(read more) The Psychology of Evolutionists - LewRockwell
I’m going to assume the intended debate is: “Is belief in evolution a religion?”
The answer is no, of course not, what kind of stupid question is that? Evolution and abiogenesis and Big Bang theory (all separate fields of inquiry, I should point out) each have supporting evidence that anyone can observe. Supernatural creation myths, such as exist in most if not all religions, do not.
You can argue that anything which a person doesn’t have the ability to fully understand the research and logic behind a thing is taking things on faith. By that argument, physics is a religion to most, but the point remains that faith didn’t land us on the moon.
Pointing out that most people are ignorant and have to pick some side and go with it doesn’t achieve anything. If you really care about which side is right, there’s nothing to stop you from educating yourself about the arguments from any source.
Purveyors of woo often attempt to paint their opponents as adherents to a cult or religion of science.
Antievolutionists in addition can’t seem to make any sort of argument without immediately referencing Darwin, pretending that evolutionary theory is stuck in a 150-year-old time warp.
Same old.
.
Many people who weren’t actually, you know, scientists.
I recently wrote this which addressed the issue of religious people trying to paint to paint scientists and/or atheists and/or people who accept evidence and logic as having their own psuedo-religion. No sense in essentially just resaying that now, since I pretty much addressed the point there.
It would be possible for a person to adopt a religious-type stance about something like evolution (just because there is lots of evidence, that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t uncritically accept it without looking).
I don’t expect it’s very common, but I don’t see why it would be impossible.
(I do agree that usually, when science/evolution/atheism is labelled ‘religion’, it’s by religious people trying to level the playing field)
Oh, never mind.
I think it is inherently dishonest to characterize science as religion. Religionists typically do so in order to level the playing field, knowing that their superstitious mental models are inherently inferior to those based upon evidence and the scientific method. This is most notable when the subject is the origin of the Universe, life, or the human species.
ETA: I swear I didn’t steal ‘level the playing field’ from Mangetout! Great minds…
If you make it “In many respects it was a belief manquant religion.” it would be more correct.
I don’t mind if evolution, big bang etc are called beliefs.
In the sense that I believe the theory of evolution to be correct. I believe there is ample evidence for it.
At that point in time when evidence for any God or Creator is brought forward I would gladly believe in a god.
Edit:
And because of the mountains of scientific evidence and the great big ravines of religion, the playingfield is by no means level…
the really dumb thing about this is that it’s a child’s excuse for doing something wrong; “well, he’s doing it too!”.
Or in other words, it lends no weight to the argument, and it makes nothing right - It’s OK for me to be wrong about this, because I can point to someone else who is wrong about something else.
No-why don’t you tell us more. Why did you post this, and where do you stand on this artificial “issue”?
This should have been the first and only response until Paleface comes back.
I am old enough to remember it was not just the big bang that was used to say “here, we figured it all out and don’t need God” at all.
In the 1950’s the “Steady state” theory was forced upon all with the same lack of choice seen today, saying it too answered all the questions. Pick your question, from origin of life to where did flowers come from and they had an answer ready “well it has always been and that is all there is to it”. The bible in fact was openly mocked in lectures, imagine everything happening all at once in a big burst of light and energy, how silly is THAT?
Now days they leave out the mocking. I bet you go tell natives in the jungle about the big bang and evolution and come back in a few years and you have language that quite likely is just like the bible. Scientists seem to always forget we did not have words to express fission and fusion and DNA and all that formation ideas thousands of years back.
I believe in the Big Bang by the way, just not that it was random. I also know if life can just be made randomly in a pond we would have done it by now. The current model is to leave out God by just saying origin of life, and origin of the big bang simply are not included, what a crock that is. Anytime God is needed to explain something, just leave that part out, give it another name like that is not to be talked about. Hell, the steady state theory at least did have an answer for every question, it left nothing unanswered.
To answer the OP, sure it is a religion, one that seeks to worship natural processes, which has been done before in many pagan religions. Even all the chemistry and stuff has been done before, with alchemy and the magic medicine man of the tribe, atheism is just the current version of that kind of thinking.
Silverstreak Wonder, in previous posts you’ve shown us what you “know” about the Theory of Evolution, and I see here that you’ve learned absolutely nothing from all the responses to your previous posts, so I’m not even going to bother.
I don’t think your knowledge on alchemy and Pagan religions is up to par either.
Why should ‘God’ be the default explanation to fill a gap? How does it help?
Which of these scenarios is better:
[ul]
[li]To be certain about everything, but dead wrong about some things.[/li][li]To be certain about only some things (and mostly right about those) and uncertain or completely in the dark about other things.[/li][/ul]
Well, actually, it stumbles on several important issues like thermodynamics and nuclear decay, plus explaining where all the extra matter of coming from, which is why it was displaced by a model that better fit observable evidence.
Anyway, if you ever do decide to go hang out with “natives in the jungle”, I suggest a good materialistic survival guide that discusses various biochemical hazards (i.e. “don’t touch the yellow frogs”) and basic physics (“to build a lean-to with maximum strength, follow these ratios:…”) will serve you better than a bible.
Silverstreak Wonder, can you point out specific individuals or groups that you would identify under your great umbrella word “they”?
Clearly, there have always been people who have latched onto different ideas emanating from scientific research who have used those ideas, (or corrupted versions of those ideas), to push their own philosophical positions. Early on, people speculating about society tried to shoehorn random phrases from Origin of Species into a new set of beliefs about society and it got the name “Social Darwinism.” Yet Darwin never proposed any of the ideas put forth by those people.
In the same way, I have encountered people making similar claims for the 1950s to yours
Yet, I don’t recall that being a big deal in the 1950s, at all. For the most part, before the rise of the Religious Right in the 1970s, people tended to accept both science and religion through the 1950s and 1960s. (Most still do.) There are always some people somewhere taking ideas and expressing them in the most strident terms. If you want to claim that “they” are making a religion out of some scientific idea, then you need to identify “them” more accurately.
It is just as easy for those who oppose religion to do the same thing in the opposite direction, (as hundreds of posts on this board attest).
The OP needs to clarify what the debate is and what his position is.
Evolution is a demonstrable fact, not a belief, and it’s true no matter how life got started, or how the universe began.
Science is open to other possibilities than the Big Bang, and to all feasible possibilities for the origin of life, but the fact that species mutate, adapt and evolve is established beyond any reasonable debate.
So no, evolution is not a “religion,” because it’s not a belief.