COMMENTS:
I dunno. I think of religion as either being formed around some deity or at least a set of values, morals, codes of conduct, crap like that. I believe in evolution but in no way does that affect my value system or have me worshipping Darwin or anything.
I see no reason why one can't believe in both either.
I don't think it's a religion myself. But I do think that it has certain aspects that are shared with religion. Just like most anything else that hasn't been 100% proven.
And I've listened to some of it's proponets who can get pretty darn preachy and "holier than thou" themselves.
Grumpy you express my sentiments on this matter quite well.
"And I've listened to some of it's proponets who can get pretty darn preachy and "holier than thou" themselves."
That's what I meant by a religion. You know the whole "evolution is the only answer" thing.
Voted : No
Evolution is not religion because it can be disproved using evidence and logic. Therefore it is within the realms of science.
I do not object to people believing in creationism, intelligent design or wood spirits if it gets them through the day but I do mind when God squadders try to park their tanks on the lawn of science.
That's what I meant by a religion. You know the whole "evolution is the only answer" thing.
by lowerclassbrats
Yeah, I know what you mean. I believe in evolution myself, but the "I'm right and you're ignorant" attitude that I hear alot of times is a big turn off.
Evolution is not religion because it can be disproved using evidence and logic. Therefore it is within the realms of science.
by TosserSpotter
Whether something can be proved or disproved really makes no difference in qualifying something as a religion. Although "belief" plays a large part, just about anything can be made into a religion if it has a set of beliefs and a group of followers who give it a name.
Lucky for us Science is nowhere near as important as GOD!!
Right?
by Jyl on Wed Dec 13, 06 8:20pm
[+]
Im probably going to be accused of being arrogant but in my opinion there is an overwhelming body of evidence which proves that evolution is the reason why different species exist on this planet.
When the DNA of different mammals are analysed identical strands of DNA are found. This occurs in every mammal studied. Some species of primate share 98% of our DNA. Is this an accident? I mean seriously what are the odds of EVERY mammal having identical strands of DNA to humans?
Then there is the geology record. Geologists have studied rock strata and found different fossils at different levels of the rock suggesting pretty strongly that different species lived at different times in this planets history.
Im sorry but creationism is a make believe fairy tale and intelligent design is just a repackaged version of the old testament.
Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. Facts can be disproved. Faith cannot. This is why religion and science have no overlapping areas. Therefore if evolution is a scientific idea then it has nothing to do with religion.
^Like Grumpy_Person said. Some people act like evolution's a religion, though. I accept evolution and faith, personally.
Voted : Comment
Faith in science is not so different than faith in religion. One describes the mechanics, the other describes the context. The boundary between the two is comprised of an interaction between the metaphysical and the supernatural that is unlikely ever to be reconciled, except perhaps in death.
Those bound by the strictest principles of science or the strictest tenets of religion are missing out on the big picture. Good science is willing to revise its theories and good religion acknowledges its own subjectivity.
Very well said, Applerod.
..Therefore if evolution is a scientific idea then it has nothing to do with religion.
by TosserSpotter
But what about the religions who support evolution? Just because an idea is scientific, doesnt mean it will get washed aside by relgions.
Voted : Yes, evolution is a form religion
It does rely on a certain amount of faith.
Voted : No
Religion is belief in spite of the evidence.
Evolution is a fact. It's reality is supported by scientific evidence from multiple disciplines collated over the last 150 years.
I never understood how an animal with no legs evolved legs. And even though I tried to find out there is nothing that tells me.
How would an animal species even begin to evolve a leg? And would they evolve them 4 legs at the same time or just one?
sheepy - you ever seen a worm, a catterpillar a millipede, centipede, they all have successively longer legs. An animal like a worm may have evolved legs in a situation where having little stumps was more suited.. eg smooth rocky surface. The one worm that had stumps survived better and passed its genes through to the next generation. As more and more stump legged worms survived, the worms without stumps would be outcompeted and die out. Maybe these stump legged worms started to be able to eat a new diet. Maybe its old diet became extinct. It began eating something that was quite fast. The worms with longer stumps could move faster... sot ehy could catch the prey, the stumpies would not be able to compete and die out..... then the longstumpers get replaced by a worm that has articulated limb, enabling it to be more agile and even faster........ etc etc etc.
Before anyone tells me the worm would be beneath the ground and not on a rocky surface, perhaps the ground became too acidic for some random reason... like the release of a harmful compound in a vein of the bedrock..... or whatever... it's a very vague example of the type of process that could have happened in the evolution of a leg
A more puzzling one - is the evolution of the eye
wideheadof knowledge - That is a completely unscientific way of thinking. Evolution is a theory, with very strong supporting evidence
Thank-you Mr Susan. But I just can't get my head round how a foot can evolve gradually. All the bones and muscles all coming about by accident. It's freaky.
"that is a completely unscientific way of thinking. Evolution is a theory, with very strong supporting evidence"
Sorry but I need to clear this up because many, many non-scientists get this confused.
Hypothesis: I think that organisms evolve
Theory: I think that organisms evolve due to natural selection operating upon variation between organisms.
Fact: A theory that is supported by the evidence and one that is able to make predictions about the world around us.
No matter what you may read about creationism or intelligent design there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.
I hope that makes sense.
"I just can't get my head round how a foot can evolve gradually."
That's absolutely fine and to be expected if you have no background in evolutionary biology. You must realise however that just becasue you find it difficult to grasp does not invalidate the theory. Can you get your head around quantum mechanics? I can't but it doesn't make it any less true...
"All the bones and muscles all coming about by accident."
A common misconception. Evolution does not produce limbs or any other complex structure 'by accident' or in a somehow 'random' fashion. Natural selection is the very antithesis of random.
wideheadof - Thats wrong.
It should be -
Hypothesis - Organisms evolve.
there is no 'I think' -The hypothesis is stated as fact and the object is to discus whether it is true or not listing all limitations.
Can you show me how we have used evolution to make predictions about the world around us.
Creationalism is the furthest thing from my mind.
widehead - can I just confirm - I do think that evolution took place - but to me - it isn't a fact that it does
Do you have a background in evolutionary biology, wideheadofknowledge?
Voted : No
Not by the traditional definition of religion. Though scientists are taking the role that the priesthood once filled.
sheepy - even though my communication skills are somwhat... shite - I do have some education in evolutionary biology.
All aspects of it are theory based upon theory. None of it can be called fact.
Your communication skills are absolutely fine, Mr Susan.
Voted : Comment
Call me about evolution on the day when the chimps in the zoo start applying for jobs at their local labor departments.
"Can you show me how we have used evolution to make predictions about the world around us."
This can be very technical but I will try to keep it simple. Evolutionary biologists believe that all organisms share a common ancestor if we look back far enough in time. The organism with which we share the most recent common ancestor is the Chimpanzee. Before molecular genetics and the comparison of molecular structures was possible scientists predicted that we should show more biochemistry in common with our close biological relatives and that the farther removed they are (the longer ago that we share a common ancestor) the more differences we should observe in biochemical structures such as proteins. This has been verified now by comparing the structure of biochemicals and DNA.
"Do you have a background in evolutionary biology"
My background is in molecular genetics and developmental biology. I am a biology lecturer and have been for 11 years.
"I do think that evolution took place - but to me - it isn't a fact that it does"
Unfortunately this belief is NOT backed up by ANY scientific evidence. Evolution is a fact. It does occur and the evidence is overwhelming.
This is not a matter of taste, faith or opinion. It is simple, scientific truth.
You can no more refute evolution than you can gravity and still be taken seriously.
If Evolution is a fact then shouldn't it be the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution? Also don't things like that have to be observable and repeatable? Has evolution ever been observed? I think not.
{It is simple, scientific truth.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Dec 14, 06 4:59pm}
Nothing is simple scientific truth...
Because scientific "truth" keeps changing. In another hundred years, scientists will be onto some other "scientific truth" and be telling us all that Darwin was misguided.
They do that now about most other scientific "truth" from the Victorian Era.
"In another hundred years, scientists will be onto some other "scientific truth" and be telling us all that Darwin was misguided."
That's entirely possible. However the fact that evolution by natural selection may be flawed or wrong does not change the fact that evolution occurs.
Think of it this way: Einstein's relativity eclipsed Newtonian gravitation completely. We still have gravity though - it hasn't suddenly become a old idea we now laugh at.
Evolution is a FACT. Natural selection is the THEORY.
The theory may be wrong but the fact will remain.
Wideheadofknowledge - The fact that you have been teaching a science course for 11 yrs and still do not understand the basic principles of science is stunning.
Having a theory and being able to suggest that it is correct is impressive, but you completely ignore the fact that all of those reports and experiments would have had limitations. As a scientist you will know that they are listed at the end of reports. If there are none - The person carrying out the study has not done his/her job properly.
I understand that you think it definatly happened - but I'm afraid that doesn't make it fact. You are not the authority on this. You are coming across as arrogant and dismissive.... which is unfortunatly the way alot of scientists go and I'm syre that is not how you intend to appear. You have a view and cannot accept that there is a tiny chance it may be wrong.
You're coming across as someone who treats science like a religion. Back in the day you probably would have been one of the poeple to say ' the world is flat - anyone who dissagrees with all the irrefutable evidence should not be taken seriously in anything'
Every concept and theory which comes together to make the theory of evolution has limitations and problems with it.
I am convinced that we have gone through a process of evolution. But I also know we do not in any way fully understand it (like you suggest). This is my view, it is not a fact!
I believe this is your view too... and not a fact
no-one is the authority on this topic.
'the'
Religion is a belief in a person or entity. I see no religion in a theory.
Does that mean that you don't regard gravity as a fact?
It's you who are misunderstanding here, Mr Susan.
That life evolves is beyond ANY scientific doubt. HOW it evolves is up for debate but so far NOTHING has come close to challenging evolution by natural selection.
To imply that 'evolution' is a theory is to be in complete and utter ignorance of the evidence.
xhiker - What about when someone thinks that that theory is true. They dont think it's a theory
wideheadofknowledge - I dont think I'm being ignorant. I believe Evolution did and does occur. I just wont say it is a fact. We'll have to agree to dissagree. I do see what you're saying
Mr._Susan,
Do you see 'faith' and 'theory' as a paralell?
Science is itself a religion. Any form of preconception, reguardless of the paticulars, is a belief. I disreguard evolution for I disagree with it based on my preconceptions. Evolution looks at all things within its view. It's the same concept behind Atheism, which is also a relgion.
Voted : The scientific evidence for Evolution is excellent
I too like to entertain the hypothetical possibility of there being some form of (Intelligence) In Nature to account for Life and its manifestations on Earth..? Not a 'God' or 'Gods' though, human Gods are all highly imaginative creations of Man, of men..
no, it is science.
Evolution is a religion. Evolution requires as much if not more faith than most religions. Evolution is a belief in the unseen. No one was there to witness early man or the origin of life, so evolutionists choose to believe in what they read in textbooks or maybe in the Origin of Species.
On another note, it's funny to me that evolutionist classify evolution as a fact when Darwin himself had doubts about his own theory. Also, how can something be fact when Scientists have created prehistoric models based on their own evolutionary presuppositions. For example, Haeckel forging his embryo drawings to fit evolution. He theorized that homologous embryos of different species were evidence that they orginated from a common ancestor. Haeckel's drawings look nothing like early embryo stages. He was very selective in his choice of embryos, choosing those that looked the closest alike. Another example is the prehistoric "ape-man" that was found only contained a few skull and bone fragments. How could they have shaped an ape-man out of that? The answer is since they believe evolution is true, they created a "ape-man" to fit the theory.
Voted : No
No, evolution is based in science; religion is based in faith or myth. Some athiests, however, seem to have their own religion based in dogma, Humanism, though.
And Richard Dawkins has a pretty cultish following...
|
