Evolution is a Religion.

Well, Satyr, we're talking about the "Theory of Evolution" in respect to religion (according to the topic) and this means the Darwininan theory.

So, no, while the other definitions are applicable (just as the definition of 'root' can be a function of mathematics or a part of a plant or a verb describing pig behavior), they are not pertinent to the discussion because Darwin's theory was not aimed at them and did not include them and couldn't possibly integrate them.

So having them tossed in and people claiming they are part of the "theory of evolution" is a bit like discussing mathematical roots and having people suddenly bring up pigs.

The following quote comes from �The Scientific Case for Common Descent� by Douglas
Theobald Ph. D.
�Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are
genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by reproductive processes
on a geological timescale, and each modern organism is the genetic descendent of one
original species.�
In short Theobald�s contention is that the vertebrates, the invertebrates, plants, trees,
lions, tigers, ostriches, apes, men, fungi, etc. all have a common ancestor, a SINGLE
origin. Dr. Theobald decribes a phylogenetic tree which traces all living organisms from
this single source. The figure below illustrates Theobald�s principle; however, please note
that the figure does not represent the actual phylogenetic tree, but is given to illustrate
Theobald�s principle. Theobald in his monograph does not delve into abiogenesis (the
origins of life); he starts with the common ancestor of all life. In his paper, Theobald does
not consider theories on abiogenesis, just that it happened. However the logical
conclusion of Theobald�s paper is that the event of abiogenesis (living replicating
organisms arising out of non-living matter) happened only once in the history of the earth.
Indeed if abiogenesis happened more than once, then we should see more than one
phylogenetic tree tracing back to several common ancestors. For example vertebrates
and invertebrates are supposed to have descended from a more ancient ancestor. That
more ancient ancestor came some more ancient ancestor, etc. This tree traces back to a
single point, a single organism which made the abiogenetic jump from non-living to living
(perhaps one complex molecule 3.5 billion years ago).




However current theories of abiogenesis state that living organisms must arise out of the
conditions of the early earth. That this event (the abiogenetic jump from non-living to
living) must happen in these conditions and is an event which happens often enough to
guarantee the generation of living organisms over a relatively short period of time (on a
geological scale, say less than 500 million years). In other words, if we have enough
naturally occurring proteins in a primordial soup, enough are going to combine together to
eventually form living organisms. Current theories sate that the oceans formed 3.8 billion
years ago; beginning of photosynthesis by blue-green algae started 3.5 billion years ago.
Life jumped from nothing (3.8 billion years ago) to algae (3.5 billion years ago) in a period
of about 300 million years. Algae are several orders of magnitude more complex than
protein molecules. This suggests then that abiogenesis should be a relatively common
event in the early conditions of the earth (in short life forms started firing up as soon as the
earth cooled enough to permit life). This then leads one to the conclusion that there
should be several phylogenetic trees which can be traced back to different organisms
which made the �abiogenetic jump�. The following figure illustrates my point:




My question is why only one phylogenetic tree (theory of common descent) when theories
of abiogenesis leads one to conclude that there should be several phylogenetic trees.

Originally posted by Byrd
Well, Satyr, we're talking about the "Theory of Evolution" in respect to religion (according to the topic) and this means the Darwininan theory.

So, no, while the other definitions are applicable (just as the definition of 'root' can be a function of mathematics or a part of a plant or a verb describing pig behavior), they are not pertinent to the discussion because Darwin's theory was not aimed at them and did not include them and couldn't possibly integrate them.

So having them tossed in and people claiming they are part of the "theory of evolution" is a bit like discussing mathematical roots and having people suddenly bring up pigs.

I'm just trying to get the point across that evolution is not restricted to life, earth, our solar system, etc. This is a very important part of the "big picture", IMO. It proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution is indeed in motion, and always has been. Limiting thinking to earth only (and your own little version of reality), is what makes it so easy for religion to debunk this theory. The "big picture" must first be seen in order to understand it, IMO. And the earth is only a small speck of that picture.

[Edited on 10-3-2003 by Satyr]

So gentlemen and ladies....is Evolution, in ALL its parts....can it be considered a religion? Is not evolution a 'doctrine' or sorts? Is it not also a belief system to many?
Lets look at this comment: "Teaching any aspect of science as a religion is harmful to science -- not to religion. The science teacher does not expect most students to become professional scientists. Many will forget the details of snails and quasars. However, the teacher does hope that students will learn the scientist�s way of thinking about nature. When science teaching succeeds, students continue to apply their thinking through life.

The last thing science teaching needs is to take the scientist�s ways of thinking about nature (evolution, for example) and turn them into doctrines, to be believed in their own right. That is like staring at the light bulb, instead of using it to illuminate a page. Not only will you not see what you need to see, you will soon not see clearly at all. Evolution has great explanatory power, but only when applied to subjects it best explains, not when treated as a dogma into which all events in life must be fitted. Indeed, part of what makes evolution controversial is the persistent habit of some evolutionary biologists of using principles derived from Darwinism to pronounce on controversial topics such as religion. In these instances, their explanations often lack explanatory power, principally, I suspect, because they are oblivious to the fact that human culture is, as S.J. Gould pointed out, a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian inheritance. People purposefully adapt their religion and culture during their own lifetimes and pass them on. As a result, the evolutionary biologist probably doesn�t even have an edge over the sociologist, especially if the sociologist knows the turf better.

Evangelists for traditional religions sense the weakness of evolution as a religion, and discredit it with little effort. That is part of the reason that so much of the American public, for example, does not �believe in� evolution. It was promoted as a religion to be believed in, failed to make as many converts as hoped, and generated hostility. However, that outcome should be no surprise; the evolutionists were amateurs matched against experts.

Science functions best and teaches best with the knowledge that all scientific hypotheses are provisional, and not a form of dogma or a rule of life."

Just a few of the points I was making with this topic.

"Is Evolution a Secular Religion?"
Link:
www.arn.org...

Excerpt:
"Things have continued in much the same way to the present. There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this is so, "the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline" (3). An ardent progressionist, Wilson sees moral norms emerging from our need to keep the evolutionary process moving forward. In his view, this translates as a need to promote biodiversity, for Wilson believes that humans have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with nature. A world of plastic would kill us humans, literally as well as metaphorically. For progress to continue, we must preserve the Brazilian rainforests and other areas of high organic density and diversity (4)."



"The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed."
Link:
www.creationists.org...

Lastly:
"Evolution as a religion"
Link:
www.asa3.org...

Excerpt:
"ASA scholars,

My name is Jason Alley, and I am a Biology Student at Biola
University. I have not graduated yet, but I'm almost done.
Understanding this, and knowing that I am not in the same intellectual
bracket, I have a few thoughts. Tell me what you think.
First, truth is truth. It is absolute. What exists, exists, and what
happened, happened. Truth is altogether seperate from our
interpretation or understanding of it. Based on this, I do not believe
that there can be a conflict between two "truths." If God exists, and if
the Bible is true, than we, as well as the rest of creation, were
created uniquely and seperately. If God does not exist, and if the
Bible is in error, then we arose from one common ancestor, all of life
working its way from ooze to us. Either one or the other is true, and
despite how forcefully we fight for how we interprete the evidence, we
cannot change what is true. Even if everyone in the world believed that
we evolved, wholy apart from supernatural influence, and it isn't true,
that doesn't make it true.
I hope I haven't lost anyone. I don't think I should have.
"So What?" you might ask. Well, the consequences of the debate, then
are not what is true and what is not; they are who is right and who is
not. You see, Evolution and Creationism are both Paradigms. We (an
evolutionist and I) can look at the identical evidence and draw
idfferent conclusions, because we have different deffinitions of "how it
is." Evolution and Creationism are both non-scientific, philosophical,
and (yes, I dare say it) religious.
"Science," as it is defined in my old and torn-up biology text from
High School, is "the method by which we arrive at conclusions by means
of observation and experimentation."
Neither Evolution or Creation are observable, since neither happen
today. Even if people say that evolution is on-going, it would be far
too long a process to adequately observe. Both schools of thought, both
religious paradigms, call on the implimentation of faith. Evolutionists
rest their faith in the natural world, mutation, adaptation, and the
gradual betterment of an organism and eventual speciation. The
creationsit lays his faith in the hands of a supernatural designer and
fabricator of all that is. Neither can be tested. Neither can be
observed. Both are outside of science, and both are, in essence,
religions.
So let's not divide the camp into the "religious" and the
"scientific." Both camps are religious, and both, in varying degrees,
are scientific. The division, now, lies between those who employ the
evolutionary paradigm and those who rely on a supernatural creation.


Humbly,
Jason Alley"



You see, I'm not talking about examples or proof of Evolution vs Creationism vs Intelligent Design verses etc. I am talking in a belief system, a philisophical way of thinking...the mind-set. It ultimately boils down to 'yea' or 'nay', but I see the Evolution mind-set no different than those held by Creationism or Intelligent design.....they believe so fervently in their "proofs" and "evidences" that it has and is become a "religion."


regards
seekerof

My impression is that to label evolution a religion due to the behavior of individuals, who could very well have problems with self-esteem overstates those individuals in respect to their actual contribution to the construct we are discussing.

The Scientific Method in the past has been used to justify a lot of really stupid things (For example the superiority of particular races as opposed to others).

But that does not mean it was the fault of the method rather those who were applying it. Evolution is a theory and that word does not mean it is claimed as absolute only a theorem is defined as fact.

Jagd you answered your own question, those two concepts are theories. If your asking which one is
correct that they are theories is the only response
that currently exist.

Any thoughts?

I wonder if anyone has caught the gist of my question. I was hoping that someone on this Forum Board with the required technical qualifications (such as a degree in a biological field) would hazard a guess or a response. The question goes to the very heart of the theories of the origins of life on this earth. You have one theory which states that all life descended from one source. You have another theory which states that there should be several sources of descent. What the evolutionists are telling us is that in the entire history of this planet ONLY ONE ORGANISM has ever made the tranistion from non-living matter to living matter and that the entire variety of life on earth is descendent from that SINGLE ORGANISM. What the evolutionists are telling us is that a MIRACLE HAPPENED.

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by jagdflieger]

Originally posted by jagdflieger
evolutionists are telling us is that a MIRACLE HAPPENED.

You continue to misunderstand, and misquote "Biological Evolution" which is not concerned at all with the original of life, but the manner in which species have changed and diverged.

Actually with respect to definition the primordial soup in which amino-acids form can be made at home if one is so inclined. Then of course there is Europa and Titan, which very likely have life (Specifically with respect to moons in orbit about Jupiter and Saturn). If memory serves there is one other moon in which the process began for life while Jupiter was still hot (the remnants of that event still clearly visible via satellite), though its name escapes me at the moment.

Jagd, the reality is that life forms in this universe under the correct conditions, this pertaining to temperature, gravity and environment in general, this fact has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt. The argument that it can be defined, as a miracle is weak, simply stated, life forms as a result of the laws of physics.

simply stated, life forms as a result of the laws of physics.

yes but where did the legislation come from?Why was it written to begin with?

a quote from Stephen Hawking----

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern?...Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began,it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist? I don't know the answer to that.

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by Creepy]

here are a few quotes that may or may not be relevant to the discussion but here they are anyway...

I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.
---Wernher von Braun

Astronomy leads us to a unique event,a universe created out of nothing,one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life,and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan.---Arno Penzias[Nobel prizewinner in physics]

There is powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming---Paul Davies

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,the story ends like a bad dream.He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;he is about to conquer the highest peak;as he pulls himself over the final rock,he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.---Robert Jastrow

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by Creepy]

To me, religion is dogma and blind faith.

Evolution is a theory subject to the scientific method like any other piece of human knowledge.

In my opinion, evolution is not a religion.

But nor is religion a science. It can be studied, but not disproven, which makes it highly inappropriate as the basis for laws and structures in any enlightened world.

Originally posted by MA--- Evolution is a theory subject to the scientific method like any other piece of human knowledge.

heres another quote.....

....Every branch of human knowledge if traced up to its source and final principles vanishes into mystery.---Arthur Machen

[Edited on 3-10-2003 by Creepy]

* Keeps scientist hat on *

I'll go with my quote over Machen's today.

Machen has a sense of wonderment that is not rooted in the scientific method at all.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
* Keeps scientist hat on *

Machen has a sense of wonderment that is not rooted in the scientific method at all.

true,but that doesnt make his point any less valid...

what about the other quotes ive provided?

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by Creepy]

They are all good personal philosophies.

Like Stephen Hawking, who was on track with 'A Brief History Of Time' before he had his moment of wonderment and vision of God. It coincided with his writer's block.

As more phenomena are explained, the explanatory power of the knowledge increases and the faith required decreases.

In my opinion we are at the tip of the iceberg.

The notion of God is more useful for social controls than it is for rational explanation of the universe. People can go off in wonderment with their mouths agape and sing hymns to the Creator, or continue to scale the mountain of knowledge. While 'mountain' is a piss-poor analogy, we are just babes in the wood. Another piss-poor analogy.

As explained on another thread by myself, the Big Bang was just a fart from an unseen bowel, but no-one knows yet what caused the fart.

"The notion of God is more useful for social controls than it is for rational explanation of the universe."---MA

that really depends on what your notion of God is...

'Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world"---Arthur Schopenhauer....

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by Creepy]

Quote from Toltec
Jagd, the reality is that life forms in this universe under the correct conditions, this pertaining to temperature, gravity and environment in general, this fact has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt. The argument that it can be defined, as a miracle is weak, simply stated, life forms as a result of the laws of physics.

Toltec do you know something that NASA doesn't know??? Just where has "life forms in this universe" other than our planet have been "proven beyond any shadow of doubt"? I suppose that you are going to tell us that you are in contact with little grey men from Zeta Reticula who visit you every week telling you about the life forms on Titan and Europa. What verification do you have that life exists on Titan and Europa? This is fantastic - you know something that our very best scientists don't know. That life exists on some other planet. Also you know "memory serves there is one other moon in which the process began for life while Jupiter was still hot" which must be a secret NASA is keeping from us for the existance of ancient life forms on Titan, Europa, or any other moon of Jupiter is pure speculation until there are actual missions to those moons. Are you aware of secret NASA projects which have landed probes on these Jovian moons??

Again the question I posed is a highly technical question intended to be answered by those people who have the technical qualifications. As for theoretical problems with abiogenesis, see:

www.yfiles.com...

It has been told and posted to me that evolution, or some aspects of it, doesn't deal with 'origins'.....I found this:
"Evolution is any process of growth, change or development."

also....

"Since the 19th century "evolution" is generally used in reference to biological evolution, changes in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to another. Often it is shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's idea of natural selection. The remainder of this article addresses biological evolution.

The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

1) The ancestral relationship between organisms, both living and fossilized.
2) The origin of novel traits in a lineage
3) The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish

Ancestry of organisms
Most biologists believe in common descent: that all life on Earth is descended from one common ancestor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that many traits of living organisms, such as the genetic code, seem arbitrary yet are shared by all organisms. Some have suggested that life may have had more than one origin, but the high degree of commonality argues strongly against multiple origins.

The study of the ancestry of species is phylogeny. Phylogeny has revealed that organs with radically different internal structures can bear a superficial resemblance and perform similar functions. These examples of analogous structures show that there are multiple ways to solve most problems and make it difficult to believe that the universal traits of life are all necessary. Likewise other organs with similar internal structures will perform radically different functions. Vertebrate limbs are a favorite example of homologous structures, organs on two organisms that share a basic structure that had existed in the last common ancestor of the organisms. The current dominant theory of evolution is known as "the modern synthesis", referring to the synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's theory of the gene. According to this theory, the fundamental event of speciation is the genetic isolation two populations, which allows their gene pools to diverge.

Further evidence of the universal ancestry of life is that abiogenesis has never been observed under controlled conditions, indicating that the origin of life from non-life, is either very rare or only happens under conditions that are not at all like those of modern earth....."

"Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the generation of life from non-living matter. The term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life."

"The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment."

Link:
www.wikipedia.org...
www.wikipedia.org...


Found this also from:
Link:
www.talkorigins.org...

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

"There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)"


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."


Seems to me that Evolution deals with more than just "any process of growth, change or development."
If this is so....and portions of it does deal with "biological" and "common descent," then it also deals with, ultimately, with 'origins.'


regards
seekerof

Few of you or even most of you, seem to be basing your evidence on nothing more then personal experience or opinion and this has been proven time and time again, especially here at "ATS" to be associated with the phrase 'beating a dead horse'

I find it rather amusing that one might put faith in say..NASA because, well simply they are "NASA"..what more reason does one need right?? But remember, NASA is controlled by humans and is not the all knowing of everything.

Jagd~Perhaps viewing life *outside* the box can add benefits to your already well endowed knowledgable mind

Hope I didn't offend anyone..
Magestica

To be specific and with respect to the primordial soup, all that is needed for it to form are the right conditions which essentially are found on earth, that is a fact.

That is what I was referring to; the moon I mentioned does in fact exist and was photographed by the satellites, which have been sent to Jupiter (well documented). As far as Titan and Europa the likelihood of life is extremely high.

Again forming the same reaction that occurred which is postulated, in respect to how life originally formed is very simple.

Given the amount of stars in the Universe there are probably as many planets in the Universe with life as there are people on earth.

While I feel there is a God the reality is that impression is a theory not a theorem.



Any thoughts?