# Evolution is only a religion and not Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2002, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524 "2002-09-01T04:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rhapsody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9de0a6/32.png) [@Rhapsody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhapsody)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/21 "2002-09-01T20:53:11Z")
The difference is that the theory of evolution is based on evidence. Christianity is based on fables and mythology. I bet I can find lot more physical evience to support evolution than you can find to support christianity, or most any other “religion”. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/22 "2002-09-01T21:23:26Z")
Religion and science have no inherent conflict, except among the uneducated who take Biblical metaphors for literal truth. > [@](#): > > No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose any threat to religion–for these two great tools of human understanding operate in complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally separate realms: science as an inquiry about the factual state of the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning and ethical values. Stephen Jay Gould, “Darwin and the Munchkins of Kansas,” I Have Landed: The End of a Beginning In Natural History, (Harmony Books, New York, 2002), p. 214. I would suggest the OP visit talkorigins.org, and learn how an understanding of the nature of evolution is central to the study of biology. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Jensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/aca169/32.png) [@James\_Jensen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Jensen)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/23 "2002-09-01T21:58:11Z")
I will not respond to theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions these are all traites of religion and these can be argued in another forum but I will only deal with that which is posted as supposed but only contrived proof. The majority of what you posted is just that, theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions. Variation (not micro-evolution) within a species is not proof of evolution, each species remains the same (dog, cat etc.) there is no evidence of one species changing into another it cannot be found. If there is mountains of evidence then produce at least one microbe-piece of evidence, surely you can do that if there is all this supposed evidence to support the theory of evolution which is not fact. Claiming something is fact does not make it a fact. Give me the facts and evidence that proves this. The credibility of evolution is in great question because not one of you can produce the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/24 "2002-09-01T22:09:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by James Jensen_ > **there is no evidence of one species changing into another it cannot be found.** … unless you’re willing to type “observed speciation” into Google, and you’re Feeling Lucky. (That’s a Google joke, son.) [Here you go](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Observed instances of speciation. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/25 "2002-09-01T22:09:40Z")
James, dear, we’ve _given_ you the evidence. Read any of the links given in this thread, and it’s _right_ in front of you. ---
**Author:** ![chorus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@chorus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/26 "2002-09-01T22:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I will not respond to theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions so… what does that leave? > [@](#): > > these are all traites of religion and Are you implying that these are not traits of science? Hmm… interesting… science without ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or theories. How, exactly, does science work without these things? > [@](#): > > each species remains the same (dog, cat etc.) Exactly right! My mom’s cat is actually just a “variation” of a tiger, and not it’s own distinct animal. Really. It’s a tiger. That’s smaller. Fluffier. Lacks stripes or really any characteristic that identifies a tiger. > [@](#): > > Give me the facts and evidence that proves this. I think there’s been several links for this in previous posts > [@](#): > > The credibility of evolution is in great question because not one of you can produce the evidence NOW I understand. You don’t want us to **tell** you about evidence, you want us to materialize it in your lap!! How could we be so foolish! Just give me a sec and I’ll beam some fossils over –Chorus ---
**Author:** ![KillerFig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/51bf81/32.png) [@KillerFig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KillerFig)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/27 "2002-09-01T22:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > \*\* > there is no evidence of one species changing into another it cannot be found. > > \*\* Actually, a few posts back, **Tracer** posted two links to lists of observed instances of speciation (speciation referring to the emergence of a new species). Have you read over the studies cited in those lists? If you have disagreements with them, what are they? As other posters have suggested, it would be very informative for you to read over some of the material at [TalkOrigins.org](http://www.talkorigins.org). ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/28 "2002-09-01T22:29:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I will not respond to theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions these are all traites of religion and these can be argued in another forum but I will only deal with that which is posted as supposed but only contrived proof. Firstly, GD is precisely where we discuss religion on this board, as stated in the forum descriptions. Secondly, you have failed to make a compelling argument for your thesis that evolution is a religion rather than a science. Thirdly, several posters have provided links to factual material that show concrete evidence of evolutionary processes in the development of life at all levels. Have you followed any of these links? If not, you will be hard-pressed to argue your position effectively. Of course, given the constraints you wish to demand of us, we may see no reason to respond further to your personal theories, philosophies, definitions, speculation or opinion. > [@](#): > > Claiming something is fact does not make it a fact. I will remember you made this statement, Mr. Jensen, when you explain why you apparently believe that all science related to evolutionary processes is invalid. In case you forgot, you haven’t actually mentioned what you believe is responsible for the observed diversity of life. Your turn. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Jensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/aca169/32.png) [@James\_Jensen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Jensen)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/29 "2002-09-01T22:37:03Z")
I’ve been to these link and they provide no evidence only theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions. They like all evolutionist cannot evidentially prove that evolution exists. Science or scientific: knowledge ascertained by observations of all the fact’s none excluded, through systematic experimentation’s, critically tested, repeatedly done over and over again with the same results. Produce the evidence not links anyone can post a link. It appears you cannot produce the evidence but only post links. Evolution is only appearing to be a religion and not evidentially proven by every post made. I am not here to prove Creationism but challenging you to prove evidentially that evolution has taken place. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/30 "2002-09-01T22:58:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > **…micro-evolution…** Do you believe in micro-evolution James? if so, can you describe the mechanism that keeps it ‘micro’ and stops a lot of micros adding up to a macro? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/31 "2002-09-01T23:04:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Science or scientific: knowledge ascertained by observations of all the fact’s none excluded, through systematic experimentation’s, critically tested, repeatedly done over and over again with the same results. Uh, read the links, It **has** been tested, over and over. Similarities in protein homology, similarity in anatomical structures, tracing of mitochondrial DNA, the evidence of the fossil record, all point to the fact of evolution. Frankly, your post is so incoherent I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking for. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/32 "2002-09-01T23:05:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > \*\*Produce the evidence not links anyone can post a link. It appears you cannot produce the evidence but only post links. \*\* Scientists are still researching a way to send solid objects through the internet ion order to comply with your request for evidence, not links James, but at the moment we can only send information. I don’t see how we can satisfy you, but that would also be true if you were asking for evidence that salmon swim upstream to spawn. ---
**Author:** ![KillerFig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/51bf81/32.png) [@KillerFig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KillerFig)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/33 "2002-09-01T23:17:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > \*\*I’ve been to these link and they provide no evidence only theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions. They like all evolutionist cannot evidentially prove that evolution exists. > > \*\* Are you sure you read the linked material? The first link in **Tracer’s** post to which I referred contains several bits of evidence such as: “Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.” Dozens of similar bits of evidence are produced, with their sources cited. There is nothing speculative about this–these are simple statements of fact. If you feel that this does not constitute evidence, please explain why–were the studies procedurally flawed? Were their results incorrectly transmitted to us? What’s wrong with them? Of course, as you’re aware, you’ll be expected to provide concrete evidence of your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Savaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/858c86/32.png) [@Savaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Savaka)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/34 "2002-09-01T23:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve been to these link and they provide no evidence only theories, philosophies, ideas, concepts, definitions, speculation, or opinions. They like all evolutionist cannot evidentially prove that evolution exists. I’ve been to the links as well and found that they provide abundant evidence for both the fact of evolution and the evolutionary theory. This makes me suspect that you and I are using very different definitions. For the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful if you would define two terms: **evidence** and **evolution**. I realize that you’ve attempted definitions of both terms in an earlier post, but your definition of evidence has been satisfied by several posters already, yet you don’t seem to accept this. So perhaps you are using “evidence” differently from the way you think you’re using it. Your definition of “evolution” is somewhat idiosycractic. In it, you define the theory of evolution (presumably by natural selection), but not the observable facts of evolution. It would be helpful if you could offer a definition of evolution as fact, as well as a clearer definition of scientific evolutionary theory, just so we’re all playing by the same rules. I’ll give you the standard scientific definition for evolution, which is “a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.” However, many non-scientists use the term “evolution” to mean “speciation,” or the development of a new species from a population of a previously existing species. If that’s your definition, fine. But it’s important at the outset of a debate that everyone agree on terms. ---
**Author:** ![Atreyu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@Atreyu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atreyu)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/35 "2002-09-01T23:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > **Produce the evidence not links anyone can post a link. It appears you cannot produce the evidence but only post links.** There are a lot of reasons why links are popular in Great Debates. The primary reason is to indicate that the poster isn’t simply pulling the information out of thin air. It also allows others to examine the source of the information for credibility. Also, it allows others access to a more in-depth version of an answer. And you have yet to respond directly to a single post made in response to your OP. Personally, I’m not surprised, although I was holding out the faint hope that you were here for an actual discussion. And here’s another question that I suspect you will ignore: What would you consider as acceptable evidence in support of evolution? And I see in your [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133472) that you’re apparently a fan of the Institute for Creation Research, an outfit that proposes an idea with the oxymoronic name of “scientific creationism.” I’ve been to the ICR website before, and it wasn’t long before I determined that there were a vast array of problems with that concept. Scientific creationism tries to shoehorn interpretations of physical evidence into a mold defined by the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians. That kind of thing has been tried before, most notably with the medieval concept that the universe (including the sun) revovled around the earth. “Scientific creationism” is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting phrase, a half-assed attempt at a compromise between science and religion. But science can’t be compromised. It simply is. No compromise will change the evidence, merely a person’s perception of that evidence. If scientific creationism is what you’re bringing to the party, you’re not going to get very far. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Jensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/aca169/32.png) [@James\_Jensen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Jensen)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/36 "2002-09-01T23:28:55Z")
“Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.” Who produced the hybrid an intelligent being (man) intervened. This is not proof of evolution but human tampering. Most hybrid will produce a little seed so what does that prove nothing. I’ve claimed nothing just want you to produce the evidence that proves that evolution exists. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/37 "2002-09-01T23:33:44Z")
James has stated that he isn’t here to defend Creationism, although I feel that’s nothing more than a dodge. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/38 "2002-09-01T23:34:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > \*\* > … evolution is only a religion, which most evolutionist are finally admitting that by placing a Darwin symbol on their car. Glad that they finally have got around to admitting that evolution is only a religious. > \*\* Nice to see you injecting a little humor into your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/39 "2002-09-01T23:36:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Jensen \* > **Who produced the hybrid an intelligent being (man) intervened. This is not proof of evolution but human tampering. Most hybrid will produce a little seed so what does that prove nothing.** You completely overlooked the very important word _spontaneous_ in the passage that you criticise here. ---
**Author:** ![KillerFig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/51bf81/32.png) [@KillerFig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KillerFig)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524/40 "2002-09-01T23:45:23Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by James Jensen \* > \*\* > Who produced the hybrid an intelligent being (man) intervened. This is not proof of evolution but human tampering._\* The frequency of alleles in a particular plant population varied such that a new species emerged. How is this not an instance of evolution? That it was induced by humans doesn’t change the fundamental facts of the matter. Even granting that human “tampering” taints the evidence, what criticisms do you have of section 5.2 of the same page–the section on plant speciation not involving hybridization? Or sections 5.3-5.7, dealing with speciation in animal populations? I’m sorry, but it’s becoming obvious, despite your insistence to the contrary, that you never actually read the material to which people have linked–or, at least, the material on speciation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Most hybrid will produce a little seed so what does that prove nothing. > > \*\* Well, if said “little seed” is fertile, it proves that speciation has occured. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’ve claimed nothing just want you to produce the evidence that proves that evolution exists. \*\* You’ve claimed that: -Evolutionary theory is unscientific -Evolution is religion (I have no clue what that sentence means, but you said it) -There is no evidence for evolution -The huge amount of bits of evidence that have been presented to you are nothing more than speculation You have failed to provide evidence for any of these claims, other than constantly reasserting them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-is-only-a-religion-and-not-science/126524.md?page=3)