Is not Evolution just another religion/faith?

Question

- Religion sprouts from an inspired man. Evolution sprouts from an inspired man, (Ancient Greece, Darwin)

- Religion supports tales occurring before man. Evolution supports tales occurring before man.

- Religion answers questions every man longs the answers for. Evolution answers questions every man longs the answers for.

- Religion cannot prove the basis of its claim, (GOD). Evolution cannot prove the basis of its claims, (surviving-life from non-life)

- The religious defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis. Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis.

- Religion supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true. Evolution supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true.

- Religion assumes to be true based on the thousands of writings supporting it. Evolution assumes to be true based on the thousands of writings supporting it.

- Religion offers a liberty, freedom from evil and its damnation. Evolution offers a liberty, freedom from "GOD" and the "holiness" "HE" requires.

- Religion assumes the ultimate wisdom, and that all opposition lack wisdom. Evolution assumes the ultimate knowledge, and that all opposition contends knowledge.

- Religion offers enlightenment. Claiming all opposition is in ignorance and/or denial. Evolution offers enlightenment. Claiming all opposition is in ignorance and/or denial.

Is not Evolution just another religion/faith?

Answer 1

A religion involves a commerce of the supernatural.
That is, a trade of actions, rituals, or beliefs for supernatural, or supernaturally influenced gains.

Evolution is based on proof, not faith.

Faith is based on nothing but certainty in the absence of proof or in spite of proof to the contrary.

Evolution does not deal with the beginnings of life. That's organic chemistry's bailiwick. Evolution requires genes.

That the natural world has not always been as it is now is an incontrovertible fact.

Evolution provides an explanation for the mechanisms of change.

The hereditary mechanism predicted by the theory was unknown at the time of evolutions proposal, it has been proven to exist.

The hereditary mechanism has been proven to be capable of spontaneous change as the theory predicted.

That a change in a life form's hereditary makeup can alter it's physical and behavioral traits has also been proven true.

That a significant change in a life form's body or behavior will effect it's ability to survive and reproduce is simple common sense.

None of that requires faith, just the ability to reason objectively and honestly from factual truths. No, it is not a faith.

There is no supernatural gain or influence to be won by accepting the validity of evolutionary theory. No, it is not a religion.

Answer 2

Hmmm, to an extent almost everything we believe, from the sun rising tomorrow, to the ground being firm under our feet, to our brakes working properly, is a matter of faith. So in this sense, yes, evolution is a matter of faith. But the fallacy is to then assume that all "faiths" are equal. Someone's faith that the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese is not equal to my faith that i am not actually in an insane asylum now, but here at my computer. Claiming that evolutionary theory is ONLY a theory or a faith, no more or less valid than any other is silly beyond belief. Not all theories and faiths are equal, some are supported by evidence, many are not.

To answer your points:
- and where would a scientific theory come from if not a human? using this as a criteria for evolution being a faith is akin to saying that evolution is a religion because it is formulated here on Earth, like all other religions. And religion didn't start in Ancient Greece.

- an irrelevant point. Any theory of the origin of mankind must start before mankind.

- again, this is meaningless. A theory that the earth circles the sun and a theory that the sun circles the earth both answer questions humans want to know, but this has no bearing on their factualness.

- Evolution's basis is not that life arose from non-life. That is the best theory there is, but even if God created the first life, evolution is still valid in stating how that life evolved to other forms. Evolution's basis is in science, in a trust that when we perceive things, those perceptions correspond to some reality, and that the best theory is the simpest one which is adequate.

- What constitutes proof? You could, if you wanted, be able to doubt every scientific theory there is. In a strict epistemological sense, very little is ever "proved" - we take our observations and develop the most compact (and likely) theories from them. So yes, evolution cannot prove its basis, but neither can math, physics, any other science. You have to always go with the most elegant theory, not wait for absolute proof, because absolute proof will never arrive.

- This point is no different from the previous one.

- Evolution assumes to be true based on experimentation, observation. It is the simplest theory which can adequtely explain all the observations made thus far. If evolution was only based on theoretical writings and no data, then you would have a point, but then it wouldn't be a science.

- This point about liberty really makes no sense. Any theory could be construed as "liberating" us in some way - liberating us from dogma, liberating us from science, liberating us from ignorance, etc, etc, etc.

- Evolution doesn't assume an ultimate wisdom, otherwise there would be no need for further investigations! If evolutionary biologists claimed to know everything, then they would be out of jobs. Science never assumes that it has the final answer; it remains open to testing and criticism, and this is precisely what makes it strong. Religion, you are right about this at least, does claim to have the ultimate answers and be unquestionable.

- You are right that both claim they are correct. But again, the same case can be made by flat-earthers against round-earthers: both claim their view is correct and the other is ignorant. Now do flat-earthers and round-earthers have equally valid theories?

So, "is not Evolution just another religion/faith?" Umm, only a trivial sense - the same way that flat-earth and round-earth theories are "just" theories, implying they are equal.

Your points consist of looking at the irrelevant similarities between religion and evolution and using that as evidence for them both being religions. You could have the done the exact same thing with modern theories of the earth's shape and Flat Earth Theory in order to show that they are equally valid beliefs.

I really think that every person should be made to take a basic critical thinking course, and preferably a philosophy of science course as well, then we could avoid ignorant nonsense like this. I'm sorry, but your question was a very ignorant one.

Answer 3

Religious types see religious things everywhere. Religious loonies fear that evolution means there is no God, or that God used "random" processes to make life and humanity.

But evolution is not random. Example: when you were conceived, one sperm out of millions fertilized the egg. If a different sperm had made it, you would be a girl, or a blond, or a dwarf. But would that mean that God loved you any less?

Yet the sperm that made you was not random. It was faster and stronger than the rest, so natural selection favored it. This is the beauty of evolution by natural selection, forever perfecting living things.

Answer 4

No, it is not just another religion/faith. It springs from the scientific method, which is an entirely different way to approach questions of belief. (And note that I didn't say "better", or "worse", just different.) In other words, most of the things you accuse of "evolution" are really directed at "science."

You have a good post, and some of your points are true ... But some of your assumptions about evolution, and about science in general, are false:

- "Evolution sprouts from an inspired man." Partly true, partly false. The idea of evolution sprouts from *many* inspired men and women. There were many before Darwin who were aware of evolution. And there were many after who provided key pieces. Darwin just provided a key piece ... the theory of natural selection. But Darwin did not 'invent' evolution by himself. Evolution, as a cornerstone of biology, does not rise or fall based on blind faith in the wisdom of Charles Darwin.

- "Evolution supports tales occurring before man." True. So do many theories in science ... the plate tectonic theory in geology, asteroid theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs, the impact theory of the creation of the moon, the acretion disk theory of the creation of the sun and solar system, and the big bang theory of the creation of the universe.

- "Evolution answers questions every man longs the answers for." True.

- "Evolution cannot prove the basis of its claims, (surviving-life from non-life)." Two misconceptions: First, *no* science claims to "prove" the basis of its claims. Not quantum physics, not relativity, not plate tectonics, not the germ theory of medicine, etc.
And second, evolution addresses only the development of one species from ancestral species ... it does not base its claims on "surviving-life from non-life" ... that is the question of abiogenesis, and this is a different question from evolution ... although there are theories of abiogenesis that depend on the mechanisms seen to work in evolution. In other words, some theories of abiogenesis depend on evolutionary theory, not the other way around.

- "Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis." True (technically). Evolutionists, as all scientists, do not claim to *prove* anything ... so an inability to prove something is not a reason to stop defending a theory as the best one that explains the existing evidence.

- "Evolution assumes to be true based on the thousands of writings supporting it." False. Evolution "assumes to be true" because of the overwhelming evidence to support it. The evidence falls into several quiet separate categories (fossils, genetics, molecular evidence, morphology, distribution of species, etc.) that independently confirm each other. Scientists don't believe things merely because of "writings" ... they believe things because the evidence supports it.

- "Evolution offers a liberty, freedom from "GOD" and the "holiness" "HE" requires." True. *All* science, does not require GOD or "holiness" ... BUT it doesn't *exclude* GOD or "holiness" either. The point of science is not "liberty" from anything but ignorance.

- "Evolution assumes the ultimate knowledge, and that all opposition contends knowledge." False. I don't know where you are getting this, but you have false assumptions about science. It specifically *never* assumes ultimate knowledge. That's why scientists always insist on using the word "theory" ... even with something widely accepted (like quantum theory, plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, germ theory, or the theory of evolution).

- "Evolution offers enlightenment. Claiming all opposition is in ignorance and/or denial." I have to concede that some evolutionists are quite intolerant of opposition ... and this is wrong. But by the same token, some opposition to evolution can be easily shown to be based on ignorance ... specifically, ignorance of what the theory actually says. For example, those who ask "why are there still monkeys?" demonstrate a total ignorance or misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Or people who like to point out that "it's only a theory", misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory" in science. Evolutionists get understandably testy when Creationists dismiss a theory they do not understand, and then propagate misinformation and misunderstanding of the theory.

So summary, evolution is no different than any other science ... it is a reasoned theory supported by amassing evidence. But the very fact that science is under *constant* scrutiny, and *never* taken on faith, makes it a very powerful idea.

Answer 5

Where or how did you come up with this crap, I was always told there was no such thing as a stupid question. Wrong this is the dumbest question i have ever heard. Go smoke a little more crack, do the world a favor and rid it of one less parasite.

Answer 6

If it is, it is the only religion with irrefutable proof and scientific evidence to back up a followers need for "faith".

Answer 7

evolution is a theory not a religion

Answer 8

No it is not.
Evolution is a science, has laws, mechanisms and best of all , happens even if religious persons say it doesn't.

Answer 9

it's a theory