Evolution: A religion?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Looks like I've been missing some fun...

It seems that some people are comparing evolution to a religion because of the willingness of others to defend it. It isn't a religion, just a very good and very well-supported scientific theory.

But it happens to contradict the primitive myths and superstitions of one specific tribe of Bronze Age goat-herders.

Therefore it is under attack from the biggest campaign of lies, misinformation and propaganda in the modern world. Evolution just happens to be on the "front line" in the battle between the forces of Truth and Stupidity. It could just as easily have been round-Earthism or heliocentrism (as it has been in the past).

We are the Good Guys. The creationists are the Bad Guys. It's really that simple!

[Lincoln]

Okay if the 'where did God come from' is a legitimate argument then where did matter and the big bang come from? Until you religious types can answer that then your faith has no foundation.

[Provost Harrison]

Cogito Ergo Sum...I think therefore I am...the field of where all matter came from is a completely different field to what I am in, and there are scientists working very hard on this conundrum. But let us apply Ocham's Razor...we have a set of unknown circumstances that created God who created the universe, or a set of unknown circumstances that created the universe. Which one is the most plausible. We cut out the infeasible omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient middleman who just adds unnecessary complexity. So all efforts should be directed at looking at what the true cause of the universe is, not distracted with these little philosophies.

And I know what I see. And the simple fact is, evolution fits the facts completely...there is no lying or trying to tuck in the loose edges, it fits completely, the genetics, natural selection, how the principle works. Just that we learn new details every day, especially in terms of the fossil record. Where is the place for creation in this grand scheme of science? Nowhere I say...

[-=Vagrant=-]

I can't see any answers to "where did God came from".
Do some people really think that metaphysics are a part of science?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
We are the Good Guys. The creationists are the Bad Guys. It's really that simple!

Funny that you mention it, cuz the only morons I see around here are evolutionists! (not accusing ALL of course)

[-=Vagrant=-]

Is this turning into a mudslinging contest?
Two Newbie creationists made a hit&run here and we're in another evo vs creation debate. Joy!

Can anyone answer that "where did God come from" question?
Without metaphysics, that is.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"I've always thought of science as a belief system."

That's a contradiction in terms. The definition of belief excludes such a conclusion.

be·lief
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

I think 3 allows for science to be viewed as a belief system. Nowhere in the definition for belief is a disallowance for questioning that belief, it doesn't have to be an absolute acceptance. There are measures of belief, just as there are measures of knowlege. It's an inverse relationship. Until there is a complete knowlege, there is always belief.

When we use a theory for practical purposes, we place a measure of trust or faith in it's usefulness. Scientific theory doesn't allow for absolute knowlege, and as such requires a measure of belief to be useful. In some cases that measure is extremely small, but it is still there, even in our scientific laws.

Religion and science both can lead to zealotry when there is no personal questioning of belief. To the individual these beliefs become fact, indisputable truth. This mindset shouldn't occur within the scientific method, but it doesn't stop some people from taking it that far.

For me science/logic is my religion. It constantly changes as I learn, but it is what I believe in. This shouldn't be a difficult view for someone who understands the nature of theory, and accepts that it is not absolute truth. Probably just confusion on the term belief and what it implies.

[Lincoln]

Aeson seems to be honest. I have no dispute with that type of honesty. As for Occam and his razor I think that brother Occam who was a theist did not intend for God to be shaved off. That is kind of like shaving off the programmer from a software program. It is rather absurd. In order to shave off God it must first be proved that he does not exist. Until then he must be considered as a viable option in science as well as religion.

[Aeson]

http://xtronics.com/reference/ockham.htm

Just the first thing that popped up in google. I was wondering about the correct spelling of ockham, ocham, occam. Dictionary.com also says Occam is correct. Is any spelling generally more acceptable than the others?

Also, I don't think his razor was meant as a form of disproving a theory. Only a means to prioritize research. If both theories have the same basic clause, and one of the theories has additional clauses, then obviously research dealing with the shared clause should come first. It helps to prove/disprove both theories.

[Provost Harrison]

I usually prefer a Gillette myself

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Aeson seems to be honest. I have no dispute with that type of honesty. As for Occam and his razor I think that brother Occam who was a theist did not intend for God to be shaved off. That is kind of like shaving off the programmer from a software program. It is rather absurd. In order to shave off God it must first be proved that he does not exist. Until then he must be considered as a viable option in science as well as religion.

Incorrect, superfluous points within an equation must be shaved off. If there is evidence for them, the theory can be modified. As of yet, there is no evidence for God, so therefore, he too is shaved off.

[Lincoln]

There is evidence for God. You just do not fit that evidence into your belief system. On the other hand I consider both evolution and creation as valid options. One of us is discarding evidence.

[SKILORD]

SUBJECT REALIGNMENT

the subject here pertains not to the validity of either system only the defenition of religion really and whether or not Evolution fits into that defenition. I have noticed that this discussion meanders between the two subjects and would perfer that we stick with the latter.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Okay if the 'where did God come from' is a legitimate argument then where did matter and the big bang come from? Until you religious types can answer that then your faith has no foundation.

If you look at atheism as a lack of a positive belief about god (ie weak atheism) then as long as you don't have any really conclusive evidence for god is makes sense to remain an atheist (for much the same reason that we shouldn't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn until we find conclusive evidence that it exists). There's a real lack of physical evidence that god exists so a lot of apologists end up using arguments that basically say that god MUST exist for some philosophical reason which range from semantic games (the ontological arguement) to the truely bizarre (presuppositionalism) to the first cause arguement. However the first cause argument doesn't do a terribly good job of proving the existance of god because of the good old "where did god come from," since there's no more reason so see why gods pop into existance by themselves than universes. And in any case we've got at least some idea how universes can pop into existance uncaused (ie vacuum fluctuations) and no idea of how gods could do that, so that arguement doesn't do anything to weak atheism.

As far as evolution and creationism go, evolution does such a vastly better job of explaining things like the earth's geology and the fossil record that it doesn't make sense to not give it at least qualified support.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There is evidence for God. You just do not fit that evidence into your belief system. On the other hand I consider both evolution and creation as valid options. One of us is discarding evidence.

Lay out the salient proof that there is a God. Of course, that evidence that indicates nothing else (a lot of people thinking it is not evidence, because that could just indicate a flaw in the human psyche)