Evolution as a religion? The retroviral DNA explanation was offered as non-religious support of evolution...?

Question

and someone sneered at it. I would like that person or anyone to tell what is so silly about this explanation. Why would it fail as a non-religious argument for evolution?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiyX8Bty0kiolOhjfbrQiUHd7BR.?qid=20070906143403AAwSzEs

I fear most of you just took a cursory look at my question and didn't really answer what I was asking. A few minutes before my question, a fundie expressed derision at someone's example of retroviral DNA being evidence that evolution is based in fact, and not a religious belief. I linked the question so you could see what it was in response to. No one here has dealt with my question of what is wrong with the retro-viral DNA explanation. This was mainly targeted at the fundie who sneered at the nice description given by another member. But I do notice that the person I wanted to hear from did not answer.

John, I made no such claim and I would have been wrong if I had. I asked how a fundie could justify sneering at the story of retroviral DNA being good evidence of factual, not faith-based, evolution. And with disappointment I have seen that almost all of the answers (and the people who gave thumbs up), made no attempt to answer my question. In a knee-jerk response, they, and you, think I doubt evolution. I don't. I don't think it is a religion either. Someone ELSE did, and I was challenging him here. Sheesh!

Answer 1

It's rock-solid.

ADDENDUM:
I'd like to say of dze's comment, that although I disagree about the degree, it's nice to see a Creationist not resort to lies.

Answer 2

Anyone that thinks religion can triumph science in anything other than spiritual things are very intentionally stupid.

The simple laws of the universe are set and God doesn't break his own rules. To assume what God did or didn't do is presumptuous, the one thing we know for certain is that it didn't happen anything like the Genesis story. We know that from the fossil record.

Answer 3

specific, as a be counted of actuality. Dr. Flew, an outspoken atheist, finally got here to the tip that evolution is a lie. He have been doing an in-intensity learn of the indoors shape and purposes of the DNA molecule, and he observed clever layout. He pronounced in an interview that as quickly as he replaced into first beginning out, he desperate that he could permit the info lead him, particularly than distorting the info to help his international-view (paraphrased). He pronounced that he had gained various flack from his colleagues because of the fact of his end, yet he had to resign evolution because of the fact the info purely do no longer help it. He pronounced that he could ought to commit "psychological suicide" with the intention to proceed to settle for evolution as real. His very final end replaced into that he observed clever layout in his learn of the DNA molecule, introduced approximately by some form of "clever fashion designer", even nonetheless he does no longer attempt to stipulate what that meant. Evolution is purely an superseded thought that technology is debunking. Even the alleged evidence of pre-human skeletal findings have been uncovered as fraudulent! One skeleton replaced into geared up up from the the tooth of a boar - a wild PIG! yet another replaced into the consequence of combining component to a human cranium with that of a guerrilla. yet another replaced into geared up up from bone fragments that have been amassed over a a hundred-mile radius. And yet yet another replaced into intentionally planted ahead in basic terms to be "got here upon" later. that is all fraudulent and pretend, and the scientists who spout this nonsense easily ought to understand this. The question then comes all the way down to this: WHY are the helping obtrusive lies? the two A) they do no longer comprehend or understand those are lies. OR B) they actually DO have an time table to push atheism and evolution, opposite to the info. the two a possibility conclusions carry approximately very severe ethical questions with regard to the scientific community (a minimum of between people who help evolution)! So, i'm inviting each and all the atheist mockers to bypass away their bronze-elderly, stone-age, cave-guy, goat-herding myths, and connect us right here contained in the twenty first century, the place technology is debunking evolution on a everyday foundation. (until they actually desire "psychological suicide"! yet then, they must end claiming to have the skill to think of logically and rationally!)

Answer 4

Everything that is offered in support of the "theory" not "religion" of evolution is not religious. I can understand why somebody my sneer at the suggestion.

Answer 5

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

Links:
VonRoeschlaub, Warren Kurt. 1998. God and evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
References:

1. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 1982. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
2. Ruse, Michael. 2000. Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. National Post, 13 May 2000. http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_2_2.htm
3. Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Answer 6

Which dictionary did you get your definition of religion?

Religion:
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

Answer 7

You are right, atheism and evolution require faith in the theories espoused as opposed to facts, however, most of the "atheists" on YA! R&S wouldn't know a fact if it bit them so your question is just going to draw a bunch of angry people making really dumb comments.

Isaac Asimov once pointed out that becoming an atheist requires a "leap of faith" to paraphrase his statement.

"Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of EMOTION as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I DON"T HAVE the EVIDENCE to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Asimov's open mindedness is a big reason I was open minded enough to become a Christian.

Answer 8

Evolution isn't a religion.

Gravity isn't a religion.

Answer 9

Science, and all branches thereof, are not religions; they are not philosophies.

Answer 10

YES