Is there any religious dogma in evolution?

Question

After asking the question that: "Should both evolution and some kind of Supreme being* creating everything, both be taught in public school?"

*Not the teaching of any particular faith or religion.


I was given the following reply:

"when you start talking about a Supreme Being creating all life, youve brought
religious dogma into the arguement.

There is no religious dogma in evolution. Creation should be taught in religious studies courses, not in SCIENCE classes, because it has no basis in science."


So my question again is as follows: Is there any religious dogma in evolution?

Answer 1

Science is nothing but faith in experience. As humans we have a bad habit of believeing what we see. We are arrogant, very rarely willing to step outside the box we craft through our experiments. only a six hundred years ago we believed the world was flat. A mere four hundred ago we thought we were the center of the universe. Even today, there are those that believe race is a condition for equality.

Faith is never to be taught in school. Science is not about teaching faith, Its about teaching reason. Personally I dont believe we ought to concern ourselves with who is right in their beliefs, but rather attempt to find truth through reason. This, is the purpose of a school. Reason is the balance for faith.

Answer 2

Only things that are known for sure should be taught in public schools.
If there's no proof, there's no basis to teach from.
Religion should be kept at home, since it is a belief system, not founded by fact, and differs from one person to the next.

In High School, a World Religions class should be offered to educate people about the many different religions in the world, but not to propagate any particular one.

Answer 3

My answer would be... no. But not because science isn't dogmatic. Science is an extremely dogmatic discipline, rigid and afraid of new ideas, just the development of the ones it has now. It changes and "evolves" due to other reasons.

Now, I don't think there is a religious dogma in evolution because the theory of evolution, developed by , uses scientific criteria. So the theory is dogmatic, always has an answer to save its own mistakes, but it's not dogmatic in a religious way, appealing to the mistery of the Lord. Its internal mechanism for replying towards critics is to generate a respose within the theory itself, not appealing to other mysteries.

Answer 4

An awful lot of people who don't believe in any kind of a God believe in evolution with an insecure fervency of the type that if often associated with unreasoning faith. For such people, it may very well be a religion, though they may not realize it, and they would be among the first to deny it.

There are large assumptions in evolution such as the assumption that the quatntities of radioisotopes which are used for dating have remained relatively constant-- that is to day, diminishing in a predictable manner. It may actually be the case that more radioisotopes were introduced into the einvironment, or were generated within the environment, resulting in skewed results when dating fossils, etc.

There are similar assumptions in most sciences, such as astronomy. The assumption is that physical laws are the same everwyhere as they are near to Earth. If the speed of light was different elsewhere in the universe, we would have a false understanding of what the universe was like, because of our assumption that it was constant. But we would not necessarily be able to tell the difference. It would require sophisticated thought experiments to be able to devise real experiments which could tell the difference.

If some previous assumptions are proven wrong (or, in some cases, merely questioned) those who adhere to the previous assumptions may panic and experience a great deal of anxiety. This is in keeping with dogmatism.

My own complaint against evolution is that it provides no basis for morality or law. There are some who actually rejoice in that it provides no basis for morality or law; these individuals do not seem to stop and reflect that they are the beneficiaries of the faith-based legislation and morals of bygone generations.

When we see horrific events like those at Columbine, the apparent result of the shooters rejecting Christian faith and morality (apparent on the basis of their chosen targets) and trying to affirm that there was no God or afterlife, we have to wonder. If it were proven that there was no God, could we expect to see multitudes of Christians rise up in violence against evolutionists...?

And, would there be anything wrong about that, aside from human laws...?

This category is the correct one for such questions. A belief in evolution simply does not cover such ground as where morals arise, what right and wrong derive from. Ethics may be attributed to mere votes, popularity contests among competing options. Even a 100% vote does not guarantee that the decision is the right one, merely that everybody agrees.

Perhaps a better way to phrase your question might be, According to evolution, did Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Milosevich, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden do anything wrong...? If you experience a sense of chilling horror at the realization, "No", this only indicates that you recognize the shortcomings of evolution.

Yes, there is a certain degree of religious-type dogmatism in evolution, which should not be there. But it is also true that there is a distinct lack of moral guidance in evolution.

Men who say that there is no God have nothing but fallible human law to which to appeal when they are the target of evil. Evolution says nothing about why kindness is preferred over cuelty.

In fact, without cruelty, without the vicious struggle for survival, evolution would not take place and one might say that cruelty was BETTER than kindness. But the only people who argue this way are not those who are, themselves, the recipients of cruelty. The entire argument is based on the assumption that they personally are not the ones who must die for others to advance.

Answer 5

I'm starting to think that science is a religion in itself, think about this......

Religion and science both have some root in facts, however the majority of it is pure speculation.... Some of almost everything can be proved if this is what you wish to believe....

But ultimately in order to go completely with either you must have some form of faith in what someone else says, and what they think the cause is.....

Granted the simplest answer is usually the right one, but this is not always the case!

So before I go too far into detail and forget the question.... Thechnically yes, it's just not always in plain sight.

Answer 6

The word dogma refers to;
a ) arrogantly declaring one's opinion as final
b) asserting or imposing authoritative principles that are unsupported by logical inductions.

The proponents of Darwin's theory are to be considered no less dogmatic than the a bunch of orthodoxs with hermeutic interpretations of the holy scriptures.Both have no "proof'. Science seems to escape from turning into itself the critical eye . How is Science isn't a perennial dogma?
But Religion must not interfere with free thinking scientist as much as the discipline shouldn't be closed minded in acknowledging the multitudes of scientific mysteries that are in various holy scriptures out there to be fair .........
One must be deceiving oneself to deny that the OT, Bible, Al Quran, Hindus Scriptures and etc are incompatible with scientifically proven findings thus far...........

the examples there are in the thousands............

Good Question BTW.

Answer 7

I think the problem here is that God cannot be either proven or disproven through the scientific process. (to be honest I am Bias toward the "there is no god theory")


It also occured to me that Science and Religion both have the same goals. They both have the goal of defining the world around us. both have the best of intentions. (usually)

Also the only thing one can really prove is ones own subjective reality. my existence is the only thing I can prove. (I think therefore I am) as far as anything and anyone else I cannot vouch for anything.

Hmm I don't think I really answered your question. Just poured fuel on the fire.

Taco

Answer 8

Some scientists may be seen as the high priests of a religion based on a dogmatic belief in materialism. Many also rely on intuition and feelings about reality more heavily than they would readily admit. All humans feel first and think later.

Answer 9

No, there is not. Biological evolution studies involve the scientific method, which is neutral on religion.

Answer 10

No dogma, only scientific FACT