "proof" of anything is actually witnessing it for oneself. Since this all happened billions of years ago...all we can do is surmise. However, surmising, with supporting evidence, we have seen similar environmental processes all over, and even on other planets of the solar system (wind erosion, etc.) so it's pretty solid assumptions we're making. Far more solid than the idea of the universe, with all of it's empty space...being solely for one species' enjoyment, who exist on but a flyspeck of it's entirety....

Allelouya !

Thanks for the vote of confidence, hehe...

I mean, its apparent that "species" change of time, but not into "other species."

Ok, look at a small dinosaur fossil...now start tracing that up through archeopteryx, and other "dinobirds" to the modern bird. You will see the bones getting lighter, the development of the wishbone, flight muscles, etc. into a myriad of different species... It's no flight of fancy, it's observation of the fossil record....

What about all the species that have gone extinct? Was this the plan of an intelligent design process? No, it was because others adapted better to their surroundings, and hence, propogated, and flourished. Even our own ancestors faced such issues, or we'd have some cro-magnon and neanderthal friends over for dinner....