Evolution-A Religion or Not?

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two different things.

I agree. True, I'm no longer into biology as I was as a wee lad in high school (because dissecting animals depresses me), but I see the certainty with which evolutionists speak of evolution as nothing more than faith that the evolutionist's interpretation of the fossil record is correct. And the way some evolutionists will act as though creationists don't even believe in electricity stinks of a religious zeal. I know organisms can mutate, but I see nothing except a reading of bones to believe that organisms can become more complex with time. And changing colors is not becoming more complex.
I think what's made me lose faith most in the certainty of evolution (in that I no longer believe it) is the way people would point to insects changing colors and go: "See! Evolution at work! Goo to you!" We humans might be taller and live longer than our ancestors, but we still have the same number of chromosomes.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see this on the "Christians are Arrogant" thread.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.

Link

nothing more then that

"Than" not "then." I see some people haven't evolved.

I agree that it takes faith to believe in evolution.

I disagree that it could be classified as a religion.

I looked up a definition of "religion" on dictionary.com, and this is the most relevant one that I found:
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Evolution in itself is not a cause or principle that people actively pursue; it is simply a theory that takes a certain amount of faith to believe. Some people have made a religion of atheism, and use evolution to support their own views.

way to use wikipedia as your source.... the liberal opinionated encyclopedia that is open to the public for editing. and i just edited the word theory to mean "an unsubstantiated guess or hunch" (which can actually be found in the dictionary whereas "a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena" cannot). check the link again (unless someone has already edited it)!
but anyway... using your definition.... Evolution is a) not logical (life can't come from non-life); not self-consistent (the theory of evolution cannot stand up to unbiased scientific inquiry- i say this because i am a scientist and i deal with this issue) and c) not adequate at describing the behavior of natural or social phenomena (the majority of evolution theory is contradictory to actual scientific data, observation, and experimentation).
and you are right... some people, i guess, have not evolved... haha way to be...

Nothing said here that Anne Coulter didn't already say and she was wrong too. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution doesn't rule out the possibility that God created life in the first place.

It is not stated as fact, that would be a "law" not a "theory". There are things that you can see that give evidence to the "theory of evolution". Evolution is scientific theory. Creationism is strictly religious belief. Neither have been proven or disproven....obviously.

Nothing said here that Anne Coulter didn't already say and she was wrong too. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution doesn't rule out the possibility that God created life in the first place.

Amen Jill. I am a christian, a firm believer in God, but I still think that he used evolution to create everything on this world. The whole idea of God coming down and making the whole place in the space of six days and all that jazz is, IMO, just metaphor.

If we took everything at face value in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we'd never get it right.

The root cause of the confusion comes from science, in my opinion. We've become accustomed to building on theories now, many of which are beyond our capability to prove even after decades of buidling other science on them. A religious person looks at that and calls it "faith", and perhaps it is in a way.. It isn't religion, though, only an assumption that a fact is true based upon another fact.

Bad science? Maybe, when there's another choice. I mean a lot of geometry entails proving something based upon a set of data with a hole in it. If angle x is this and angle y is that then angle z has to be this other thing. Some "angles" we don't have the ability to look at in science, and therefore we have to try and define them based upon laws we already know. There's a lot of physics out there that relies upon looking for the effects of unobservable things to prove their existence.

But religion? No. If people spin philosphical truths off of evolutionary theory, they have departed from science and undertaken philosophy. Perhaps you could make the point that some people have perverted the study of evolution into a "cause" to prove a philosophical point or disprove someone else's, but that isn't demonstrative of real science, it is a wrong against it.

Reply By: dear iconoclast(Anonymous User)

It still says basically the same thing.

Scientific theory is not the same as philosphical theory, or a theory you may dream up to address something you don't have all the facts to. Science basically breaks ideas into a few steps/categories:

Hypothesis - Basically a wild guess. This is what most people think scientific theory actually is. In fact, a hypothesis is really just a statement or idea that one wants to work on to prove. The starting point of the scientific process.

Theory - A hypothesis that has been suffeciently proven to be true/reliable after considerable experimentation. Atomic Theory is an example. We know for a fact that we can split an atom and make a really big bang, but all the science it bases itself on still resides in the realm of scientific "theory". This is the in-between realm of science. It's no longer a guess, but at the same time it's not yet 100% proven to be true. The more complex the scientific theory becomes, the longer it will reside in the realm of theory as it becomes harder and harder to test every possible permutation.

Law - This is the final stage, the holy grail of science. A law is something we consider to be 100% true. Newtons Laws of Motion, thermodynamics etc... They're considered scientific law (despite the fact that at very very very short intervals on a sub-atomic scale, we sometimes see exceptions). There are very few scientific laws.

The most important part to scientific theory is that it is something that has been largely proven out through considerable experimentation. Sure, you can argue that those experiments can only be reproduced by someone of very high training and therefore could be part of some massive conspiracy of scientists, or you could say that since we can not ourselves verify the results of any such experiment that it then falls into the realm of faith/unprovable... but at that point you're basically saying nothing is fact, all is subjective and the entire universe is really just one big act of faith we all choose to believe in.

Evolution, as most people look at it, is not the theory that life comes from nothing. It is not attempting to explain the origin of life, but how life has come to be what it is now. It also doesn't expressly disprove God. If anything, the changes from simple to complex w see in nature today would , if anything, suggest there may be something guiding it all. Do not confuse pop-science's view of "something from nothing" with what evolution actually is.

I still think that he used evolution to create everything on this world.

This is Deism. But where did God come from? Life can't come from non-life, right?

Evolution, as most people look at it, is not the theory that life comes from nothing. It is not attempting to explain the origin of life, but how life has come to be what it is now.

Yes. Think of the evolution of man. It's not saying man came from nothing, it's expaining how we evolved from primates, to homo-sapiens.

I wont go so far as to call Evolution a religion, but it does require faith.  And as a theory, it defies one of the scientific precepts.  The abilty to test it.  But interesting letter from David.  Very good as well.

Great replies by all. Thank you for your input.......a few thoughts as I read your answers.

I still think that he used evolution to create everything on this world.

This is Deism.

This is called Theistic Evolution which I as a Christian reject. I believe it basically is for those who are trying to marry Moses and Darwin together and thereby trying to please both sides. It basically says that God used evolution to create the universe over a billion years or so. I have to (as a Christian) believe in his word that he did create the world in a literal six days for a variety of reason one of which He said so. Hey I'm just wondering why it took that long. After all he is God.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two different things.

Agree here. I (tongue in cheek) like to say that I believe in the Big Bang Theory. God said it, and BANG it happened........

Life can't come from non-life, right?

Exactly. This is the age old question and still the question of the day!! Ex Nihilo Nil...out of nothing comes nothing.

I wont go so far as to call Evolution a religion, but it does require faith.

But religion? No.

It doesn't take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science involves using one or more of the five senses to gain knowledge and be able to repeat the observation. Naturally one can only observe what is in the present. It is easy to understand that no scientist was present over the billions of suggested years to witness the supposed evolutionary process of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to witness the big bang or see the formation of the earth or observe the first life coming out of the sea. No human witness was there to witness this. And they cannot be repeated today.

All the evidence a scientist has is in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants etc., everything exists now-the present. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present originated.

looked up a definition of "religion" on dictionary.com, and this is the most relevant one that I found:"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

This is right. I believe this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system-a religion. Common sense tells you that one does not dig up an age of the dinos. One digs up dead dinos that exist now, not millions of years ago. Fossil bones do not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Neither do we have pictures telling us what they looked like. When you go to a museum you are confronted by bits and pieces of bones neatly arranged in glass cases. These are often accompanied by pictures representing an artist's impression of what these animals looked like. No one dug up a picture, just the fossils. Quite often these bones are found in beds containing millions of pieces of bones, most no larger than the end of your thumb.

Here's a question. Regarding a fossil deposit....did all the animals and plants contained in the deposits live together, die together or were buried together? Make sure your answer is consistent with true scientific research. Did you see it happen? All we know is they were buried together because they were found together.

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky (The American Biology Teacher Vol 35, Number 3 March 1973 page 129) quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.."Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."

Contrast to what Jesus said..."I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness..." All through scripture we see that God is light.

So we pick between the two.

"Here's a question. Regarding a fossil deposit....did all the animals and plants contained in the deposits live together, die together or were buried together? Make sure your answer is consistent with true scientific research. Did you see it happen? All we know is they were buried together because they were found together. "

We don't even know that, frankly. Geological upheavals have shifted the strata in many areas, confusing the dating process. That doesn't mean that we can't construe from what we find and build on our knowledge of our time. You have nothing to prove that George Washington existed beyond the word of a bunch of dead people whose stories can not be verified.

I find it interesting that you are willing to put that kind eyewitness requirement on science. Are you willing to put that kind of scepticism up against Bibical assertions? Who was the guy who witnessed the conversation between the devil and God in the book of Job? You hear a lot about things in the Bible, but they never mention who was taking notes at the time.

If you hide one corner of a triangle from me, I can tell you what its angle is without seeing it. As I said, there are a lot of things in science that require us to model realities we can't observe. If we were required to see that stuff, the the subatomic particles we use to run the computer you sit at and the TV you watch would be off limits.

"Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present originated."

Your sanity itself is a belief system. When you get your keys and go outside expecting your car to be waiting for you, you are excersizing belief. Did you check to see if your car was there before you went outside?


The next time you blink, are you sure you'll find yourself in the same place when you open your eyes? Why? Because you make assumptions based upon the laws of the universe you are accustomed to. Science tries to quantify and define those assumptions and predict things based upon them to learn new things. You make predictions based on them every minute of every day, it has just become unspoken instinct.

Religious belief differs from religion because in religion we makes certain predictions about God, the soul, etc. that can't be tested in any way. If evolutionary theory is 100% true, it makes no statement about the existance of God or God's role in the creation of the universe or anything in particular thereafter.

People who see a conflict do so because they need for there to be a conflict. There doesn't really, though. What you defend isn't the existance of God, it is the book you claim to be infallible, that, frankly, never claimed to be in the first place.

But, then that's another argument, lol...

P.S. "Ex Nihilo Nil...out of nothing comes nothing."

And yet the genetic material that defines you is not alive; it is just a complex protein. If you think about it, God formed us from the dust of the earth. Does the Bible say that God breathed souls into the animals? Are animals not alive?

Surely you aren't posing the pantheistic idea that God is in every rock, tree and mountain goat. Yet trees and goats are alive. If God can assemble something alive from nothing that is, then the process itself isn't impossible. I think you'd have to ignore your imagination to think that God is required to reach down and physically make it happen for every tree and goat.

If your answer is God made a system wherein something from nothing is possible, then you really aren't arguing against evolution, just the prime source of the process, about which evolutionary theory makes no claims.

It doesn't take a "lot" of faith to believe in evolution.

Evolution is a theory.  Some of its proponents try to pretend it's fact but it's not. It's simply a theory on how species evolve into other species.  It does not argue how life began. It does not say there is or isn't a god. It simply argues that a series of mutations big and small along with adaptions that living things make to their environments, over time, result in new species.

Evolution, for example, does not mean that God or some other super being did not create life in the first place.  It makes no suggestion of how life began.

There are some significant holes in evolution that are difficult to explain.  But presently, it is, at worst, a hypothesis, and at best a very plausible theory.  But it is not a religion any more than the big bang theory is a religion.

You have nothing to prove that George Washington existed beyond the word of a bunch of dead people whose stories can not be verified.

Com'on Baker you can't even really compare the two. We have tons of stuff...eyewittness accounts and many things in his own handwriting, chairs he sat in, cups he drank from. Many differrent sources to get our info from that don't conflict. In contrast we have nothing of the sort to go back to the beginning of time. Nothing.

Your sanity itself is a belief system. When you get your keys and go outside expecting your car to be waiting for you, you are excersizing belief.

of course I agree. Every time I open up a can of corn, I expect corn in there. Why? Because everytime I opened up a can prior (using my senses) I expereinced corn in there.

Are you willing to put that kind of scepticism up against Bibical assertions? Who was the guy who witnessed the conversation between the devil and God in the book of Job?

Yes to the first question and a great second question Baker. I always imagined it was the Holy Spirit that moved Job to write what he did. But again it takes faith to believe the revealed word of God comes directly from God...and you know I do.

We cannot say we have a witness for creation (outside the HS) or for any evolutionary process. Both have to be taken at Faith value.

What you defend isn't the existance of God,

of course it is. I don't need the book to tell me. I see it all around me. That's one thing that drove me to his revealed word. Right now we have an 18 year old local boy who has come up to my son wanting to learn about God. He came from a crappy home, with no belief being fostered in him at all yet he knows there's a God. He wants to learn about this God. How does he know especially after 13 years of being schooled in a system that only preaches evolution? Because it's internal and it's also external. All we have to do is open our eyes.

No human being has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change constantly. As they learn new things, they change their conclusions. As a matter of fact, as they change they are moving away from Darwin's theory of evolution to an Intelligent Design theory stopping short of naming this designer God. Once DNA came on the scene I believe alot of things changed. Life was a bit more complex than any dreamed of.

Once DNA came on the scene I believe alot of things changed. Life was a bit more complex than any dreamed of.

No. DNA too was once a theory. It required...faith if you will to believe in its existence. But it was long theorized that somewhere in our cells was some sort of complex blue print. In fact, DNA was an off-shoot of Darwinism which stipulated that something like DNA would need to exist in order for evolution to make sense.

"Com'on Baker you can't even really compare the two. We have tons of stuff...eyewittness accounts and many things in his own handwriting, chairs he sat in, cups he drank from. Many differrent sources to get our info from that don't conflict. In contrast we have nothing of the sort to go back to the beginning of time. Nothing."

Wait, wait, there. You have eyewitess accounts of alien abductions, too. How many people thought the Blair Witch Project was really a tape someone found after people went missing? You have accounts of dragons on almost every continent and every major culture. Do you believe that proves the existence of dragons?

So, in the end, how do you differentiate between the eyewitness accounts of George Washington and eyewitness of St. George slaying the dragon or the Roswell crash? In exactly the same way science judges the validity of geological evidence by weighing how dubious or convincing it is. The difference is in real, hard science, the existence of George Washington would always be open to refutation in the face of new data.

In the same way, scientists who think evolution makes the existence of God absurd are no more scientific than you are about the existence of George Washinton, and hard-line creationists are no more scientific than either of them, because they allow for no other possibility.

"We cannot say we have a witness for creation (outside the HS) or for any evolutionary process. Both have to be taken at Faith value. "

But the difference is evolutionary belief doesn't effect my life outside evolutionary belief. If you teach children in science class that God made the earth in 6 days, then you have to admit you are causing them to accept a LOT more than just the physical processes that created the earth.

In order for evolution to be religion it would have to have greater consequences than just describing what it does. Those imagined consequences aren't science, they are philosophy. In order for evolution to effect your belief in God you have to construe that it is somehow refuting your beliefs. Given that science always ends its statements with a question mark, leaving everything open for re-evaluation when more data is avialable, you can't really say it refutes anything.

So, you can't say that teaching evolution and teaching creationism has the same weight on the student. One teaches what might have been with no other consequences. The other reinforces the reality of a religion that goes far, far beyond any single scientific theory.

It basically says that God used evolution to create the universe over a billion years or so. I have to (as a Christian) believe in his word that he did create the world in a literal six days for a variety of reason one of which He said so.

I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I really don't believe that the six "creative periods", we'll call them, were six literal days. that doesn't make me any less christian than you, however. As I mentioned, I see this as a method he could use to explain to those early believers who heard and read these words a bit more about the creation.

It's just like I don't believe when in Revelation John is talking about the "locusts with the face of men and the teeth of lions" and all that jazz that he wasn't seeing jet fighters. (Rev. 9:3-10, for those of you following at home ) If I were to believe it straight across I'm going to see some scary-ass bugs during the time before the second coming of Christ. But, using my common sense and the mind God himself gave me, I figure it out - "Oh, Johnny boy here is talking about jets. I get it."

For me, it's the same way with evolution. Until God speaks again through his chosen prophet that evolution is incorrect, it can jive just fine with my faith in His creation.

How was a day measured before he created the sun?

How was a day measured before he created the sun?

Presumably he based the time it took for the earth to rotate and provide an Earth day on the celestial days he used before the sun existed. It just makes sense that it would work like that if you accept the 7-day theory.

I really don't believe that the six "creative periods", we'll call them, were six literal days

Why not? Do you think that God could not do so? Or is something else telling you otherwise? Remember he is a God of infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite wisdom.

Think about this:

The word for day in Genesis is "YOM" It can mean either a day (24 hour period), or the daylight portion of day. This word "yom" never means indefinite period of time. The word which means long period of time is "olam" Yom was the word used in Genesis 1. Furthermore look at the 10 commandments given much later to Moses inscribed by the finger of God, Gen 31:18. But notice what it said for the 4th commandment 20:9.....we are to work for six days and rest for one. V11 says: For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

To be consistent we must use it the same way. God set up a pattern which we still have today in our 7 day work week. If not, it makes no sense at all. You would be saying it was six indefinite periods of time and resting a seventh indefinite time. Makes no sense to me. Scripture always interprets itself.

Here's another thought as to why it seems inconsistent in saying a day is a long perid of time. Adam was created on the 6th day right? Well it says later that he died at 930 years of age, Gen 5:5 right? How old was Adam really if you're using a thousand or a million years in calculating a day? Again it makes no sense.

Presumably he based the time it took for the earth to rotate and provide an Earth day on the celestial days he used before the sun existed. It just makes sense that it would work like that if you accept the 7-day theory.

yes the day stayed the same, it just had another light source. We see before the sun, there was a light source. We're not told what this source is but since Jesus said he was the light of the world...I'm going in that direction. Also many believe that by God creating the sun on the 4th day it was to discourage what he knew would happen down thru the ages. Many cultures did indeed worship the sun as the source of life. The sun was to rule the day that already existed. God is showing us that he made the earth to begin with and the sun later.

What's interesting also in Revelation it says there will be no need for sun or moon. That the light of God's glory is all that will be needed. This ending fits in nicely with the beginning from my POV.

To me this is all semantics. You can't, for one second, rely scientifically on a work wherein you have no idea who the author was, and even if you did you'd have to admit that the person who wrote it wasn't there to witness the events recorded. When you find yourself talking to a burning bush, it takes a level of unscientific trust to believe it when it tells you it is God.

How long God's day is is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You teach a child evolution, you teach them a theory that science accepts may or may not be true, and that doesn't effect anyone religiously either way. On the other hand teaching creationism doesn't just teach about science.

Once you admit in class that the biblical creation is true, you've basically signed off on heaven, hell, and whatever else you find in the book. If the theory ends up being wrong, the total moral world of the student is wrong. Is science class the place for that? Nope, no more than philosophy class is the place for the study of DNA.

If there is anything that deserves parental oversight it is religion, and there's NO way I am leaving it up to inept, underpaid public servants who may or may not share my religion to teach religion. I KNOW the kind of idiocy my local school board is capable of... no thanks. Let them teach theories, at least kids can take those with a grain of salt.

In fact, DNA was an off-shoot of Darwinism which stipulated that something like DNA would need to exist in order for evolution to make sense.

I've never heard this before. Where do you get your source for this statement? I'd be interested in checking this out.

Wait, wait, there. You have eyewitess accounts of alien abductions, too

ya, you're right. But from what I understand, none credible enough for this to be considered a fact. That's still not the same with George Washington with so much credible evidence out there. Besides Baker, I've said many times before.....I'm the biggest skeptic there is. I am so much like doubting Thomas it isn't funny. I've got to see it to believe it (that should open up a can of worms....hahahaha).

How many people thought the Blair Witch Project was really a tape someone found after people went missing?

I go by this principle......"if it makes sense....seek no other sense." Sensationalism sells.

The difference is in real, hard science, the existence of George Washington would always be open to refutation in the face of new data.

well last I knew there was no "new data" concerning George. I believe that's because there's nothing to refute. Any new news would have to be the news questioned at this point wouldn't you say?

But the difference is evolutionary belief doesn't effect my life outside evolutionary belief. If you teach children in science class that God made the earth in 6 days, then you have to admit you are causing them to accept a LOT more than just the physical processes that created the earth.

First of all, I'm a believer in education, not indoctrination. I think both should be taught. Why are the evolutionists so worried? There are some nasty things going on all across the country regarding this issue. Some very heated debates. Why?

Think about this. The school system has had 100% of the kids' attention regarding evolution for how many years?. But yet if you did a survey you'd find that not even close to 100% believe it to be true and that quite a few believe either in the literal six days of creation or some form of Theistic evolution meaning God had a hand in it. So try as they might, it's a tough sell. And I do believe they are trying to indoctrinate, and while it's somewhat successful it's not close to being totally so.

I like what David said about self esteem in his letter. If they know they were created by a loving God who loved them so much he was willing to die for them, wouldn't that make them feel they had a purpose? I believe we were all put here for a reason. I believe that reason is to find God and glorify him once we do. But it's not easy. There's lot's of obstacles in our way and I believe that teaching of evolution is just one of them.