Evolution: A religion?

[Ethelred]

More likely we will look back at it as we do Newtons Theory of Gravity. A very close aproximation of reality but not quite all there is to it, replaced by the biological equivalent of General Relativity which has not made Newton useless since we still use Newton for space navigation today.

In fact we allready think that way with Darwin and Wallace. Darwin and Wallace had a good idea and the general principles are still valid and there is no reason to think that will change. Darwin's main mistake was his insistance that evolution was very slow and gradual at all times. Puncuated equilibrium looks to be a much more accurate description of the pace of evolution.

We know that mutations occur. We know the some are bad and some are merely different. We also know the some are usefull. It is inherent in this that the bad will be selected out and the the good will remain and increase in the population. That is all that evolution is. The accumulation of usefull mutations over time.

Beyond our knowledge of genetics the key change from Darwin is that we now know that the environment changes. This means that what is usefull changes. It means what is bad changes. Therefor species must change to survive. They cannot not change since the genes that are not good in a changed environment will be selected out.(boy thats a lot of 'nots' in one sentence).

[Aeson]

We know that mutations occur.

You're right Ethelred, I didn't mean that we would look back on it as equally fallacious as zeus or a flat world. Just that our explainations will probably end up changing. The ancient Greeks knew that lightning did occur, their explaination just wasn't very good in light of our modern understanding of science.

[Provost Harrison]

Sheesh, these creationists are like insects. You swat one and more come back, buzzing around your head and irritating you. And you have to swat them again. I want some fly spray, kill them all at once

[Rogan Josh]

I wouldn't say evolution was a religion. Indeed, as has been pointed out already, it has been proven in the lab (ie that genetic mutation occurs). I would even say that Evolution by Natural Selection has fairly good evidence, although I personally believe that only some variant of the idea will be true.

I would however say that it is used by religion. I believe atheism is a religion - believing something for which one requires faith - and evolution is one of the tools which atheists (falsely) use to try and justify their beliefs. Only in that sense, is it part of a religion, and I don't think that really qualifies. After all, many religions have some aspect of their belief which is true.

[Provost Harrison]

I'd have thought you'd have known better than playing into the idiot's hands RJ

[Rogan Josh]

Of course, it is a religion in the looser sense of the word, ie. in the same way that football is a 'religion'. It gains fanatical support from some people who focus their entire life around it, and give it much more attention than it deserves.

Isn't that right pH?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It gains fanatical support from some people who focus their entire life around it, and give it much more attention than it deserves.

With this definition, all aspects of science could be referred to as "religion"

[Provost Harrison]

I just find it irritating that despite the huge piles of information and evidence, all intertwined and interlinking, people call it nonsense without checking up on the information, especially with regard to natural selection. Hence the insect analogy.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I would however say that it is used by religion. I believe atheism is a religion - believing something for which one requires faith - and evolution is one of the tools which atheists (falsely) use to try and justify their beliefs..

I don't think Atheism qualifies as a religion. I have trolled a few Strong Atheists though by carefull use of terminology.

'Atheism is a relgious belief.'

That gets the less wary. It is a religious belief in that it is a belief about religions or at least an aspect of religion that is not founded in facts. However I am carefull not to call it a religion since it doesn't fit even the loosest definition of one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


With this definition, all aspects of science could be referred to as "religion"

Does it cover me? I still have an Amiga cluttering up my apartment.

[Combat Ingrid]

Hehe, I guess so

[SpencerH]

I've always felt that for most people, science is a religion. They believe scientific "facts" in virtually the same way that they believe in god. Science and religions are the opiates of the masses in the 20th and 21st centuries.

[Provost Harrison]

No, I get no emotional comfort from science. It is a matter of intellectual integrity.

[Aeson]

I don't think emotional comfort is a requirement of religion. I've known more than a few where their religion was just the opposite.

[Lincoln]

Too bad our guests left so quickly. When I troll an atheist forum I generally stay until they either resort to the childish "where did God come from" argument or they slowly fade off into the sunset.

There is certainly a fanatical element among evolutionists but I think most people believe it because it has been taught in school now for so long, just as it used to be taught that the Pope was the vicar of Christ in public schools.

Evolution will eventually go away when people begin to think for themselves and not read the talkorigins website as if it was their Bible. Free thinking can be a good thing!