Talk:Evolution is a religion
From EvoWiki
There is indeed some kind of religion which builds on evolution as its base (Church of Virus), although they chose to describe themselves as "a neo-cybernetic philosophy". The eco-system of religions and believes is flourishing ;-)
Contents |
Non-Response
I don't think this is a response, so I deleted it:
- Well, religion can be defined as any set of beliefs that try to explain origins from a non-observer point of view. Such as the Ancient Greek view that the Titans were spontaneously generated out of nothing by mere chance, the only possible evidence of which would be an eyewitness accout of the Titans. But of course we all know that the Greeks were wrong, something can't come from nothing. And there were no eyewitnesses to the Big Bang, so it ends up being redundant. However these dang Christian Fundamentalists do have us beat in this point because they have two "eyewitnesses" to creation, the first being that Jesus claimed to be creator, and Adam who was the created. But Jesus must have just been ignorant of modern science. So since there was no eyewitnesses to the Big Bang, it ends up being true.
"Religion can be defined" - well, religion can also be defined as "any animal which has at least two horns" (this "shows" that some rhinos are religion, as your definition "shows" that the Big Bang is a religion). The relevant point is not what you can do using idiosyncratic definitions. Also, you overemphasize eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously unreliable, as well as nth-hand stories that claim to be eyewitness accounts, which are even more unreliable. --tk (t) 12:16, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Unclear
I removed this:
5. Science, as a way of viewing the world, may be a religion, but evolution in and of itself cannot be. While it maybe the case that evolution is *bad* science, such a claims would need to be submitted with evidence for peer review.
Anyone is welcome to add it again, but please explain how science can be a religion, because I don't understand it.
- I think maybe that refers to the idea of 'methodological naturalism' that science must adopt to explain the world. We have no evidence that this assumption is true (although, no other assumption has yielded better results), so because of this, science does rest on one assumption. This, to some, can mean science rests on faith, although I personally think that most scientists would accept that they are possibly wrong. --Doddy 13:46, 17 April 2007 (BST)
- Yes it does in fact refer to methodological naturalism which science uses to explain the world but however methodological naturalism is a philosophy and not a religion so it should be removed because that would mean that science is not a religion and methodological naturalism is not a religion.--Fang 23 14:10, 17 April 2007 (BST)
Thoughts
No religion is a religion itself (atheism basically). It's already been stated that some religions adopt evolution into their doctrine, but doesn't evolution point to there being no God. If everything could happen without there being a God, then why should there be one? There would be no reason for there to be a God. Also if all life on earth came from one cell, what makes humans any more important than monkeys or any other animals? They're just the next step of evolution. That's kind of a logical assumption to make. So there's a value right there.
I was going to say that regardless of something being fact or not, you still believe it's true if you believe it. But I see that that is not the definition of religion on here. Still I wonder why it matters what it's called, separating evolution from the label of religion doesn't make it science either. The bible describes historical events in history, but it's not exactly called history is it? Neither can be completely proven, and at this point in time, neither can be completely disproven. -Sarah 25 September 2007
- If you actually learned about evolutionary biology, you would know that it has no similarity to a religion or cult, in that it has no priests, no prophets, no prayers, no holy texts, and no sacred ritual beyond the scientific method. Furthermore, evolutionary biology never broaches the subject of God at all. If you insist on suggesting that Evolution is a religion, please explain why stamp collecting, too, is a religion.--Mr A. 14:07, 26 September 2007 (BST)
- Because stamp collecting doesn't affect your world view. Stamp collecting is a hobby. It doesn't explain how things came to be, values, etc. it's an action. Evolution is an explanation of how things came to be (I used the seemingly preferred word for theory, if anyone is pleased by that.) Atheism is also a religion, believing in no God means you believe there isn't one. They don't pray, they don't have holy texts, they don't have prophets or priests. But atheism is still a religion. (If there's no God, that means humans are the highest form of life and that we get to make the rules and wrong is based on opinion, it's not an absolute, that nothing will happen to us after we die, etc.) I'm not saying evolutionists have to be atheists or atheists have to be evolutionists, I'm just showing an example of where that logic is flawed. Evolution does explain how life came to be. Conclusions can be made off of evolution, so it can definitely affect your worldview. -Sarah 26 September 2007
- Evolution is not a religion. IT IS A SCIENCE. Science affects a person's world view if only because science is the description of reality. According to your definition, Hydrogen-bonding is a religion, too, because it can affect a person's world view by explaining why oil and water won't mix. A religion requires a priesthood, a founding messiah, WORSHIP, PRAYER, and holy texts, things that neither Evolutionary Biology, nor Atheism have. Your claiming that both are religions despite their noticeable LACK of a priesthood, a founding messiah, WORSHIP, PRAYER, and holy texts is like arguing that a dog is a kind of snake, even though a dog has fur, legs, and no fangs or scales and are not related to lizards. Furthermore, I find totally reprehensible for Christians to hint and allege that evolution is a "godless" religion. Also, by saying that without God, humans are incapable of interacting with each other without murdering each other, you are inferring that the only reason why you obey the law and are kind to other humans is not because you desire to uphold order or have a sincere love of other people, but that you are simply afraid of punishment if you dare to act out your inner, forbidden desires to hurt people.--Mr A. 04:15, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- Because stamp collecting doesn't affect your world view. Stamp collecting is a hobby. It doesn't explain how things came to be, values, etc. it's an action. Evolution is an explanation of how things came to be (I used the seemingly preferred word for theory, if anyone is pleased by that.) Atheism is also a religion, believing in no God means you believe there isn't one. They don't pray, they don't have holy texts, they don't have prophets or priests. But atheism is still a religion. (If there's no God, that means humans are the highest form of life and that we get to make the rules and wrong is based on opinion, it's not an absolute, that nothing will happen to us after we die, etc.) I'm not saying evolutionists have to be atheists or atheists have to be evolutionists, I'm just showing an example of where that logic is flawed. Evolution does explain how life came to be. Conclusions can be made off of evolution, so it can definitely affect your worldview. -Sarah 26 September 2007
Creationist edit
Someone inserted this:
- It is true, theory of evolution requires very strong faith, in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever, except false ones, e.g. piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckel's fraud, etc. The theory itself is not logical, either.
This is just the false impression you get from reading creationist misinformation pamphlets. See [1] for a start.
I think we should have a page Evidence for evolution linking appropriate articles, or maybe a category. --tk 09:54, 18 October 2007 (BST)
