Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Southtown]

In the Naturalism model, if it cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method, it does not exist.

The problem with this model is that it is not consistent with the seeking of the unknown that is science.

 

That's like someone claiming that everything is pointless because they can't see a point.

[Erasmus00]

 

For the die-hard Naturalism-oriented evolutionsts, they believe that life is determinstic, and that we are only the biochemical resultant of previous events. This would mean that "important" things like love, meaning, free will, and beauty, are non existent, and that they are illusionary perceptions that advantage us in the process of natural selection. This is a perfectly consistent world view, and is generally consistent with the scientific method.

 

I don't think science can legitimately claim determinism anymore. Even if you ignore the probabilities of a world where h isn't 0, no one would argue that mankind isn't a chaotic system. As such, determinism is impossible.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

The problem with this model is that it is not consistent with the seeking of the unknown that is science.

 

That's like someone claiming that everything is pointless because they can't see a point.

 

No, its not like that at all. Just because something isn't currently known does not mean it isn't possible to demonstrate it with the scientific method. We used to think that parity symmetry was never (ever) violated. Later, it was discovered that it is, in certain weak decay experiments. Every time you do those experiments, you discover parity violations. It was and is possible to demonstrate that simply by replicating experiments.

 

You can't demonstrate god's existance, though. Not through any experiment.

-Will

[infamous]

 

You can't demonstrate god's existance, though. Not through any experiment.

-Will

Not unless you consider death an experiment.

[majordinkydau]

Someone might let the church in on the fact that we are animals....

 

Animals are much more civil

[majordinkydau]

How do you define religion? An athiest sets himself up as god. Science relys on observation of repetable experiments. None of the major root ideas of unaided evolution can be repeted. We cannot create DNA in a perfect lab environment and yet many insist it came about in a hostile environment by pure chance. If you refuse to believe in a god you will ignore any evidence that points to one. When I meet a paronoid schizophrenic and hear delusional ideas I'm not suprised but when I meet a scientist in total denile I wonder. So me some evidence that anything in nature becomes ordered without some code written into its material,ie crystalization, DNA. My understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics says eveything is subject to entrophy. The 65 Fairlane on blocks in a rednecks yard does not restore itself, it rust away.

[bumab]

How do you define religion? An athiest sets himself up as god.

 

That's not fair to our atheist friends. Many atheists are actually really humble.

 

Science relys on observation of repetable experiments. None of the major root ideas of unaided evolution can be repeted. We cannot create DNA in a perfect lab environment and yet many insist it came about in a hostile environment by pure chance.

 

This is actually something pretty puzzle for science- but it does not indicate a fundamental problem. Simply because we can't reproduce something in the lab doesn't mean one should posit an entirely new, untestable idea in it's place. There's simply not enough information at this point to even create a reliable experiment in the first place.

 

If you refuse to believe in a god you will ignore any evidence that points to one.

 

A limitation of science is it can only find causal relations, in fact- science only LOOKS for causal relations. Thus, if a God did something supernatural, there would be an event without a natural cause. The only thing science can do is posit natural causes for this event. Perhaps it will be something plausable, perhaps not. It's a limitation of science- not some religous property, and it's worked well in the past. Science is not a religion.

 

So me some evidence that anything in nature becomes ordered without some code written into its material,ie crystalization, DNA. My understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics says eveything is subject to entrophy. The 65 Fairlane on blocks in a rednecks yard does not restore itself, it rust away.

 

Re-read how entropy works, then get back to us. No law of nature is broken with evolution. It's been observed, both macro and micro, in the lab and in the natural world. What more do you want?! Evolution is not a religion- although sometimes it's vocal proponents can make it appear as one, I'll give you that.

[majordinkydau]

That's not fair to our atheist friends. Many atheists are actually really humble.

 

 

 

This is actually something pretty puzzle for science- but it does not indicate a fundamental problem. Simply because we can't reproduce something in the lab doesn't mean one should posit an entirely new, untestable idea in it's place. There's simply not enough information at this point to even create a reliable experiment in the first place.

 

 

 

A limitation of science is it can only find causal relations, in fact- science only LOOKS for causal relations. Thus, if a God did something supernatural, there would be an event without a natural cause. The only thing science can do is posit natural causes for this event. Perhaps it will be something plausable, perhaps not. It's a limitation of science- not some religous property, and it's worked well in the past. Science is not a religion.

 

 

 

Re-read how entropy works, then get back to us. No law of nature is broken with evolution. It's been observed, both macro and micro, in the lab and in the natural world. What more do you want?! Evolution is not a religion- although sometimes it's vocal proponents can make it appear as one, I'll give you that.

 

Where has it been observed? I've been asking this question for weeks, many insist the proof is there but nowbody seems able to share an example with me.

[Boerseun]

As any serious, informed Evolutionist will tell you, Evolutionists have absolutely no pretensions at Godliness.

 

Evolution is science. Religion is factless, proofless blind belief. They are so far apart as to indicate that if a religious person holds that evolutionists put themselves in the picture as "God", it only show off the religious person's religious insecurity and the threat he/she is feeling by a theory that might just pull the rug from under his/her religious feet.

 

But rest assured - if that rug gets pulled, it was never intentional. It's nothing personal.

 

You see, science has never had to theorize a 'god' to explain any unpredicted behaviour in any given experiment. So, that being the case, there's no need for science to prove, disprove, accept, or even contemplate the existence of god. Or Buddha, for that matter. Religion falls outside the scope of science. And, if science gets to a point to explain how something works that was credited to a deity in any given ancient text, it unfortunately shows the ancient text to be just that - an ancient text written by fallible men with vivid imaginations. But that kind of scenario would also be unintentional.

 

Like UncleAl said once, it's strange that an omnipotent being runs out of pocket-change every Sunday...

[skuinders]

Boerseun = :shrug:

 

I think it is important to define what evolution is, because it seems that people often argue simply because they are talking about two different (right or wrong) defitionions of the word:

 

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

 

Evolution is not the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny.

 

 

Anyone who would deny the former is simply foolish.

 

(ref: Laurence Moran)

[Biochemist]

I don't think science can legitimately claim determinism anymore. Even if you ignore the probabilities of a world where h isn't 0, no one would argue that mankind isn't a chaotic system. As such, determinism is impossible.

E- Chaos does not rule out determinism. Determinism asserts that all states of nature are outcomes of previous states of nature. It does not require that the outcomes be predictable. Chaotic behavior precludes predictability, but does not preclude determinism.

 

The main contemporary argument againt determinism is the apparently random behavior of quantum elements. Pure determinists (and there are some on this site) contend that the quantum randomness does not bleed over into the observable universe. My understanding is that most quantum theorists hold to a sort-of-modified-determinism view, and are no longer pure determinists.

 

Naturalism (as a philosophy) is still very heavily deterministic in flavor. So it the scientific method.

[Biochemist]

Evolution is science. Religion is factless, proofless blind belief...

I think we ought to be a little more detailed at this point in the thread. "Evolution" in normal usage has at least a half dozen different definitions. Religion has several as well.

 

SOME elements of evolution discussions are certainly NOT science. Evoloutionary theory has SOME faith in it (note my point above about speciation by mutation). Some religion is NOT purely faith. Religion has SOME fact in it. To suggest that evolution is exclusively fact-based science is unfounded. To suggest that religion is exclusively blind belief is unfounded.

[skuinders]

This article (which I drew from earlier) should be read by everyone participating in the evolution forum: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

[Skippy]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in theology or evolution... Anyway, a popular assertion in the Christian creation vs evolution arguments is that evolution is a religion, and those opposing biblical creation are just clinging to a different religion. I thought rather than diverting a bunch of threads off topic, we might as well start a seperate thread to discuss the issue. -Will

I am one of those who call "evolution" a religion, not so much because of evolution's tenets per se, But because of the fanatical adherents who believe it in all its suppostitions AND inaccuracies.

 

You are right, biblical creationism is not a religion either... it is just a belief in a single part of the Bible (namely Genesis 1 & 2), or better stated - a belief in a very litteral interpretation of The Bible. That is not to say that some creationists have elevated "Biblical Creation" to a religion in the same way that evolutionists have elevated "Evolution" to a religion as noted above. In Christianity, that is often referred to as "idolatry." (side note - many Christians apply what is called the "Gap Theory" to allow for evolution. Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 they say that there was an undeterminable amount of time when evolution could have happened)

 

Look at the posts in answer to just this question and you can see traces of both types of religious zealots here... I too am not always able to hide my particular bent:o, just as they haven't.

[skuinders]

I am one of those who call "evolution" a religion, not so much because of evolution's tenets per se, But because of the fanatical adherents who believe it in all its suppostitions AND inaccuracies.

From my suggested short reading:

 

on defining the term "evolution"

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution.

...

Standard dictionaries are even worse [at defining evolution].

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

 

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

 

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

 

I think what you mean by "evolution" is not what it actually is.

[Biochemist]

This article (which I drew from earlier) should be read by everyone participating in the evolution forum: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Interesting monograph. Odd, however. All of us are victimized by the vicissitudes of normal usage. It is unusual for an academic monograph (and this one was) to label a common dictionary defintiion as "wrong". By normal linguistic standards, the dictionary definition (if it represents the normal usage of the word) is the correct one, even if the usage and meaning have wandered over time.

 

I find use of the word "evolution" almost meaningless in a scientific discussion (and I wish we would avoid its use here, where feasible). "Evolution" is more of a category of theories than a theory. I think is it much more useful to discuss natural selection, genetic drift, speciation (by mutation or otherwise), Punciuated Equilibrium, etc. These terms are much more concrete, and they help tease apart areas of agreement and disagreement.

[Biochemist]

...side note - many Christians apply what is called the "Gap Theory" to allow for evolution. Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 they say that there was an undeterminable amount of time when evolution could have happened....

There are quite a number of different views of evolutionary theory (or theories) among conservative Christians. Creationism and gap theory are only two of them. I (personally) would not fall into either camp.