# The Religion of Evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501 "2010-01-26T12:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/21 "2010-01-26T15:59:01Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > 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. What do you think “random” means, and who says either the Big Bang or abiogensis were random? Do you think anything that does not involve a magical sky fairy is “random?” Nobody thinks that life was “made randomly in a pond,” and it’s quite false to say that abiogensis is something that should be easy to duplicate. We actually have been able to get pretty far, but since the original process took millions of years, it’s a little difficult to replicate in real time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/22 "2010-01-26T16:25:10Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > I also know if life can just be made randomly in a pond we would have done it by now. And if mechanical flight were possible, we’d have done it before 1903, so man powered flight is not possible. And if it were possible to send people to the moon, we’d have done it before 1969, so that’s clearly impossible. What a ridiculous idea, putting a person in a tin can and shooting him to the moon. In other words, this is a baseless assumption. It’s possible we may be able to do this at some point, but the fact that we have not done it does not make it impossible. Life came into existence under specific conditions and we don’t know what all of those conditions are. I would be surprised if we don’t get it right relatively soon. > [@](#): > > 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. Why does a theory have to explain something other than its subject? You’re also pulling a typical trick in trying to conflate evolution and the Big Bang. They’re not related as processes. > [@](#): > > 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. It goes without saying that all of this is wrong. But you’re aware that alchemy and medicine men were/are _religious_ practices, right? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/23 "2010-01-26T16:36:01Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > I also know if life can just be made randomly in a pond we would have done it by now. Yeah because we’ve got lots more time and room to test random chemical reactions than the entire universe and several billion years. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/24 "2010-01-26T16:37:42Z")
I think evolution answers questions religion has tried to answer (why are we here, what is the purpose of life, what came before us, what is out there, etc). But that doesn’t make it a religion. The author seems to think evolutionists being defensive of the theory is due to them viewing it as a religious faith. In my view it is a defense because most people with a knowledge of science know how bad the world is and can be when it is run on superstition. Someone who has grown up in a neighborhood filled with crack might react with intense rage to a drug dealer, and someone with a background in science might react badly to a religious fundamentalist trying to tear down basic scientific assumptions and say ‘God did it’. However, in my view, it isn’t because evolution is a religion as much as it is a realization of how valuable empiricism and science are for quality of life. And people do not want superstitious people tearing down those foundations. Someone who has seen the destruction of crack doesn’t react badly because they are dogmatic followers of the straight arrows, they do it because they know how destructive it is. Scientists know the black plague is due to a bacteria Y. Pestis. They know what antibiotics treat it, and what vectors carry it. As a result, it isn’t a problem anymore. Superstitious people think it was because they weren’t beating up the Jews hard enough. So there were mass pogroms and exoduses in Europe in the 14th century in an effort to please god by persecuting the Jews. So my view is the intense resistance to attempts to bring down evolution are just the natural response of people who appreciate how powerful and important science is, and how it has to be protected from infiltration and assaults by people trying to replace it with superstition. The attempts to bring ‘intelligent design’ into classrooms shows the subtle methods they are willing to use to try to replace empirical science with a branch of a branch of a branch of bronze age superstitions. True scientists are trying to answer his 5 questions. > [@](#): > > An example: In a column I once wrote regarding the alleged accidental formation of life, asked: “(1) Do we actually know, as distinct from hope, suspect, speculate, or pray, of what the primeval seas consisted? (2) Do we actually know what sort of sea or seas would be necessary to engender life in the time believed available? (3) Has the accidental creation of life been repeated in the laboratory? (4) Can it mathematically be shown possible without making highly questionable assumptions? And (5) If the answers to the foregoing are “no,” would it not be reasonable to regard the idea of chance abiogenesis as pure speculation?” And they have made progress on figuring out the origins of life. The iron sulfur world theory is pretty interesting, and it didn’t really come out until the 1990s. [http://ajdubre.tripod.com/Sci-Read-0/y-OriginLife-82500/1307-1-thumb.gif](http://ajdubre.tripod.com/Sci-Read-0/y-OriginLife-82500/1307-1-thumb.gif) However, they are trying to answer those questions in a serious fashion. Not sow the seeds of doubt in the hopes that empirical science can be replaced with superstitious myths (but only his superstitious myths. The myths of Scientology as an example wouldn’t apply). That is the difference. The author just wants to poke holes in evolution to fill those holes with his particular set of myths. He doesn’t want to poke holes to find out the real answers. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/25 "2010-01-26T16:52:31Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > This should have been the first and only response until **Paleface** comes back. So…never? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/26 "2010-01-26T16:54:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. Big Bang theory certainly does not have evidence that anyone can observe. There are arguments that are supportable by logic, and theories, and complex maths, but it’s definitely not as easy to explain as gravity. I can drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground. I can drop an apple and a lead weight and watch them fall at the same speed, but I cannot observe abiogenesis or the Big Bang. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/27 "2010-01-26T16:55:23Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I think evolution answers questions religion has tried to answer (why are we here, what is the purpose of life, what came before us, what is out there, etc). But that doesn’t make it a religion. I agree with just about everything you’ve said here, but evolution doesn’t deal with these questions the same way religion does. Evolution deals with some of the processes through which life developed, but “why are we here?” and “what is the purpose of life?” are existential questions. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/28 "2010-01-26T17:06:02Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > 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. Gross misrepresentation. No one ever siad “here, we figured it all out”, and no one, so far as I know worked out scientific theories just so they wouldn’t “need God”. > [@](#): > > 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. Another gross misprepresentation. “Steady state” theory wasn’t forced on anyone, and so far as I know, was never presented as answering all questions regarding the origin of the universe. What did occur is that theories were constructed and scientific papers were published on the topic, which were then analyzed by other scientisits and either validated or not (more the lattter case here) through additional experment and evidence. > [@](#): > > 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. “…To analyze natural processes” would be much closer to correct. The rest of your statement is simply absurd. Facts do not require worship or belief, and in any event science and atheism are not the same thing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/29 "2010-01-26T17:15:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Big Bang theory certainly does not have evidence that anyone can observe. There are arguments that are supportable by logic, and theories, and complex maths, but it’s definitely not as easy to explain as gravity. I can drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground. I can drop an apple and a lead weight and watch them fall at the same speed, but I cannot observe abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Actually gravity doesn’t have evidence that anyone can observe either. What you can observe is plummeting. But there are all sorts of plausible explanations for why things plummet. Aristotle supposed that things made primarily of the element Earth would naturally move to be below things made of water, air, fire, and the immutable stuff of the translunar heavens. It’s true that one can measure and compare rates of falling. But that doesn’t tell us directly what gravity is. We arrive at the theory of gravity the same way we do for the big bang or evolution: by starting with observations and then reasoning to the best explanation. Also, there is evidence that all the galaxies were compressed to a point at one time. There is cosmic red-shift, and microwave background radiation, both of which point to a big bang. It’s true that not “anyone” can observe these things, but a lot of people have. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/30 "2010-01-26T17:20:37Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Big Bang theory certainly does not have evidence that anyone can observe. There are arguments that are supportable by logic, and theories, and complex maths, but it’s definitely not as easy to explain as gravity. I can drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground. I can drop an apple and a lead weight and watch them fall at the same speed, but I cannot observe abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Well, you’re just not trying hard enough. You could replicate all the experiments that led to the various observations that formed the theory (though I admit this could get somewhat pricey). Indeed, anyone could. No prayer or divine revelations are required. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/31 "2010-01-26T17:24:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, you’re just not trying hard enough. You could replicate all the experiments that led to the various observations that formed the theory (though I admit this could get somewhat pricey). Indeed, anyone could. No prayer or divine revelations are required. This is silly. You make it sound like the barrier to entry to understanding this stuff isn’t high. You’re going from a layman’s knowledge of such things, things that you have chosen to believe, mainly on an appeal to authority. I seriously doubt that most people here have enough of an understanding of biology or genetics to really understand evolution. And I am certain that the Big Bang is beyond the ken of most of its proponents. The basic fact is this stuff IS NOT accessible to anyone. I could say that about Christianity as well. “If only you put in the work to understand it…then you’d get it.” I’m not making the argument that evolution is a religion, despite the best efforts of Dawkins, Dennett and Myers, I am just saying that it’s not like it’s obvious or accessible to just anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/32 "2010-01-26T17:26:26Z")
Reading through the libertarian-inspired nonsense on the [lewrockwell.com](http://lewrockwell.com) website about “National Socialist Health Care” and embrace of various alt med goofiness, I conclude that libertarianism is a religion. On the subject of health at least, evidence-based thinking is derided and an alternate health care philosophy is embraced because it fits into beliefs abhorrent of “government coercion”. The end result is similar to what you get with Jehovah’s Witnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/33 "2010-01-26T17:32:50Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Big Bang theory certainly does not have evidence that anyone can observe. There are arguments that are supportable by logic, and theories, and complex maths, but it’s definitely not as easy to explain as gravity. I can drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground. I can drop an apple and a lead weight and watch them fall at the same speed, but I cannot observe abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Actually, you can send any number of probes into space and find that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, or you can look far off enough with a telescope to see the expansion of the universe and more primitive galaxy-like structures exactly where they should be according to current models of the universe’s age and formation. The fact that space is not absolute zero and is instead roughly 2.7 degrees everywhere is a simple and direct enough piece of evidence that you could introduce it to the same high school science class that you’re doing the apple/lead demonstration for and probably have a lot of them figure out what it means on their own. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/34 "2010-01-26T17:38:03Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Actually, you can send any number of probes into space and find that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, or you can look far off enough with a telescope to see the expansion of the universe and more primitive galaxy-like structures exactly where they should be according to current models of the universe’s age and formation. Oh? That’s good to know. I was wondering what I should do with my spare satellites. > [@](#): > > The fact that space is not absolute zero and is instead roughly 2.7 degrees everywhere is a simple and direct enough piece of evidence that you could introduce it to the same high school science class that you’re doing the apple/lead demonstration for and probably have a lot of them figure out what it means on their own. No, that introduces a factoid that the students have to take on the authority that you tell them so. I don’t know what the temperature of space is. You tell me it’s 2.7 degrees, ok, it’s 2.7 degrees. How do you know it’s 2.7 degrees a billion miles from any star? Also, if it’s 2.7 degrees, how come it can get colder than that here on Earth? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/35 "2010-01-26T17:41:07Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > (read more) [The Psychology of Evolutionists - LewRockwell](http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed172.html) > [@](#): > > Finally, in 1964, the 3K background radiation pervading the universe was discovered, and described as the result of a postulated Big Bang. We now had Genesis without God: the creation of the world, the creation of life, and its divergence into all creatures, including us. Instead of debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, we talked of the state of the world 10^–44 seconds after the Big Bang. Just want to point out a bit of dishonesty in this quote. This makes it sound like Penzias and Wilson cast around for an explanation, and found the Big Bang. In fact, this background radiation had been predicted by the Big Bang theory, so their discovery was confirmation of it. But creationist types not only don’t know anything about science, they also don’t understand how science is done, so they don’t get this. BTW I grew up in the '50s also, and read way too much cosmology for my tender years. Big Bang and Steady State were always presented as competing theories with the truth not yet known. Hoyle was still respected back then, but George Gamow was not exactly out of the mainstream. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/36 "2010-01-26T17:44:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Oh? That’s good to know. I was wondering what I should do with my spare satellites. > > No, that introduces a factoid that the students have to take on the authority that you tell them so. I don’t know what the temperature of space is. You tell me it’s 2.7 degrees, ok, it’s 2.7 degrees. How do you know it’s 2.7 degrees a billion miles from any star? Also, if it’s 2.7 degrees, how come it can get colder than that here on Earth? How do I know that Australia exists? I’ve never been there and probably never will. If you limit yourself to only believing things you have direct sensory experience of, you’re not left with very much. Also, I don’t think it’s ever gotten colder than 2.7 degrees Kelvin anywhere on earth. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/37 "2010-01-26T17:44:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is silly. You make it sound like the barrier to entry to understanding this stuff isn’t high. You’re going from a layman’s knowledge of such things, things that you have chosen to believe, mainly on an appeal to authority. I seriously doubt that most people here have enough of an understanding of biology or genetics to really understand evolution. And I am certain that the Big Bang is beyond the ken of most of its proponents. > > The basic fact is this stuff IS NOT accessible to anyone. I could say that about Christianity as well. “If only you put in the work to understand it…then you’d get it.” > > I’m not making the argument that evolution is a religion, despite the best efforts of Dawkins, Dennett and Myers, I am just saying that it’s not like it’s obvious or accessible to just anyone. If I may chime in, the difference is in appreciating the Scientific Method. Once you understand the tools and the reason they work, you appreciate that there are others who can do things with those tools that you can not. Because I can do simple math, I can grasp that there is such a thing as higher math. Simple math provides _me_ with results, higher math provides me with the computer I’m typing this on. Science _works_, regularly, and can be replicated by anyone who _is_ properly trained. The difference between religion and science is the difference between faith and trust. When I turn on my computer, I’m not displaying faith that the good people at Microsoft know what they’re doing-- I’m displaying trust. That said, scientists who don’t appreciate that faith/trust distinction do a disservice to science (I’m thinking most recently about climatologists who feel entitled to faith instead of doing what they can to earn trust-- I may be stupid, but even a first-grade science student knows _you have to show your work_). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/38 "2010-01-26T17:45:37Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Also, I don’t think it’s ever gotten colder than 2.7 degrees Kelvin anywhere on earth. I see you’ve never been to Chicago in the winter. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/39 "2010-01-26T17:55:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Big Bang theory certainly does not have evidence that anyone can observe. There are arguments that are supportable by logic, and theories, and complex maths, but it’s definitely not as easy to explain as gravity. I can drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground. I can drop an apple and a lead weight and watch them fall at the same speed, but I cannot observe abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Actually, I think the big bang is easier to explain than gravity. Can you explain gravity? If you can, and can prove your explanation there is probably a Nobel out there for you. The Big Bang has not been proved, but it has survived several attempts to falsify it. I have never heard anyone claim that any process of abiogenesis has been proven. What has happened is several of the intermediate hurdles that any theory must address have fallen. For example, what the Miller-Urey experiments did was disprove the notion that the only processes that could produce complex amino acids where those of living cells. It could be that there are many other naturally occurring conditions under which those types of molecules could form and we have yet to discover the ones that led to life on earth, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it is now known that natural processes can potentially turn inorganic chemicals to organic precursors without a supernatural event. Also, evolution has as little need for abiogenesis or the big bang as a blacksmith needs geology. How the iron came to be deposited in the ground, and what form it took when removed is irrelavent to how to form it into a horseshoe or sword. All that matters to the black smith is the quality of the material he receives, not where it came from. Why some aspect of science (biology an cosmology) so suspect when the computers we are all typing on are based on a theory(quantum mechanics) that disproves the very concept of causality and is therefore closer to disproving God than others which merely remove the need for God. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501/40 "2010-01-26T17:59:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is silly. You make it sound like the barrier to entry to understanding this stuff isn’t high. You’re going from a layman’s knowledge of such things, things that you have chosen to believe, mainly on an appeal to authority. Sure, it’s high. You could spend a few decades going from Astronomy 101 to an understanding of the Cosmological horizon, but at no point will a competent teacher tell you “these are things man was not meant to know” or “all will be made clear in the next life,” such as one might encounter when asking too-difficult questions about religion. > [@](#): > > The basic fact is this stuff IS NOT accessible to anyone. I could say that about Christianity as well. “If only you put in the work to understand it…then you’d get it.” I can imagine putting in enough study to gain a full understanding of Special Relativity, in the sense that I can picture the sequence of fields I’d have to study, gaining understanding at each step, until I joined the group of people who do indeed understand it and (importantly) _could explain it to others_. What’s the chain of knowledge leading to understanding why God allows childhood leukemia? Who on Earth understands this? Is it possible to explain to the layman in a series of educational steps why this makes sense? Can the Pope (or any religious authority of your choosing) explain it? > [@](#): > > I’m not making the argument that evolution is a religion, despite the best efforts of Dawkins, Dennett and Myers, I am just saying that it’s not like it’s obvious or accessible to just anyone. Well, fortunately, it’s not necessary for everyone in a society to understand science in order to benefit from it. If 5% of the population is made up of scientists and engineers who can advance science and technology, everyone benefits. Religion, in contrast, slows things down, gets in the way, accomplishes nothing beyond, I suppose, offering some consolation to people who prefer to believe that the universe is under (mostly but not always) benevolent control and somebody up there likes them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-religion-of-evolution/526501.md?page=3)