4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific

[CharlieB]

I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science. I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them. Let me know what you think and if something needs to be improved with what I have for now:

4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific:

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

No one has ever produced life from non living things.

Science has not been able to do any of these. However to believe in evolution requires that you have faith that all these happened.

Thanks in advance

[zoegirl]

I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science. I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them. Let me know what you think and if something needs to be improved with what I have for now:

4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific:

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

First, biological evolution properly defined does not address how matter came to be. IF you are meaning by this comment an atheistic philosophy, a naturalistic philosophy, sure. But biological evolution does not address this.

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

The mechanisms of evolution do not require an animal give birth to another kind. If by this you are describing one species giving birth to another, this is simply not what evolution states.

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

if you are meaning this to be an argument against evolution per se this is not addressed by evolution, certainly not biological evolution.

No one has ever produced life from non living things.

agreed, absolutely....

Science has not been able to do any of these. However to believe in evolution requires that you have faith that all these happened.

Thanks in advance

I would argue that the first and third have nothing to do with evolution and the second is inaccurate or incomplete. The third I would agree with.

[CharlieB]

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

The mechanisms of evolution do not require an animal give birth to another kind. If by this you are describing one species giving birth to another, this is simply not what evolution states.

Doesn't their religion state that an animal changes by successive births to another kind? Isn't that the same thing as "No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind"? If it is not how can this be re-worded? Please remember I am looking for simplicity. How about this: "No one has ever seen and animal change to another kind by successive births"

I am writing about all divisions of their religion. Stellar, biological and whatever they call the big bang division. Certainly stellar evolution requires that stars create themselves.

Any other suggestions are welcome too.
Thanks

[Cross.eyed]

There is a book that has been out for some time now; I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by N. Giesler and Frank Turkle.(spell?) It's available in paperback also.

The first segments deal primarily with different aspects of evolution.
I know very little about science so I can't vouch for it's overall validity but I did enjoy reading it.

Hope this helps.

[Kurieuo]

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

The mechanisms of evolution do not require an animal give birth to another kind. If by this you are describing one species giving birth to another, this is simply not what evolution states.

Doesn't their religion state that an animal changes by successive births to another kind? Isn't that the same thing as "No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind"? If it is not how can this be re-worded? Please remember I am looking for simplicity. How about this: "No one has ever seen and animal change to another kind by successive births"

I am writing about all divisions of their religion. Stellar, biological and whatever they call the big bang division. Certainly stellar evolution requires that stars create themselves.

Any other suggestions are welcome too.
Thanks

You would be better targeting Atheism as an ideology on the same par as religious ideology.

There is no reason to state evolution is a religion, especially since some Christians believe evolution to be true. Can one embrace multiple religions? Perhaps, but still evolution is not a religion although one could say proponents of it have a religious vigor. If you are going to be saying to evolutionists something like their evolutionary religion is wrong because of reasons a, b and c, then I wouldn't bother. They will balk just as soon as you get started.

On the other hand, Atheism as an ideology could be argued to be more dangerous than any form of religious ideology. "Moral outrage" forms a major influence with what a person selects as their ideology. Atheists proclaim religion is the cause for many atrocities throughout history while ignoring the atrocities and problems caused by their own ideology. Secondly, by targeting Atheistic ideologies you can transcend the issue of evolution to other related and important topics. One being how did our physical laws and those which apparently govern evolution come to be? Did such laws evolve? If so, what laws governed the evolving of such laws.

All ideologies whether religious as commonly understood, or non-religious, have the answer complex questions about life. One reason I am Christian is because I believe Christianity satisfies most of what I take for granted to be true including morality, our freedom to choose, how we came to be, the feeling of purpose and meaning to living life and what-have-you. Compared with a deterministic outlook of Atheism which would justify all injustices of the morally worst human being, my belief in morality and justice for those who cause others unnecessary pain and suffering is just one area where I can not force myself to embrace Atheism.

[CharlieB]

There is no reason to state evolution is a religion, especially since some Christians believe evolution to be true.

Isn't that like saying Muslim isn't a religion because they believe in a supreme being like Christians? This actually reinforces the notion that evolution is a religious belief. Some Christians "believe" evolution to be true. A scientific idea does not require faith. It must be able to be proved or disproved by experimentation. No one says they believe in gravity. Gravity is a proven fact.

If creation is a religious belief why isn't evolution? It doesn't make sense. Both cannot be proven true or falsified. The courts have shown their bias towards atheistic beliefs and force evolution to be taught in government schools but not creation or intelligent design. People need to understand what is going on here. Atheism is now the modern day government sponsored religion. They continue this facade by pretending evolution is scientific.

Evolution is the cornerstone (gateway may be a better word) to atheism. Have you ever noticed those people that put those darwin fish on their cars to mock the Christian fish? Why would they do that if evolution is not an alternate religion? They are making a statement "My religion is better then yours". Remember evolution cannot be proven true so it has to be a religious belief. It can be compared to people who believe in aliens or reincarnation.

Now back to my 4 points above. Are they at least factual? Are there some other simple points that are better to use?

Thanks again

[Kurieuo]

There is no reason to state evolution is a religion, especially since some Christians believe evolution to be true.

Isn't that like saying Muslim isn't a religion because they believe in a supreme being like Christians?

How so?

This actually reinforces the notion that evolution is a religious belief. Some Christians "believe" evolution to be true. A scientific idea does not require faith. It must be able to be proved or disproved by experimentation. No one says they believe in gravity. Gravity is a proven fact.

If creation is a religious belief why isn't evolution? It doesn't make sense. Both cannot be proven true or falsified. The courts have shown their bias towards atheistic beliefs and force evolution to be taught in government schools but not creation or intelligent design. People need to understand what is going on here. Atheism is now the modern day government sponsored religion. They continue this facade by pretending evolution is scientific.

Creation per se is not a religious belief. Just because Athiests claim it is does not make it so. Creation may be a belief found at home in many religions, but on its own, it is just a belief.

I think the term "religion" needs defining. How do you define religion? I see religion defined as having an organised social context where one has to follow set rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs surrounding the spiritual and divine. This is what most lay people I think would understand religion to be. Now the organised New Atheists movement would by this definition I believe form a religion.

Evolution is the cornerstone (gateway may be a better word) to atheism. Have you ever noticed those people that put those darwin fish on their cars to mock the Christian fish? Why would they do that if evolution is not an alternate religion? They are making a statement "My religion is better then yours". Remember evolution cannot be proven true so it has to be a religious belief. It can be compared to people who believe in aliens or reincarnation.

This does not make evolution a religion. Your beef is more with an Atheistic ideology, so why not make the target of your arguments wider than simply limiting them to evolution? I wouldn't bother getting stuck in the creation vs evolution war when there are much bigger kettle of fish to fry.

Now back to my 4 points above. Are they at least factual? Are there some other simple points that are better to use?

For a positive line of argumentation rather than negative, have you read some of William Lane Craigs stock arguments for God's existence?

[Jac3510]

I see religion defined as having an organised social context where one has to follow set rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs surrounding the spiritual and divine.

I don't really like this definition, K. It strikes me as being functional. Take, for example, a spoon. A spoon is something that is used to scoop up something else. In this way, anything that scoops up something can be considered, in some sense, a "spoon." There's nothing wrong with functional definitions. Indeed, "spoons" have to be defined functionally, but must everything be? What happens if we try to define "human" functionally?

On the other hand, you can define things essentially, that is, by what they actually are rather than what they do. People don't like those kinds of definitions these days, because it presupposes some sort of objectivity, but that's another debate. My point here is only this: if we define religion functionally, as you have done here (or at least, it seems you have done here), then there is nothing inherently right or wrong about it.

For example, what would you say if someone came up to you and declared, "You have a false spoon. Only I have the true spoon!" That wouldn't make any sense. It isn't that you would disagree. You would just declare it nonsense. It seems to me that if you define "religion" as something with "an organized social context with rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs relating to the spiritual," you are in exactly the same situation. Here, religion is just something that does something. Religion is just something that creates a system by which we live. How can that be false? You could perhaps say that certain beliefs within a religion are false, but would that make the religion itself false or rather only faulty? (as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

[Byblos]

(as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

A spoon with a hole in it wouldn't be faulty, it'd be a fork (ok, that was lame, sorry; carry on).

[zoegirl]

sporks!

[Kurieuo]

I see religion defined as having an organised social context where one has to follow set rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs surrounding the spiritual and divine.

I don't really like this definition, K. It strikes me as being functional. Take, for example, a spoon. A spoon is something that is used to scoop up something else. In this way, anything that scoops up something can be considered, in some sense, a "spoon." There's nothing wrong with functional definitions. Indeed, "spoons" have to be defined functionally, but must everything be? What happens if we try to define "human" functionally?

On the other hand, you can define things essentially, that is, by what they actually are rather than what they do. People don't like those kinds of definitions these days, because it presupposes some sort of objectivity, but that's another debate. My point here is only this: if we define religion functionally, as you have done here (or at least, it seems you have done here), then there is nothing inherently right or wrong about it.

I am not sure I fully understand. Why does meeting to criteria of what consists as a "religion" need to delve into which is or isn't true? For example, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are all religions. Does the fact I call Islam a religion presuppose I see see nothing right or wrong with it (vis. its doctrines and beliefs)? In fact, I see Islam as generally wrong when it comes to who God is and how one can be with God in the afterlife.

For example, what would you say if someone came up to you and declared, "You have a false spoon. Only I have the true spoon!" That wouldn't make any sense. It isn't that you would disagree. You would just declare it nonsense. It seems to me that if you define "religion" as something with "an organized social context with rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs relating to the spiritual," you are in exactly the same situation. Here, religion is just something that does something. Religion is just something that creates a system by which we live. How can that be false? You could perhaps say that certain beliefs within a religion are false, but would that make the religion itself false or rather only faulty? (as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

It is perhaps my bias towards the free thinking with which I have grown to value over and against any particular form Christian church or denomination, but I do not have faith in any religion including the various religions and Christian denominations instituted by humanity.

My faith and beliefs are rooted in what I have come to understand of Christ via the leading of God through the Holy Spirit in my rational and Scriptural pursuits, in addition to influences by various Christian people in my life, Christian churches and thinking I became accustom to while growing up. I do not adhere to any set Christian beliefs as found within organised Christian religions whether it be Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Reformed, Pentecostal, a mix, or what-have-you. I do not see any religion as true, and neither do I see any denomination of a particular religion (such as Christianity) as true. Such may have truth within them, but a religion would not true because it is true in and of itself, but rather it would be true because it contains truth.

Now, while I would see no particular form of Christianity as completely true, I would in fact embrace any orthodox Christian religion as true with regards to their orthodox beliefs. That is, all Christian religions regardless of denomination who share in core Christian beliefs, no matter how diverse their secondary beliefs might be, are in fact true so far as the essentials go. There is much common ground in the diversity of orthodox Christian denominations, and this "orthodox Christianity" if branded as religion would be true. But such is true because of the beliefs that are essential to one's being Christian.

Not sure if that touches upon what you were getting at...?

[Canuckster1127]

sporks!

Spork! Spork! Spork!

[Jac3510]

I see religion defined as having an organised social context where one has to follow set rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs surrounding the spiritual and divine.

I don't really like this definition, K. It strikes me as being functional. Take, for example, a spoon. A spoon is something that is used to scoop up something else. In this way, anything that scoops up something can be considered, in some sense, a "spoon." There's nothing wrong with functional definitions. Indeed, "spoons" have to be defined functionally, but must everything be? What happens if we try to define "human" functionally?

On the other hand, you can define things essentially, that is, by what they actually are rather than what they do. People don't like those kinds of definitions these days, because it presupposes some sort of objectivity, but that's another debate. My point here is only this: if we define religion functionally, as you have done here (or at least, it seems you have done here), then there is nothing inherently right or wrong about it.

I am not sure I fully understand. Why does meeting to criteria of what consists as a "religion" need to delve into which is or isn't true? For example, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are all religions. Does the fact I call Islam a religion presuppose I see see nothing right or wrong with it (vis. its doctrines and beliefs)? In fact, I see Islam as generally wrong when it comes to who God is and how one can be with God in the afterlife.

For example, what would you say if someone came up to you and declared, "You have a false spoon. Only I have the true spoon!" That wouldn't make any sense. It isn't that you would disagree. You would just declare it nonsense. It seems to me that if you define "religion" as something with "an organized social context with rules and obligations, often associated with beliefs relating to the spiritual," you are in exactly the same situation. Here, religion is just something that does something. Religion is just something that creates a system by which we live. How can that be false? You could perhaps say that certain beliefs within a religion are false, but would that make the religion itself false or rather only faulty? (as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

It is perhaps my bias towards the free thinking with which I have grown to value over and against any particular form Christian church or denomination, but I do not have faith in any religion including the various religions and Christian denominations instituted by humanity.

My faith and beliefs are rooted in what I have come to understand of Christ via the leading of God through the Holy Spirit in my rational and Scriptural pursuits, in addition to influences by various Christian people in my life, Christian churches and thinking I became accustom to while growing up. I do not adhere to any set Christian beliefs as found within organised Christian religions whether it be Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Reformed, Pentecostal, a mix, or what-have-you. I do not see any religion as true, and neither do I see any denomination of a particular religion (such as Christianity) as true. Such may have truth within them, but a religion would not true because it is true in and of itself, but rather it would be true because it contains truth.

Now, while I would see no particular form of Christianity as completely true, I would in fact embrace any orthodox Christian religion as true with regards to their orthodox beliefs. That is, all Christian religions regardless of denomination who share in core Christian beliefs, no matter how diverse their secondary beliefs might be, are in fact true so far as the essentials go. There is much common ground in the diversity of orthodox Christian denominations, and this "orthodox Christianity" if branded as religion would be true. But such is true because of the beliefs that are essential to one's being Christian.

Not sure if that touches upon what you were getting at...?

K, I don't think I was very clear. Let me just ask you this:

Would you consider, say, Islam a "false religion" and Christianty (as you described it above) the "true religion"?

[Kurieuo]

I believe Christianity is true, but I do not believe there is any completely true Christian religion.

Islam is a religion (I think this should be clear to all), but regarding the core beliefs which make Islam authentically Islamic, Islam is wrong. So you could call Islam a false religion because its core beliefs are false, but it is not false just because in and of itself Islam is Islam. To borrow your example, it makes no sense to call a spoon a false or true spoon, because in and of itself a spoon is neither true or false. Either a spoon is a spoon or it isn't (it may be a spork). The nature of religion however is based around beliefs, and each belief is either true or false.

In the way I understand religion, Christianity as a religion is too diverse and open-ended. One needs to break down the beliefs they see form the Christian religion/s. Christ's essential message of grace and forgiveness was quite simplistic, but as rational beings we like to ask questions which force us into complex theological issues which is where religion attempts to assume superiority and dictate on such issues.

[Jac3510]

Well that's fine, K. You and I just have a different definition of religion. You can't call any religion "false" because, in and of itself, religions are just functional. You can talk about true or false propositions to which they hold, but you can't say the religions themselves are "false"--at best, you could say they were "faulty."

I don't agree with that conclusion, personally. I would label Islam a false religion. And why? Precisely because the definition of religion is NOT like the definition of a spoon. Consider another example. You can talk about "false" men. It sounds funny, but we know what these are. Robots, models, etc., would be such. They are made to look like people, but they really aren't after all. They may function the same way, but essentially, they are not the same things. Or consider "false believers." They look like and act like (function like) believers, but essentially they are false.

Applied to religion, I see Christianity (orthodoxly speaking) as the true religion. All others are pseudo-religions. They are counterfeits. They are fakes. They are NOT religions in the same sense of the word as Christianity is, anymore than robots are people. They are imitations, corruptions of God's religion. Nothing more.

But, again, that's why I started this line of thought. I don't, personally, think we should define religion functionally. Almost everyone does these days. I just believe that is a bad approach. *shrug*