Is Evolution a Religion?

[CJK]

Simple question.

Is Evolution a Religion?

[micatala]

While I don't want to pre-empt others from offering their own definitions, I will simply quote Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

religion:
1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. . . .
2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
3. archaic . . .
4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.


Also,

religious
1. relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowleged ultimate reality or deity.
2. of, relating to , or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3. scrupulously and conscientiously faithful. b: fervent, zealous.

Now, these definitions do seem to me to leave room for ambibuity, so I would suggest up front that evolution might be 'a religion' or 'religious' under one of these definitions and not others. Obviously, the history of this debate over time has sometimes included the notion that evolution is somehow 'equivalent' in its status as a 'religion' to Christianity or other traditionally religious belief systems. I think part of the debate should include discussion of this particular point.

I also think Bart007 had a very relevant comment in the other thread. It is possible for an individual to 'religiously believe' in a belief system, or set of idea, even if that belief system itself is not a 'religion.' In his view, some people believe in evolution 'as a religion' or 'religiously'. Certainly, I think it is fair to say that there may be people who believe in evolution 'uncritically' or for reasons other than their examination of the evidence and arguments in support of it.

Now, my own view is that, in and of itself, evolution is not a religion. THere is not part of the basic scientific theory that involves 'faith' or 'faithful devotion.' There is no mention or even relevance to the supernatural or a deity.

WHile some people may accept evolution as part of their 'belief system,' in and of itself, evolution is not a belief system, but rather an explanation for the physical evidence we have from the present day and the past regarding the history and diversity of life on earth.

Many criticize evolution because we are not able to 'replicate' the evidence, nor are we able to directly observe the evolution that has occurred in the past. THis is true, but to me does not mean that we simply believe in evolution 'on faith.' It simply means that much (though certainly not all) of the evidence we have for evolution is indirect. This does not mean it is non-existent or somehow invalid.

Many sciences work with indirect evidence, as do other non-scientific endeavors (e.g. the legal system). Our knowledge of the interiors of the earth and other astronomical bodies, the history of the solar system and the larger universe, even our knowledge of subatomic particles are all based in large part on 'indirect evidence.'

So, in my view, evolution is not a religion, nor do I hold it as a religious view. As do the vast majority of evolutionary scientists (although I am certainly not implying I have this expertise! ), I believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the history of life based on the evidence we have, the power of the theory in explaining this history, and the great consistency among the various threads of evidence that exist.

[Cathar1950]

It would not surprise me that some make evolution a religion. Look at heavens gate the saw a comet and believed a ship was behind it and died for their beliefs.
The purple stuff and change was weird.
Many people do thing religiously. So there are many ways for talking about religion that could almost include anything and everything.
There are diverse views in both Christianity and Judaism as well as Islam.
Come to think of it I wonder if there is any religion of non-religion that had agreement.
I can't think of one idea religion theory that has not changed(evolved) and diversified and sometimes codified. I am not sure which is more interesting ideas and the history of ideas or the development and process.
Do we every really know where they are going? I would bet any historical figure if brought to our time would be surprised as we would in the future.
Oh life and the universe are interesting and fun despite all the pain, aguish and suffering.

[Grumpy]

Cathar1950, micatala and CJK

Religion is a belief system which requires no "proof" of it's precepts, which indeed CAN HAVE NO PROOF, because it posits a supernatural cause outside of the realm of the real world. A believer must accept on faith the concepts of that religion and new concepts can rarely be accepted by the sect involved leading to the splintering into different competing(often hostile) sects instead of correction of erronious concepts.

Science, including evolution, requires "proof" for all of it's precepts, such "proof" coming from observation, experimentation and testing of the real world, and is self correcting when new concepts are better at explaining reality than the old. Faith in the concepts is not required, evidence and reason are required to support them. All this leads to a more or less unified(though not perfect) field of the sciences using the same methods in many different disciplines.

(in the above paragraphs I have used the word "proof" not in it's scientific sense(used only in math) but in it's popular language sense(meaning evidence, logic, testing, repeatability, etc.) to avoid being overly verbose and to make myself understood by the...shall we say scientifically challenged)

As you can see from the above two descriptions science and religion could hardly be more DIFFERENT, in many ways they are exact opposites. So anyone claiming that any science is a religion doesn't understand anything about one or both of the concepts.

This is a partial repost from the previous forum which became infested with trolls. I simply do not know how to be more precise in my language about how I see the difference between a science and a religion.

Grumpy 8)

[Cathar1950]

Grumpy you have my vote.
Evolution is not a religion in any normal way we use the term.
I am not against science and religion but they do have there own methods and disciplines I would rather see religion over lap with science then science over lap with religion. I believe science has made many contributions to religion and should be welcomed. I suppose religion has contributed to science of course not always on friendly terms. Technology as its own culture and is often different as an applied science. But in now way do I think evolution(change) is a religion in any real way we speak of religion and the charge is false and is a ploy often used to call other ideas satan in some contest to show which is better. The psychology of such things as social phenomena would be an interesting study.

[Chimp]

It seems to me that the conflict between a religious belief (biblical creation)
and scientific discovery that challenges the religious belief creates a
philosophical parity where none exists.

The reverse statement is also not true... religion is science.

The only overlap seems to be they both attempt to explain our existence.

[juliod]

It seems to me that the conflict between a religious belief (biblical creation)
and scientific discovery that challenges the religious belief creates a
philosophical parity where none exists.

In the Kitzmiller decision, this was referred to as a "contrived dualism". It's part of the Wedge Strategy to create this dualism, that it's either science or christianity, and then make people accept christianity.

Let me restate that the idea of evolution being a religion is an absurdity. Evolution is a scientific theory. Religion is... well, religion. Define it how you will. But theories and religions are not members of the same type of things, nor is one a subset of the other.

DanZ

[micatala]

Religion is a belief system which requires no "proof" of it's precepts, which indeed CAN HAVE NO PROOF, because it posits a supernatural cause outside of the realm of the real world. A believer must accept on faith the concepts of that religion and new concepts can rarely be accepted by the sect involved leading to the splintering into different competing(often hostile) sects instead of correction of erronious concepts.

OK. This is a somewhat different definition of religion that I posted above, but I would certainly agree is a meaning that is in common usage.

I would somewhat disagree that all religions are belief systems for which no "proof" is required or considered.

Certainly the nature of "proof" within religion would be very different than the idea of proof in other areas of thought. For example, an individual who might be selecting from various possible religious belief systems might judge them based on how they impact his life if put into practice. IN this case, the proof is somewhat subjective, based on his or her experience of putting these beliefs in practice. Such a person might say 'the proof is in the pudding.'

As you can see from the above two descriptions science and religion could hardly be more DIFFERENT, in many ways they are exact opposites. So anyone claiming that any science is a religion doesn't understand anything about one or both of the concepts.

Some belief systems might make claims that are verifiable by other means. For example, although I believe young earth creationism is false and has been falsified through science, it certainly is possible that a certain 'tenet of faith' might prove to be true, based on other evidence besides the simple faith of its adherents.

Also, a religious belief system might incorporate scientific principles into its belief system. For example, one might believe that God exists and that he is revealed entirely through the created world. In this case, the laws of physics, and other sciences, and the theories of science might be considered 'revealed truths.' This might seem a silly example, but I offer it by way of showing that, although I agree that most religions are in a different realm than science, this is not necessasarily necessary.

Science, including evolution, requires "proof" for all of it's precepts, such "proof" coming from observation, experimentation and testing of the real world, and is self correcting when new concepts are better at explaining reality than the old. Faith in the concepts is not required, evidence and reason are required to support them. All this leads to a more or less unified(though not perfect) field of the sciences using the same methods in many different disciplines.

I agree here. Faith is not required for science, except for the sort of 'psychological trust' that the current scientific model is well-supported enough to merit continued work in the area. Granted, this trust is earned through the presentation of hard evidence and is not given dogmatically or without reservation.

I would say that there are some who hold religious beliefs but hold them in a similar 'psychological' manner. They might believe in their religious system, but are willing to alter their beliefs based on further information. For example, there are certainly people who 'used to be' creationists and subsequently altered their beliefs in this area, based on further information, without entirely renouncing their belief in God.

Another example might be a Protestant who changes from believing that Catholics are not really Christian to accepting Catholics as fellow believers. This change might be a result of personal experience with Catholics, or might be as a result of re-examination of scripture.

I guess what I am taking too many words to say is that religious belief does not necessarily imply 'inflexibility' or 'dogmatism,' at least not in all aspects of the belief system.

In the Kitzmiller decision, this was referred to as a "contrived dualism". It's part of the Wedge Strategy to create this dualism, that it's either science or christianity, and then make people accept christianity.

I would whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

[Lotan]

Is Evolution a Religion?

Yes.
And No.

Since I have never heard the phrase 'evolution is a religion' except from a creationist source I thought thay it might be interesting to see why they say it. Here's Pat Robertson's take on the subject...

"You know, what we have got to recognize just there in this case is that the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion. And evolution becomes their religion. It is a matter of religion. So this is an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And the fact that somebody comes along and says, "We are not sure that it's accurate, it's a theory and not a fact" -- how can you say it's a fact? You are talking about 10 to 15 billion years ago. Who was there?

Yeah, well, a lot of scientists are. More and more are. They are saying there are just too many things that can't be explained by evolution. But, I mean, these fanatics, I mean, it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion, and whenever you start talking about the origins of life, you now get into religious matter, and theirs is just as much religion. The only difference is that even questioning, questioning that -- the ACLU says even if you question our religion, you are guilty of violating the First Amendment. I mean, give me a break."

Pat nails the subject on several levels. For example, by characterizing evolution as a religion, creationists can then argue against it being the exclusive view taught in public schools.
Also, as the logical flip side of the 'creation science' apologetic, 'evolution is a religion' is used as a polemic to advance the idea that it's claims are based on faith...

"Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex." - Ken Ham, the Lie

Some creationists also feel that the ToE addresses questions about human origins that they consider to be religious issues...
"We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion)." - Ken Ham, the Lie

There is also the claim that "evolutionists worship atheism". This is, I think, an attempt to suggest that the ToE exists as an answer to creationism rather than independently of it. Ken Ham expresses this sentiment - " They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be."

One further reason that creationists can claim that evolution is a religion is that, at least according to Webster's 4th definition, for many people it is a kind of religion. In an article titled Is Evolution Just another Religion author Michael Ruse details how some of evolution's" proponents promote evolution as a kind of secular alternative for more traditional faith." A list of quotes that support this idea can be found here - EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS FAITH. This is a creationist site so you might want to find these quotes in their original context.
The creationist claim that evolution is a religion of a sort may be an honest one, the inferences drawn ffom that claim are less so.

[Grumpy]

Lotan

It's funny you should quote Pat Robertson as an authority on anything in the real world concidering that his past pronouncements on various subjects border just this side of delusional. He reminds me of the crazy uncle every family seems to have but most have the sense to keep him out of the public view. In Robertson's case, he owns his own broadcast station and, as long as he pays his bills, he is free to expose his insanity for all to see. My father, a fundy to his death, used to wince when Pat prayed away another hurricane.

My doctor, a Muslim, used to prescribe medicine and instruct me to take it "Islamicly" meaning take it four times a day while facing east. Does that mean that my meds were a religion?

It is rapidly becoming evident that Judge Jones was correct when he rebuked the supporters of ID for their lies and deceptions in support of their cause while they call themselves Christians, after all, one of the Ten Commandments was an admonishment against bearing false witness.

Which brings me to the point of my post.

Almost everything of a pseudo-scientific nature found on any creationist website is either a lie from ignorance(usually willful) or a lie with intent. The creationists are rapidly coming to be defined by their twisting of the truth or by their ignoring of the truth(through ignorance or intent). This is the only veracity to be found on most of these sites, no science, no original research and certainly no facts.

Before I get hung and quartered I must say that not all creationists are involved with this deciet, some have no problem accepting the scientific facts and see no conflict with their religious beliefs, I wish there were more like that.

The test which will steer you the best is this: Does the site proceed from the premise that some other science or theory is wrong or immpossible? If so the information contained on that site will be nothing but a pack of lies.
This test will not be 100% accurate but it will be correct much more often than it will be wrong. And it can be applied equally to all flavors of sites.

"How can you say that???" I can hear some of you say. I say it because science consists of doing your own research, testing your own conclusions, verifying your own data, THEN you may use your own work to challange other theories, until you have done this "grunt work" of science you are not credible to attack other's work. And arguing from authority("the Bible says") is not valid, the Bible is not a proven source for anything except controversy and conflict, there is not even an agreed upon text or translation nor do all interpret the same passages the same way.

I came to these forums because creationism(or creationism light/ID) had reared it's ugly head in our public schools once again. When creationists are preaching to others of their own kind it doesn't bother me, I really don't care if they wish to remain ignorant of the scientific truth. But when that ignorance is forcibly inserted in the public schools I will fight it tooth and claw. Fortunatly we still have Judges who follow the Constitution and while the war may not be over the CSBS/ID pseudo-scientific drivel has once again been thrown out of public schools.

I would personnally like to thank W for appointing Judge Jones, it may be the only thing he ever did that I agree with, but it was a very good thing indeed.

Grumpy 8)