Is believing in evolution similar to believing in a religion?

[Damian Mahadevan]

I was reading this decidedly anti evolution and pro creation article:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155

To sum up this is a table showing what science requires and what evolutions has fulfilled.

Science Evolution
1-Observational data Fail
2-Accurate predictions Fail
3-Logical Fail(depends on how you look at it)
4-Open to criticism Fail
5-Accurate information Fail
6-No presuppositions Fail(depends on how you look at it)


Ironically if we reverse the questions it looks like the requirements for what religion requires.

So what do you think, is evolution a religion unto itself?

 

[V7]

understanding of science... fail

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

understanding of science... fail

Why do you say that? This is where the questions came from, and they come from the National Research Council in the US.

Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.’

‘Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.’

‘They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.’

‘Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific

 

[JemyM]

This kind of reasoning is usually repeated over and over within sects who find it so important to keep their victims ignorant about the world, that they are willing to tell lies that every person with a decent education see through.

In doing that, they ironically break the eight commandment, but the thing is, I do not believe these people actually believe in a moral God, hell or getting punished for sins at all. They do not believe that at all, all they see is that lying is a source for power and keeping people ignorant is keeping control over them.

Evolutionary theory is, like all sciences, based on empirical data. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to bind together observations made in nature, which makes it possible to predict how lifeforms such as viruses will behave and evolve, thus beating them. It's also used to predict diseases such as Downs Syndrome, it's used in solving crimes through our knowledge of DNA.

Religions are all based on claims about transcendental truths, unobservable by the human senses. They are all created by historical culture, kept through several ages and changed over time while values change and new discoveries are made.

One who are willing to weave lies you to keep away from the observable universe have an agenda. If there is a creator, that person want you to keep away from studying creation like scientists do. You have to ask yourself why.

 

[DeepO]

"No" would suffice.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

This kind of reasoning is usually repeated over and over within sects who find it so important to keep their victims ignorant about the world, that they are willing to tell lies that every person with a decent education see through.

In doing that, they ironically break the eight commandment, but the thing is, I do not believe these people actually believe in a moral God, hell or getting punished for sins at all. They do not believe that at all, all they see is that lying is a source for power and keeping people ignorant is keeping control over them.

Evolutionary theory is, like all sciences, based on empirical data. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to bind together observations made in nature, which makes it possible to predict how lifeforms such as viruses will behave and evolve, thus beating them. It's also used to predict diseases such as Downs Syndrome, it's used in solving crimes through our knowledge of DNA.

Religions are all based on claims about transcendental truths, unobservable by the human senses. They are all created by historical culture, kept through several ages and changed over time while values change and new discoveries are made.

One who are willing to weave lies you to keep away from the observable universe have an agenda. If there is a creator, that person want you to keep away from studying creation like scientists do. You have to ask yourself why.

I don't see how he is lying. There are no observations made in nature that have "new information" as in hands from a species that never has had hands for example. Also why are things like haeckel drawings been in our text books and taught at our schools until now? It seems to me that evolutionists are the ones that try to deceive.

The nature of science is that you should be able to question and test everything, you cant do that with evolution. And hence the question, since you cant prove evolution, can it be considered a religion?

 

[DeepO]

Science Evolution
1-Observational data Fail
2-Accurate predictions Fail
3-Logical Fail(depends on how you look at it)
4-Open to criticism Fail
5-Accurate information Fail
6-No presuppositions Fail(depends on how you look at it)

Elaborate more, please.
At least, how YOU look at it.

 

[JemyM]

Damian, there's really no nice way to tell this to you, but you are an obvious sect victim. Pretty much everything you write on this forum simply shines "repeating what you are spoonfed". You have no education in evolution nor science, your comments show this. You do not even know what evolution, nor science, is. You are simply repeating incoherent lines that no one with basic education in the subjects would be able to say.

Here are some problems with what you just wrote:

There are no observations made in nature that have "new information" as in hands from a species that never has had hands for example.

Evolution do not claim that species suddenly get hands.

Also why are things like haeckel drawings been in our text books and taught at our schools until now?

There are thousands of schoolbooks. Many try to provide some history. No, there are no "worldwide scientific conspiracy of satan", but trying to keep you away from observing the observable universe and create your own mind is important to keep you in control.

It seems to me that evolutionists are the ones that try to deceive.

There are no such thing as "evolutionists" just as there are no "gravityists" or "electricityists". There are observing the observable universe, and there are being taught to avoid it.

The nature of science is that you should be able to question and test everything, you cant do that with evolution.

This is simply a misunderstanding of how Science works. Humans have no authority in science, because in science observations have the highest authority. That means that the only way that you as a human can contribute to science, is by showing observable results. You can question what someone else written, but if you question observations you are not questioning science, you are questioning your sanity. "Questioning science" is not the same as avoiding or ignoring observations like you are told. It's not about challenging scientific theories without the slightest education nor understanding of the theory or the observations it's built on. Questioning science is about testing results, but you are not running any tests.

And hence the question, since you cant prove evolution

This is another misunderstanding of how science works. Scientific theories are not about "proof", they are about generating results, making new observations and trying to bind those observations together. Evolutionary theory binds observations together.

Take a puzzle as an analogy. A puzzle has pieces. Without pieces there are no puzzle. Without observations there are nothing to base a scientific theory on. Proof is the observations, evolutionary theory is simply the act of binding it together. Without "proof" if you want to call it that, there would be no scientific theory. Saying a scientific theory lacks proof is simply ignorant of what the mere expression "scientific theory" means.

What you do is not to "question evolution", you are simply keeping yourself away from studying the observations. That's pretty much like turning your back to the puzzle and claim it's not there.

can it be considered a religion?

This is not only a misunderstanding of what science is, but also what a religion is. Religion is centered on claims regarding transcendental existances. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains observations, it's not claims about what's beyond our senses.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Elaborate more, please.
At least, how YOU look at it.

1-Observational data Fail
There is no witnessed accounts of evolution, at best even Richard Dawkins admits that he relies on fossil record which could be different species and not example of transitional fossils.

‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’


2-Accurate predictions Fail

We cant predict when an evolution is to occur since none have happened.


3-Logical Fail(depends on how you look at it)

True evolution as known to scholars of evolution and are shown in the fossil record is when several mutations occur. It is difficult for me to fathom how this happens and it has never been done in lab environments.


4-Open to criticism Fail

Outside this forum, tell an evolutionist that it is possible he is wrong nad you get called an idiot without them backing themselves up why it isnt wrong.


5-Accurate information Fail

There have been a lot of lies made to further the agenda of evolutionism. For example Haeckels drawings.


6-No presuppositions Fail(depends on how you look at it)

This is about how evolutionists make the assumption there is no god. Which is a presupposition which can potentially taint the research.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Evolution do not claim that species suddenly get hands.

So how do we go from Ameoba to human beings? For evolution to be correct we must have goen from some point from no hands to hands.

There are thousands of schoolbooks. Many try to provide some history. No, there are no "worldwide scientific conspiracy of satan", but trying to keep you away from observing the observable universe and create your own mind is important to keep you in control.

But that was what is taught to me at school. It was a blatant lie.

There are no such thing as "evolutionists" just as there are no "gravityists" or "electricityists". There are observing the observable universe, and there are being taught to avoid it.

Electricty and Gravity have been observed.

This is simply a misunderstanding of how Science works. Humans have no authority in science, because in science observations have the highest authority. That means that the only way that you as a human can contribute to science, is by showing observable results. You can question what someone else written, but if you question observations you are not questioning science, you are questioning your sanity. "Questioning science" is not the same as avoiding or ignoring observations like you are told. It's not about challenging scientific theories without the slightest education nor understanding of the theory or the observations it's built on. Questioning science is about testing results, but you are not running any tests.

But there have been no observations on evolution except in bacteria. AS in no high level evolutions.

 

[V7]

The nature of science is that you should be able to question and test everything, you cant do that with evolution.

Of course you can question it, you're doing that right now.

And hence the question, since you cant prove evolution, can it be considered a religion?

No science can be 'proved' its all just the theory that best fits the evidence, if you can come up with a theory that's a better fit we'll all happily abandon evolution.... and no 'my invisible friend made us' isn't it unless you have some supporting evidence.

Never understood why they called it 'intelligent design' either, if the human body were designed it was by a drunk subcontractor in a dark basement using leftovers.

 

[JemyM]

So how do we go from Ameoba to human beings?

Carl Sagan explains this the easy way.

For evolution to be correct we must have gone from some point from no hands to hands.

Hands evolved from front legs which evolved from front fins. One peculiar piece of information is that every bird or mammal have five fingers and five toes. You might not see it when you look at the surface, but when you examine the skeleton there simply aren't any species with three or six fingers.

At what point? To give you some perspective on that question; at one point you must go from child to old, yet you look the same every day. Can you tell that you at a specific point get old?

But there have been no observations on evolution except in bacteria. AS in no high level evolutions.

Without observations there would be no scientific theory.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Carl Sagan explains this the easy way.



Hands evolved from front legs which evolved from front fins. One peculiar piece of information is that every bird or mammal have five fingers and five toes. You might not see it when you look at the surface, but when you examine the skeleton there simply aren't any species with three or six fingers.

I had a friend with six fingers, the sixth was an exact copy of his pinkie, and non functional i believe. And i think you missed my point. The hands when there were no hands was an example. The point is that new information in evolution hasnt been observed.

Without observations there would be no scientific theory.

And that is the problem with evolution. There has been no observations on evolution. If this is false show me an example of high level evolution that has been observed. And i will accept evolution.

 

[V7]

And that is the problem with evolution. There has been no observations on evolution. If this is false show me an example of high level evolution that has been observed. And i will accept evolution.

and that's where the ID camp comes unstuck.. we don't need to demonstrate evolution, don't care if you accept it or not, the science isn't interested in your personal beliefs only if you can come up with a more compelling theory than evolution.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

and that's where the ID camp comes unstuck.. we don't need to demonstrate evolution, don't care if you accept it or not, the science isn't interested in your personal beliefs only if you can come up with a more compelling theory than evolution.

See that is fair enough. I hate it when some people call you an idiot for not accepting evolution because "evolution is fact".

 

[Prime Junta]

1-Observational data Fail
There is no witnessed accounts of evolution, at best even Richard Dawkins admits that he relies on fossil record which could be different species and not example of transitional fossils.

Incorrect on all counts.

(1) Speciation has been observed in nature and in the laboratory.
(2) Direct observation is not the only valid way to obtain accurate information. Inference from indirect evidence is valid as well. Both direct observation and indirect inference can vary in reliability.
(3) The fossil record is only one of the evidentiary lines for evolution. Others include morphology and genetics.

‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’

Incorrect. It has been observed while it's happening.

2-Accurate predictions Fail

Evolutionary biology is a historical science. It looks at the past, not the future. It has made a very large number of remarkably accurate predictions about the past -- that is, about the kind of evidence that would be expected to turn up, and subsequently has.

We cant predict when an evolution is to occur since none have happened.

You're assuming the conclusion: this is fallacious.

3-Logical Fail(depends on how you look at it)

Well, at least you did hedge this one.

True evolution as known to scholars of evolution and are shown in the fossil record is when several mutations occur. It is difficult for me to fathom how this happens and it has never been done in lab environments.

No, it isn't, yes, it clearly is, and yes, it has.

4-Open to criticism Fail

So, what's your take on the Punk Eek debate?

Outside this forum, tell an evolutionist that it is possible he is wrong nad you get called an idiot without them backing themselves up why it isnt wrong.

Not exactly. You'll get called and idiot, and then they'll point out exactly why you're wrong, but being an idiot, you won't be able to understand the argumentation.

5-Accurate information Fail

If by "accurate" you mean "invariably correct," certainly fail -- but that's true for all science. But then that's not what we mean by "accurate" when talking about science, do we?

There have been a lot of lies made to further the agenda of evolutionism. For example Haeckels drawings.

And these same lies have been debunked by... evolutionary biologists. That's the beauty of the scientific method, you see -- it recognizes that humans are fallible, and provides a mechanism with which these errors (including intentional lies) can be caught and corrected over time.

6-No presuppositions Fail(depends on how you look at it)

Good, you hedged this one too.

(Where did this "no presuppositions" thing come from, by the way? There are always presuppositions. For example, the scientific method presupposes that there are regularities in nature that can be understood through argument and experience -- which is a fairly large assumption.)

This is about how evolutionists make the assumption there is no god. Which is a presupposition which can potentially taint the research.

Evolutionary biology makes no statements about God whatsoever. The topic of God is not within the scope of the subject. That's why there are plenty of people who believe in God but who have no trouble understanding and applying evolutionary biology.

 

[Prime Junta]

And that is the problem with evolution. There has been no observations on evolution. If this is false show me an example of high level evolution that has been observed. And i will accept evolution.

Incorrect: there are ring species in nature (e.g. the arctic seagulls), and speciation can be observed in the laboratory in orchids and fruit flies.

Also, the whole "micro-" versus "macroevolution" thing is a canard -- "macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution." Speciation usually takes a long time, making it difficult to observe directly, which is why we have to rely on indirect evidence for much of what we know about the mechanics and effects of biological evolution. But biological evolution itself has been and can be observed under controlled conditions.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Incorrect: there are ring species in nature (e.g. the arctic seagulls), and speciation can be observed in the laboratory in orchids and fruit flies.

Also, the whole "micro-" versus "macroevolution" thing is a canard -- "macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution." Speciation usually takes a long time, making it difficult to observe directly, which is why we have to rely on indirect evidence for much of what we know about the mechanics and effects of biological evolution. But biological evolution itself has been and can be observed under controlled conditions.

Can you get me a link on this. And I don't argue against speciation. If anything i believe it happens a lot.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Incorrect on all counts.

(1) Speciation has been observed in nature and in the laboratory.
(2) Direct observation is not the only valid way to obtain accurate information. Inference from indirect evidence is valid as well. Both direct observation and indirect inference can vary in reliability.
(3) The fossil record is only one of the evidentiary lines for evolution. Others include morphology and genetics.

I dont argue against speciation, but i dont consider it evolution, well not the kind of evolution i am asking for anyway.

Incorrect. It has been observed while it's happening.

Ok, show me the money?

Evolutionary biology is a historical science. It looks at the past, not the future. It has made a very large number of remarkably accurate predictions about the past -- that is, about the kind of evidence that would be expected to turn up, and subsequently has.

Can you give me an example of this please?

No, it isn't, yes, it clearly is, and yes, it has.

So, what's your take on the Punk Eek debate?

Never seen it.

And these same lies have been debunked by... evolutionary biologists. That's the beauty of the scientific method, you see -- it recognizes that humans are fallible, and provides a mechanism with which these errors (including intentional lies) can be caught and corrected over time.

So why has it been in schools until now?

Good, you hedged this one too.

(Where did this "no presuppositions" thing come from, by the way? There are always presuppositions. For example, the scientific method presupposes that there are regularities in nature that can be understood through argument and experience -- which is a fairly large assumption.)



Evolutionary biology makes no statements about God whatsoever. The topic of God is not within the scope of the subject. That's why there are plenty of people who believe in God but who have no trouble understanding and applying evolutionary biology.

Ok i accept i am wrong at that.

 

[Prime Junta]

I dont argue against speciation, but i dont consider it evolution, well not the kind of evolution i am asking for anyway.

What kind of evolution are you asking for anyway? If you're talking about, say, fish evolving into amphibians, then sure, you can't observe it directly, because that takes millions of years, and we don't have that kind of time. But that's a fundamentally silly argument, since it rules out indirect evidence. If our knowledge only relied on direct observation, we wouldn't be able to know just about anything at all.

Ok, show me the money?

[ http://www.orchids.co.in/plant-facts/variation-chromosome-numbers-speciation.shtm ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species ]

Can you give me an example of this please?

Take our own evolutionary tree: Darwin hypothesized that humans and great apes have common ancestors. This hypothesis predicted that we would come across fossil evidence of these common ancestors and of species that are morphologically between these ancestors and ourselves on the one hand, and great apes on the other hand. Since Darwin, plenty of such fossil evidence has been found.

Never seen it.

Maybe you should look it up. Google "punctuated equilibrium" and "phyletic gradualism."

So why has it been in schools until now?

What, the Haeckel drawings, or the fact that ontogeny often mirrors phylogeny? I don't write schoolbooks, so I don't know.

If I did write a biology textbook, I would explain the phenomenon, mention that Haeckel first described it, and finish off with a picture of one of his drawings compared to photographs of embryos at the same stages to show how our understanding of the topic has evolved since him. Then I'd draw the reader's attention to the fact that some of Haeckel's drawings are a bit too good to be true, and put in a homework assignment asking the students to consider why this is the case, and what this, and our subsequent improved knowledge of the phenomenon, says about the scientific method.

Edit: Turns out Wikipedia has a pretty good discussion of Haeckel's theory in light of what we know now. You might want to check it out: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory ]