Re: Evolutionism the religion
From: Dave Oldridge (doldridg_at_leavethisoutshaw.ca)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: cantueso: "Re: cudiments"
- Previous message: Michael Olea: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: Gactimus: "Evolutionism the religion"
- Next in thread: Termite of Tempation: "Re: Evolutionism the religion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 06:06:21 GMT
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:DcOsd.122658$%x.11815@okepread04:
> I copied this from the talk.origins feed back (April 2000):
>
> "How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No
> commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing
> revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It
> has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no
> promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including
> Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the
> progression of evolution. How, then, is evolution a religion? Are
> other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also
> a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?"
>
>
> A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus
> evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to
> co-ordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas
> underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and
> scientific Humanism.
If evolution is a religion, then it has a huge advantage over the other,
competing religions. Its main principle tenet is something that is
actually observed.
> Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the center of
> interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional
> Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human
> beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.
Modern humanism? It finds its roots in the Renaissance, when
philosophers began to overthrow the medieval scholastics' overdependence
on the ancient writings of the Greek philosophers and scripture (as they
then interpreted it). However, far from doing away with traditional
Christianity, it has succeeded in somewhat forcing it back to its roots.
It is the rather UNtraditional Christianity of some of the more radical
reformation sects that has found difficulty with it.
> In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set
> whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes 'might
> makes right', including the tyranny of the majority.
Sorry, evolution is not humanism. Nor does it set any moral rules. Just
because something happens in nature does not make it either right or
wrong morally. There is no evil in the gravity that pulls a man off a
cliff, though there IS evil in the man who pushes him.
> Evolutionists have demonstrated that Evolution is not a "Hebrew"
> religion.
Indeed, it's not ANY kind of religion.
> Dictionary.com states the definition of 'religon' is :
>
> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
> regarded as
> creator and governor of the universe.
And science is not religion and therefore does not teach such belief (or
its lack). Evolution is science.
> 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
> 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of
> a spiritual leader.
> 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> devotion.
>
> Let's measure Evolution to see if it fits any of those descriptions:
>
> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
> regarded as
> creator and governor of the universe
>
> In evolution, the 'creator' is Nature and Natural Causes. Natrual
> process 'created and governs' the universe. Evolutionists definately
> have a reverence for Nature.
No, evolution discusses natural change, not creation. Whether scientists
revere nature in the same way YOU revere your own ego is a much deeper
question. But I tend to think not.
> 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
> A religious order is a subdivision of a religious group. In the case
> of Evolution, I would say the religous group is humanism.
Wrong. Many of the scientists who work in the field of evolution are not
humanists. And humanism is not, in and of itself, antithetical to
Christianity.
> 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of
> a spiritual leader.
>
> Darwin was a humanist. He is the 'father of evolution'. I would say
> this description fits.
Darwin spoke very little about spiritual values in his scientific work.
Nor is his opinion treated in any way as that of a prophet or high
priest. He was wrong on a number of points and no attempt is being made
to uphold those errors the way religious sects often do with their
prophets. Instead, he is simply treated as an historical figure who
discovered and elucidated certain properties of the natural world.
> 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> devotion.
>
> I would say that describes evolutionists (at least the ones I have
> encountered here and elsewhere) very well.
It would also describe you as a religious anti-evolutionist, since most
of your "preaching" seems to be an effort to put down Darwin and
"evolutionists" rather than to put forward any kind of alternative
religion. In fact, one might guess that you HAVE no religion whatever,
other than that of attacking science.
> By the way - just fun the fun of it - lets analize the quote:
> Evolutionists Diety - Nature, man
Nope. Scientists (including those who accept evolution) are members of
pretty well all of the religions of mankind (with the possible exceptions
of some very tiny cults).
> Evolutionists worship - Darwin Day Celebrations
Nope. That's not a religious festival. No gods are invoked.
> Evolutionists Priests - evolutionary scientists and theorists (such as
> Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagin, etc)
How is a scientist a priest? They wear no fancy vestments, unless you
count lab coats when in a lab and they don't even have a consistent
theology, but rather a growing body of knowledge that is continually
checked against the real world through observation and experiment.
> Evolutionists Sabbath - earth day, darwin day, etc
You're stretching here....hardly any great number of scientists do
anything special on these days.
> Evolutionist commandments - laws of nature (such as laws of
> thermodynamics, gravity, etc)
Laws of nature are very persistent observations, often of a mathematical
nature. They may reflect laws of God (implanted in the universe at
creation according to Christian theology) but, if so, this is no
different from the teaching of the TRADITIONAL Church.
> Evolutionist inerrant doctrine - man created in present form by nature
> and chance not the God of the Bible
Uh, no scientific theory is inerrant. But scientific observations don't
go away because nutty religious cults and their false prophets are
embarrassed by them.
> Evolution is constantly undergoing revision - glad to see you guys
> admit that. (I recently read 'another' poster on this board claimed
> that there would be revisions to the laws of gravity before there
> would be revisions to the ToE.)
That's right. SCIENCE is always undergoing revision. That does not mean
that it is always totally wrong.
> It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles - Macro-evolution
> is a miracle. It cannot be observed or duplicated.
Incorrect. The unit of macroevolution is speciation and it can be
observed and caused.
> No penalties for unbelief - oh yeah? Tell that to the countless
> creation scientists who are ostracized and denied research grants (or
> remain unpublished) because they espouse a Young Earth creation model.
Oh, go piss up a rope. The tiny handful of people with scientific
degrees who prostitute themselves to the fraud called "creation science"
are ROLLING in money compared with most working scientists. To get the
kind of budgets people like Ken Ham play around with, you have to win a
Nobel and even then it's not easy.
> Carries no promises of reward - Live your life the way YOU want...
> persue immorality and selfish pleasure - do whatever makes you feel
> good - after all, there is No biblical authority - there is no
> absolute right and wrong because we are just a result of random
> chance, time and chemistry.
That's right. Science is not about morality. If you end up in mid air
1000 feet above the ground you will fall and die. Gravity is not evil on
that account. Evolution teaches us nothing about the Bible except that,
as interpreted by the false prophets of the anti-evolution cults, it is
wrong about some scientific matters that we can test. However, note that
is the attempt to use it as a scientific textbook in the first place that
engenders such false interpretations. The fact that the interpretations
are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE TO FACT only shows that the interpreters are not
the holy people they claim to be.
> It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in
> the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution.
This is true, since, like all other natural phenomena dealt with by
science, there is no RELIGIOUS claim about their underlying causes.
> Any good Modern Humanist will tell you it's not important what you
> believe, but the passion and degree to which you believe (have you
> ever heard - it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you stand
> for something). Basically evolution is a humanist religious order,
> and humanists believe that they can choose what they want to believe
> because they are ultimately only responsible to man and not God.
It's VERY important that you NOT believe people who tell you to lie about
science in God's name. At the moment you seem to be one of those people
and should, therefore, not be believed.
> Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also
> a religion?
> Theory of relativity 1) is mathmatically viable (evolution defies
> mathmatical probability), 2) can be tested and observed by
> experimentation, 3) requires no 'blind faith'
Evolution does not defie mathematical probability, liar.
God said "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS."
You continually, obdurately and maliciously bear false witness in God's
name. Therefore I brand you a liar, a heretic, and an excommunicate.
Christians should shun you unless you are seeking absolution for these
sins.
-- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
- Next message: cantueso: "Re: cudiments"
- Previous message: Michael Olea: "Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man"
- In reply to: Gactimus: "Evolutionism the religion"
- Next in thread: Termite of Tempation: "Re: Evolutionism the religion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
