Is evolutionism a religion?

Question

Even though the theory of evolution has a lot of circumstantial evidence to back it, it still lacks the substantial evidence that will prove beyond any doubt that it is factual. In fact, the theory lacks the most crucial pieces of evidence that would prove it to be factual, for example, intermediate fossils. If the theory is anything to go by, the numbers of intermediate fossils unearhed should be in their thousands, but there arent any, which gives rise to many questions about the reliability of the theory. dont get me wrong, I am not here to attack the thoery but instead have my question answered. Because of the lack of substantial evidence to back the theory, it requires one to have faith in it, the same kind of faith that one would need to believe in Christ or to be a muslim. So, is evolutionism some sort of secular religion with no moral principles or what?

Answer 1

You are incorrect about your assumption that there are no intermediate fossils.  Practically every fossil is an intermediate unless you happen to find the last in a line of animals that went extinct which is extremely unlikely given how low a percentage of biological remains that are actually fossilized.  Evolution is a theory that has such a mountain of evidence that anyone that understands the basics should believe that it is almost certainly true.  Can you prove the earth isn't flat beyond any doubt.  If you can than you can prove evolution beyond any doubt.  I suspect you are trying to make brownie points with God or your preacher but I don't see how closing your eyes is going to help.

Answer 2

Well, you got a lot of good answers, I did note how you were trying to be reasonable and not insult but you got some insults in return. lol  Anyway, you walk to a different drummer than these people and that drum has a sweet tune. We have come to see the earth as somehow apart from God, do you think that way? We go from a child to a teenager to an adult. Evolution is the same.  The adult isn't more important than the child, there is just change. What the child losses the adult gains. We gain knowledge and experience but lose innocent and wonder. Same with a creature having to adapt, it loses and it gains in the traits needed to survive. As we go forward in time, we lose and we gain.  100 years ago there was many good things we lost and many bad things we overcame.  This is the river of life, it runs pasting one scene and it comes into another. We ride it for a while. The Romans called it the river Styx. A business man says it is his business, a scientist says it is science, a holy man calls it his religion. When Jesus held the last supper, he had something important to say. It was his last message. To remember him, as one remembers that one must eat. As the lion kills it prey, the prey is worshipped for the prey must die so that the lion will live. The prey and lion become one. One in this river of worship. All is religion.  I have tried to address you in the manner that is worthy of you.

Answer 3

Clearly not...

Evolutionary Biology is a field of scientic inquiry, no different than Chemistry, Astrophysics, Astronomy, etc. It's theories can be proven or disproven, using the scientific method. There is no "ism" about it...

Scientists have no faith or belief issues, in the study of Biology!

In fact, fossil evidence is not as critical in proving a case, as is forensic DNA evidence, similar to what can hold up in a court of Law...

Answer 4

The school systems should be ashamed at how poorly both you and Sandy understand science.  Seriously, your first sentence is: "Even though the theory of evolution has a lot of circumstantial evidence to back it, it still lacks the substantial evidence that will prove beyond any doubt that it is factual."

What you forgot to add was 'substantial evidence to convince me'.  As it is, the twin nested heirarchies prove to REASONABLE people that common descent occurred.  

Further you simply dismiss the fossil evidence we have.  You just brazenly ignore it while transitionals are being found and reported on in the news practically everyday (heard of the Tiktaliik?).  

I would laugh if I thought you weren't serious, but you are.  Your parents should be ashamed of how uneducated you are.

Sandy continues your tradition by saying this: "It's a symptom of the disease that is plaguing the scientific Establishment, not only with Evolution, but in the harder sciences -- especially cosmology (heck of a lot of fudge factors, and simple childish behavior -- throwing eggs on alternative theory proponents is pure playground behavior from folks who's suppose to be "logical" in their actions)."

What alternative theories are having eggs thrown at them? Are you talking about the many worlds theory, inflationary cosmology, gott's theory?  

No, you are probably talking about intelligent design - which isn't a scientific theory.  Your failing in school is apparent as you mistake the common man's definition of 'theory' with the scientist's.  Look, a theory in science is not a guess or magic, it's a rigorous explanation that makes sense of the data.  Intelligent design is magic - if you disagree then please explain how god created anything.  Show your methodology - that's what *SCIENCE* actually does.

Here Sandy attempts to dismiss actual science by appealing to vagueness: "The problem is three-fold: science has become overly politicalized; gatekeeping is in process to protect careers and reputations (people will accept Evolution and the "Big Bang" because the Establishment depends on the theories for simple economics -- how and why things like the String theory evolved); and debunkers trying to pass themselves as skeptics even doubting observation evidence (major fudge now is trying to pass off mathematical models over even direct observation -- that violates the scientific method itself)."

It seems you read one book and not only have you swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker, you are now an expert.  Thus a creationist is born.  Not enough education to actually understand the issues, but enough power to vote to put more ignorance into our classrooms.

Fantastic.

Answer 5

Yes, Evolution has become a religion, so much so with it's own Jerry Farwells (Dawkins comes to mind here, with his war on ID speech).

It's a symptom of the disease that is plaguing the scientific Establishment, not only with Evolution, but in the harder sciences -- especially cosmology (heck of a lot of fudge factors, and simple childish behavior -- throwing eggs on alternative theory proponents is pure playground behavior from folks who's suppose to be "logical" in their actions).

The problem is three-fold: science has become overly politicalized; gatekeeping is in process to protect careers and reputations (people will accept Evolution and the "Big Bang" because the Establishment depends on the theories for simple economics -- how and why things like the String theory evolved); and debunkers trying to pass themselves as skeptics even doubting observation evidence (major fudge now is trying to pass off mathematical models over even direct observation -- that violates the scientific method itself).

In essence, it has become the 15th century Church. Only thing missing is burning science heretics on the stake.

For an interesting direct viewpoint on what's been going on in science, I suggest reading the books by Halton Arp ("Seeing Red" is his current edition). It's a insight in the world science academia, from someone who's actually in it and suffered the political and religious dogma of the Establishment protecting itself (much like the Church priesthood did). Read and learn what scienceapologists (and the typical debunkers like them) want to snow the general public.

And for the guy below who voted my post down, you have zero idea how much I know about science. In fact, I know more about it, in practice, than some hocus-pocus theory fudging being pasted off by political types (especially promoting mathematic models over observational evidence -- don't *ever* claim that's how science should operate, as that will show you that you have zero idea about science, let alone the scientific method). I'm v-e-r-y pro science, but won't tolerate political tomfoolery making a mockery of what made science,  *science*.

Again, I will post this link, as most of you Goddard style debunkers are clueless of the sins of science and how a status quo mindset has hurt it, as the 15th century church hurt Christianity...

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

--

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1...

New Scientist book review, May 13, 2002, page 48: Margaret Wertheim reviews Robert Marc Friedman's “The Politics of Excellence” (Time Books):

"Seen as a purveyor of metaphysical nonsense that would corrupt the vigorous strain of experimental physics admired by conservative Nobel committee members, Einstein’s nomination provoked an extraordinary depth of hostility."

Funny how a few would like the many to believe in anything by letting time (and hoping the herd mentality will rule) will erase the real history? Today Einstein's theories are touted as the status quo, and guess how this body of scientists are reacting to newer theories??

That's the problem in ALL science today, from Evolution to Cosmology.

Answer 6

In your view it is.

You use "Circumstantial...still lacks....substantial evidence... beyond any doubt...theory lacks the most crucial pieces of evidence...if theory is anything to go by..."

Does the standard you state "prove beyond any doubt that it is factual" means that you will determine the level of proof?

The demand for intermediate fossils is a red herring of critics.Are you asking about the general lineage or the species to species lineage?

The general lineage is shown through deep sea core samples. The  Phytoliths and diatoms found in cores of 60 to 70 meters in length represent millions of years of evolution. There are no gaps and clear evolutionary transition is seen in the fossils.

Poseidonamicus is a bivalve that has increased it's size some 50% over the the past 40 million years. Again continuous deep sea cores provide the data. Even the evolutionary cause, cooling temperatures, is known.

Even the human evolution is well documented. However the red herring of a "missing link" has mostly been replaced by demand for missing links between Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, Early Homo Sapiens,: Neanderthal Man, Early modern Humans and Modern Man. Seems the demand for the 'missing link(s)" will never meet some people's satisfaction.

Perhaps the best nonscientific proof that evolutionary explaination (as the word "Theory" is used in science) is that all ideas are given a hearing and nobody gets burned at a stake. I've yet to see any religion state "Our bad, the scripture we're using is wrong. We'll need a rewrite."

  

Answer 7

No. It doesn't meet the criteria for religion. Specifically it gives no answers as to the purpose of the universe, there's no ritual or devotional observances, no specific practices, and no code of moral conduct or matter of ethics.

Answer 8

The theory of evolution isn't just based on the fossil record, there is the theory of survival of the fittest and genetic mutations leading to adaptation that determine natural selection.

We have seen natural selection (and thus evolution) at work in the peppered moth, that went from a speckled specimen to an entirely black specimen during the industrial revolution when trees became black and covered with soot.

The speckled moths could no longer camouflage themselves from predators so over several generations, those with the gene mutation that made them entirely black dominated the species in the area.

Also, the conditions for creating good fossils are relatively uncommon on our planet for its size.  There have been several species where transitional fossils have been found, such as birds and whales.  Because we have not found a so called human "missing link"  does not disprove evolution.

Scientist are hard at work proving the genetic mutation/natural selection theory of evolution in the field and in laboratories all over the globe using accepted scientific practices.  It is not faith based, it is based on observable fact.

Saying that the theory of evolution is not science because there are gaps in some fossil records is like saying Christianity is not a religion because there are holes in the stories from the Bible.  As you know there is much more to Christianity than the Bible, and there is much more to evolution than the fossil record.

Answer 9

There's no such thing as evolutionism.

No, it's not a religion, it is science.

You're wrong about evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; there is NO question that evolution explains the variety of species.

You're wrong that no "intermediate fossils" have been found. Lots have. Unless you're defining "intermediate" as fossils as "fossils intermediate between those that have already been found" in which case it's both true by definition, and completely irrelevant.

Acceptance of evolution does NOT require blind, unreasoning faith; it requires either reasonable faith in science, or an accurate understanding of what evolution actually says, and some of the vast and varied evidence for it.

If you wanted to actually understand evolution, here are some links that would help you:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/in...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

The second is a good starting place.

Unlike religion, acceptance of the truth of science does not require believing absurd and impossible things.

Answer 10

The theory of evolution is reinforced by:

Most colutures

Most areas of sicence

Several religions

All the points you raze in the sub text to the question are indeed properganda from the Creationists who are just the only serious contenders to evolution.