Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Erasmus00]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in theology or evolution... Anyway, a popular assertion in the Christian creation vs evolution arguments is that evolution is a religion, and those opposing biblical creation are just clinging to a different religion. I thought rather than diverting a bunch of threads off topic, we might as well start a seperate thread to discuss the issue.

As I see it, neither evolution OR biblical creation are religions. Both seek to be scientific models of the universe we live in, although one is undeniably religiously motivated. In that light, evolution is clearly the more viable model as it has real explanatory power. It explains, for instance, we Hawaii sports flightless birds, and it explains the general geological layout of life on this planet. It explains why human DNA is remarkably similar to that of yeast, etc, etc. Also, the specifics behind evolution change as new data is unearthed, leading to punctuated equilibrium, etc, etc. Far from being a weakness open to attack, this is the halmark of a scientific theory.

As a scientific model, creationism predicts nothing. It takes new data and figures out (and often increasingly complicated) explanations for how such data fits into the past flood. It also has the drawback of being impossible to adapt, and change. This inability to change forces creation "scientists" to bend data to fit, or discredit that which won't. This leads to abominations like the ICR, whose purpose is nothing more than to hoodwink scientifically illiterate people.

Creationists, it seems to me, wish to put evolution (and biblical creationism) on religious terms, for it is in that region where creationism is most credible.
-Will

[C1ay]

I don't understand why the argument keeps becoming creation vs evolution. Evolution is not a theory about the beginning of life like creation is. For me the theory of evolution is just that, a theory about how life evolves. It is a theory of development that could have followed creation or abiogenesis. So why isn't the debate creation vs abiogenesis?

[skuinders]

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by skuinders

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

At least Catholic schools require evolution be taught.
-Will

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by skuinders

The official stand of the church (Christian/Catholic, at least) is that humans did not evolve from animals, they were created separately. The church might accept evolution as a general theory of other life evolving on Earth, but they draw the line when it comes to humans - which is more illogical than dismissing the theory altogether.

Someone might let the church in on the fact that we are animals....

[Southtown]

The way I see it, both views are possible. And so the minute someone "believes" either creation or evolution, they choose one side over the other irrationally, and forfeit the scientific consideration of both views, their probabilities, and any investigations or testing of such. Then the person simply debates one side, right or wrong, win or lose, they hold the same view regardless... by faith now instead of reason. Hence, both are sciences to those who are willing to swing either way, and others who choose to believe one, since neither hypotheses are proven, do so by faith.

I'm a believer in creation, though. For me it's a battle between mind and spirit. I'll never be convinced that my consciousness is a merely a chemical process. And the world is too incredibly complex and exquisitley balanced. It's just absurd to call it an accident.

[skuinders]

Originally Posted by Southtown

... the world is too incredibly complex and exquisitley balanced. It's just absurd to call it an accident.

Evolution gives reasonable explanations for the convoluted structure of living things using observable evidence, while creationism makes the claim that something intelligent designed and created them in a pointlessly complex way without any evidence to support. Which is absurd?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by skuinders

...creationism makes the claim that something intelligent designed and created them in a pointlessly complex way...

Just because you can't see the point doesn't mean there isn't one.

P.S. Are you saying it's easier to explain complexity with chance? Is that your derivative?

[Raelian1]

Evolution is junk science. All life on Earth did not evolve randomly nor were we created by a supernatural God. All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Raelian1

Evolution is junk science. All life on Earth did not evolve randomly nor were we created by a supernatural God. All life on Earth were created by scientists from another planet, including us. And those scientists were created by other scientists and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. There is no starting point. Our scientists are just starting to create life scientifically with simple life forms like bacteria. Soon they should be able to create life using inert chemicals. Eventually, we will create life on other planets if we don't destroy ourselves.

What evidence can you give us that these statements are fact. Science is about evidence, not about just how you feel about or suspect reality to be.