Is Evolution a Religion? Is Evolution a Religious Belief System Based on Faith?
Sunday May 18, 2008
It is common for critics of evolution to claim it is a religion being improperly supported by the government when it is taught in schools. No other facet of science is singled out for this treatment, at least not yet, but it is part of a wider effort to undermine naturalistic science. An examination of the characteristics which best define religions reveals just how wrong such claims are.
Read Article: Is Evolution a Religion? Is Evolution a Religious Belief System Based on Faith?
Comments
February 12 1809 is a sacred date, the birthday of our redeemer, Charles Darwin. Pray for redemption, and remember that Darwin loves you!
Here is some material to consider:
“There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote the following in 1978: “”… all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and … Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists …”.[35] In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: “Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher.”[36]” see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Darwin,_Charles
Also, consider this:
“The 1996 survey showed that scientists in mathematics are most inclined to hold belief in God (44.6 percent). While biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief/doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 percent), that ranking was given to physicists and astronomers this time around (77.9 percent).” see: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_193_1.html
Why, is there any substance to the claims you quote or are you just posting them here because you wrote them are shilling for part of a Conservapedia which you wrote? Good arguments and ideas can stand on their own; they don’t require dishonest marketing tactics.
Don’t simply quote yourself as if you were an independent authority for your own views. Make a case for your assertions, or admit that it’s all just an attempt to sell blind faith.
You mean, consider the fact that even the scientists most likely to believe in a god are far less likely to believe in gods than the rest of the population? Oh, I have considered it. It supports the general proposition that greater education in science leads to decreased theism and religion. Or, to put it in Einstein’s terms, science can lead people away weak beliefs and childish superstitions.
Mr. Cline,
While I find it lamentable that you do not want to recognize that there is a certain religiousity surrounding Darwin among some evolutionary biologist which even the staunch evolutionist Gould admitted, your response was not totally unexpected. I
We don’t worship Darwin- we worship Darwin AND Wallace. Get your fake facts correctly. The Onion does- why can’t you? Darwin didn’t discover evolution (an Ionian did) he codiscovered evolution by natural selection!
Also, the venerance towards Darwin is NOTHING compared to that towards Einstein. The man’s face is everywhere!
Also Mark, two things
Conservapedia is sh**. Trust me- or see their atheist page your self. ALl their arguments are flawed- starting with the definition!
The reason biologists and astronomers have the highest rate of doubt is the fields kick the sh** out of the design argument.
Feel free to support this claim, though you might want to try supporting some of you previous ones first.
Religiousity declines with increased education generally doesn’t it? I mean, it’s just higher in the sciences that investigate areas where religion has generally claimed authority. Maybe if religion would stop claiming things that aren’t supported by actual evidence, this wouldn’t happen. Just a hunch?
Meanwhile, is the idea to just keep defining any idea, any system, any thought as “religion”? It seems that in the realm of theological discussion, some sort of supernatural/nonnatural beliefs should be included to differentiate it from materialism/naturalism. Not adopting supernatural beliefs is a really odd definition for “religion”…?
When evolutionists are accused of following a religion it is a denigration. When Christianity is labeled a religion it is not. Same thing with the word faith. When atheists are accused of having faith in science theists are using it in the most ordinary way. Yet their faith is the highest compliment to their god. Seems like a double standard to me. So which is it?
Mark Davidson said:
“There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin.”
I think you’re just projecting - because you worship something (your god) you assume we all worship something. I have personally never read Darwin’s book and frankly, I don’t intend to.
Davidson also wrote:
“The 1996 survey showed that scientists in mathematics are most inclined to hold belief in God (44.6 percent). While biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief/doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 percent), that ranking was given to physicists and astronomers this time around (77.9 percent).”
Evolution has NOTHING to do with physics or astronomy so I fail to see your point. Also, it is among anthropologists, psychologists and psychiatrists that the rate of unbelief is the highest. That isn’t good news for god believers…
I just wanted to add that creationists talk about Darwin a lot more than biologists - when I studied biology, the only time I heard about Darwin was when the prof was talking about the origins of the ToE.
But if you pay a visit to any creationist web site, you’ll hear about Darwin every other paragraph! If anything, I’d say that creationists are completely obsessed by Darwin.
Samuel Skinner,
“Also Mark, two things
Conservapedia is sh**. Trust me- or see their atheist page your self. ALl their arguments are flawed- starting with the definition!”
Who do you think wrote the damn thing in the first place?
Here’s a hint: I bet he’s certainly hoping that links in the blog comments don’t have “nofollow” tags (because that wouldn’t help his article’s Google rank at all!)