so sorry... evolution as a belief system ?

[La Texican]

Sorry, in advance, I just think this is a good place to get both sides of the story quickly and thoroughly. Is evolution in any way a religion or a belief system, or is that just a debate technique? Is it only called a belief system because some parts correspond to some themes of some religions? I saw the reenactment of the Supreme court rulling which defined science and showed why intelligent design is religion and is not science. Is there something that similarly shows that evolution is science and not religion, or why evolution is? I can't believe I'm spending this much time worrying about it. I just want to know what's necessary as part of a good eductional knowledge bank. How is evolution catagorized as a belief system, or what defines religion that would exclude evolution?

[Χά�ων]

Evolution is not a belief system.

 

Evolution is not accepted on faith.

 

Evolution is not a religion and has nothing to do with religion.

 

I will say that if one does not understand natural selection and evolution that it may appear to be based on a belief system. If a person is willing to educate themselves it becomes clear that it is science and science is NOT based on a belief system or faith.

[HRAAB]

For me, I don't believe in evolution.  I accept evolution as the best answer we have to date.  Could that change?  Absolutely.  When there is enough evidence that has gone through the rigors of being observed and tested.  Belief has nothing to do with evolution.

 

Belief and faith are for the supernatural - those things that can't be observed or tested.  

[Saddlemomma]

Sorry to tell you this...but you've opened a huge can of worms with this one. Anything on evolution gets hot and heavy here. You will get, "yes, it is a belief system", then you will get, "no, it's not a belief system; it's pure science."  Then you will get those regulars on here who vilify anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint and try to "educate" you to their way of thinking.

 

I'm not even going to go there on this thread because it promotes all kinds of problems.  However, if you want to PM me, I'll give you my opinion without all the drama that usually follows, and you can read what everyone else has to say on your thread and make up your own mind from the various discussions that ensue. :001_smile:

[Mom-ninja.]

Evolution is based on and changes according to empirical evidence. It is able (and has gone through) scientific testing by many many scientists. It is to the point of acceptance as fact as much as the Theory of Gravitivity is accepted as fact.

 

Religion has no empirical evidence. Religious claims that have gone through scientific testing have not held up. It is based on faith and feelings.

 

There are many books that explain this in detail. I have to run to piano lesson now though.

[zoobie]

Evolution is not a belief system. Similarly, gravity is not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fact. As a layperson, you may not understand the factual underpinnings and to some extent have to just say okay. I think that's where confusion sets in. Most people do not have a deep scientific understanding and to them it seems as faith-based as religion.

[La Texican]

I will say that if one does not understand natural selection and evolution that it may appear to be based on a belief system. If a person is willing to educate themselves it becomes clear that it is science and science is NOT based on a belief system or faith.

I have been. From this site I gather that this is where evolution teachings come from.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

 

A plausible model

We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs — but of course, it's hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure outthat speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it's more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments. As an example, we'll examine some evidence relevant to the allopatric speciation model.

 

This is under religion in the websters online dictionary:

Main Entry: natural religion

Function: noun

: a religion validated on the basis of human reason and experience apart from miraculous or supernatural revelation ; specif : a religion that is universally discernible by all men through the use of human reason apart from any special revelation — compare revealed religion.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

For me, I don't believe in evolution.  I accept evolution as the best answer we have to date.  Could that change?  Absolutely.  When there is enough evidence that has gone through the rigors of being observed and tested.  Belief has nothing to do with evolution.

:iagree:

 

Beat me to it.  "Accept" vs "believe" are important linguistic distinctions I always come back to.  Believe whatever you wish to, or not, based on any faith, or not.  Theories are accepted, or not, based on aggregate empirical evidence.

 

It's apples and oranges.

[Slache]

I am a young earth creationist.

 

The evidence for evolution is few and far between. Evolutionists look at the change that has occurred by a loss of genetic information and use that as an example of new information being added. A wolf already contained the genetics needed in order to create a pug. That is not evidence for evolution. Polystrate fossils prove that the layers are not evidence for millions of years.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE EVOLUTION RIGHT NOW.

 

I'm simply saying that evolutionists and creationists interpret the same evidence differently, ergo evolution can be considered a belief, though I wouldn't call it a belief system. Most people are going to disagree with me on this. I don't care. That's just my response to the original post.

[albeto.]

Sorry, in advance, I just think this is a good place to get both sides of the story quickly and thoroughly. Is evolution in any way a religion or a belief system, or is that just a debate technique? Is it only called a belief system because some parts correspond to some themes of some religions? I saw the reenactment of the Supreme court rulling which defined science and showed why intelligent design is religion and is not science. Is there something that similarly shows that evolution is science and not religion, or why evolution is? I can't believe I'm spending this much time worrying about it. I just want to know what's necessary as part of a good eductional knowledge bank. How is evolution catagorized as a belief system, or what defines religion that would exclude evolution?

You might find these resources helpful:  timeline of evolutionary thought and a history of evolutionary thought.  They show timelines of discoveries made that eventually led up to the idea of evolution, the proposed theory, and finally the evidence that confirms it. These show this idea has been a loooong time in the making (centuries), and each discovery made was done so based on observation, data collection, critical analysis of facts, and peer review. In other words, these aren't beliefs, they are facts. 

[La Texican]

I've read the other threads. Saddlemomma, I remember you. You're using evolution, intelligent design, and creationism to teach compare and contrast critical thinking skills, not teaching evolution as a foundational science. That's cool. I just hear two family members of mine (one Christian and one George Carlin athiest) saying evolution is a belief system because it's ancient history. I guess it's like saying the stuff Sheldon says on big bang theory is beliefs because it's only thoughts until they find a way to demonstrate it. I think that's what they're saying. I see the difference, because I read here, is that Sheldon would try to prove his ideas right or wrong, religion tries to apply it's ideas.

But, that webster definition of natural religion trips me up. Does that include science, or only buddhism and some forms of paganism? Why, or why not?

[Slache]

But, that webster definition of natural religion trips me up. Does that include science, or only buddhism and some forms of paganism? Why, or why not?

 

It sounds like something from the age of enlightenment?

[alef]

Evolution is a scientifically supported theory, not a belief system.

 

BUT

 

I can believe or disbelieve in evolution. A belief is subjective, and does not have to align with scientific evidence. A person can believe anything, and the things they choose to believe make up their belief system. From that perspective, evolution may be part of a person's belief system. And not part of another person's belief system.

[HRAAB]

This is something that truly interests me.

 

Creationists start with the Bible, which for them is God's literal Truth, and then use the tools of man, science, to try and prove it.  For some creationists it is extremely important to prove the creation story as related in Genesis.  How will any creationist ever be able to prove the Genesis story using science, and why is this so important to people of faith - with faith being the key word here.  I guess in a way it seems to me to that trying to prove God's existence and the literal Truth of His Word, seems almost an affront to faith.  Also, why are not Christians equally intent on proving other parts of their faith, which actually seem more important to the Christian story, such as Christ's virgin birth or his resurrection?

 

Why is proving Genesis of such importance?  I'm asking because I have family members who spend far more time talking about, reading about, studying about creationism vs. evolution that they spend talking about Jesus.

 

I'm asking this question of YEC because I know there are many, many (the majority) Christians who do not view Genesis literally and it in no way brings their faith into question for them.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am a young earth creationist.

 

The evidence for evolution is few and far between. Evolutionists look at the change that has occurred by a loss of genetic information and use that as an example of new information being added. A wolf already contained the genetics needed in order to create a pug. That is not evidence for evolution. Polystrate fossils prove that the layers are not evidence for millions of years.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE EVOLUTION RIGHT NOW.

 

I'm simply saying that evolutionists and creationists interpret the same evidence differently, ergo evolution can be considered a belief, though I wouldn't call it a belief system. Most people are going to disagree with me on this. I don't care. That's just my response to the original post.

 

No, the difference is that those who accept evolution as a valid scientific theory look at the evidence and see how it fits the theory, and the theory is open to change as new evidence emerges.  YECers ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

[J-rap]

I don't think of evolution as a belief system, but as a scientific explanation based on tested evidence and observation, as many have stated above.  Something that can change, over time.

 

To me, it is a smaller piece in the whole picture.  I personally believe that that whole picture is a belief system that might include both scientific evidence AND things beyond human explanation.  Kind of a mix.  So, I would not expect my belief system to be taught in the schools, although I would expect that aspects of it -- the ones that have a scientific explanation -- to be taught or at least presented to the students.

 

 

 

[regentrude]

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. This means that any observations and experiments can be explained within the framework of the evolution theory and that no observations have been made that would not agree with the predictions made by the theory.

It does not mean that evolution is the "truth". It does not mean that not at some point a theory will be developed that presents a different explanation for the phenomena and stands scientific testing. It does not mean that new observations might not be made some day that disagree with evolution theory and require a different approach.

This how science works, and what the term "scientific theory" means.

Science is not a belief system. I do not need faith, I do not need to "believe" in evolution. As  a scientist, I see that the theory of evolution presents a rational explanation for natural phenomena that is testable, and that currently no competing scientific theory exists that accomplishes the same.

 

ETA: To clarify: any explanation for a phenomenon that is not in principle falsifiable by observation or experimentation does not qualify as science. If I propose an explanation for something but that explanation can, by its very nature, not be tested (because it works only sometimes, or relies on me believing that it works, or is unknowable in principle), it is not science. 

This also means that there is no real conflict between science and religion, because they ask different questions. The question of the existence of a creator who by his very nature is unknowable to humans and that can not be tested in a systematic manner is not a scientific question and thus completely outside the realm of science. Thus, science can not be used, nor would presume, to make a statement about his existence.

[umsami]

I don't believe evolution is a belief system.  It's a scientific theory.  I do believe in good science.   There is a subspecialty in biology called evolutionary biology.  There are different mechanisms, for lack of a better word, that play a part in evolution--it's not all just natural selection. If I give up on science, then I cannot trust any doctor I see. I cannot trust pretty much everything I interact with.  I worry about a world where science is viewed as a belief system or even debatable.  Where the views of 99.99% of scientists are dismissed so easily.  Where conspiracy theories reign.  

 

In today's world, one outcome of evolution that we're seeing is how bacteria adapt….and how this is a very real risk for us due to our lack of antibiotic development.  I don't have to "believe" anything to see it happen. It's happening as we speak--whether or not people believe in it.  

 

I believe in the accuracy of carbon-dating.  It's measurable and repeatable.  I believe that dinosaurs existed when man did not.  I have no problem believing that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. 

 

My believe in evolution does not negate my belief in the divine.  It's not an all or nothing approach.  Back when I studied the Bible, it was stressed that the Genesis stories were never meant to be viewed literally.  Recently, the Pope expressed something similar.  In Islam, it was that love of the Divine and awe of creation that caused Muslim scientists and physicians to accomplish so much in the "Golden Age of Islam" (8th-13th century roughly)  

[Slache]

No, the difference is that those who accept evolution as a valid scientific theory look at the evidence and see how it fits the theory, and the theory is open to change as new evidence emerges.  YECers ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

 

We feel the same way.

 

No, the difference is that those who accept creation as a valid scientific theory look at the evidence and see how it fits the theory, and the theory is open to change as new evidence emerges.  Evolutionists ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We feel the same way.

 

No, the difference is that those who accept creation as a valid scientific theory look at the evidence and see how it fits the theory, and the theory is open to change as new evidence emerges.  Evolutionists ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

 

Yeah, except you are wrong. For example, polystrate fossils (not a geological term btw) have a scientific explanation that shows how their formation is consistent with an old earth/millions of years.  Yet YECers will cling to such "evidence" like it is a deck chair in the North Atlantic with the Titanic swirling below them.

[Slache]

For example, polystrate fossils (not a geological term btw) have a scientific explanation that shows how their formation is consistent with an old earth/millions of years.

 

I was completely unaware of this, otherwise I would not have mentioned it. Do you have a link or can you explain it? You've sparked my curiosity.

[albeto.]

  Evolutionists ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

 

Can you share an example for how most scientific evidence is ignored or misinterpreted or misunderstood?

[HRAAB]

We feel the same way.

 

No, the difference is that those who accept creation as a valid scientific theory look at the evidence and see how it fits the theory, and the theory is open to change as new evidence emerges.  Evolutionists ignore most scientific evidence and consistently misinterpret/misunderstand the rest.

 

While the theory of how creationism is true might change, the starting point, the first book of the Bible, never changes.  Since you're starting with the Truth, your original starting point can never be altered.  Creationists aren't trying to find the answer; they have the answer.  They are trying to find scientific proof to fit their answer.  How is that science?

[Mrs Mungo]

Polystrate fossils prove that the layers are not evidence for millions of years.

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/icr/drjohn/drjohn_81.htm

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was completely unaware of this, otherwise I would not have mentioned it. Do you have a link or can you explain it? You've sparked my curiosity.

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

 

Article on the "whale tail" that some creationists argue proves the young earth belief:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

 

A link to wiki as it provides a wealth of additional citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

[La Texican]

Saddlemomma

 

.

I was fixing lunch and I realized I said teaching evolution as critical thinking instead of as foundational science, when it would have been more accurate to say you meant to teach critical thinking as science and not evolution as foundational science knowledge. Had to rush back to clear that up because it made me feel bad that I phrased it too carelessly when you've been feeling misunderstood.

[Crimson Wife]

Atheistic materialism is a worldview. One can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural God (or other deity/deities) through science because God is by definition beyond science. Both theists and materialists can accept the theory of evolution as true, but they will obviously disagree on the role God plays or does not play in it.

 

It is unfortunate IMHO that so many proponents of evolution are materialists because that sets up a false opposition between religion and science. Someone does not have to reject God in order to accept mainstream science. We need far more scientists like Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Owen Gingerich defending evolution and far fewer obnoxious blowhards like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers.

[La Texican]

While the theory of how creationism is true might change, the starting point, the first book of the Bible, never changes. Since you're starting with the Truth, your original starting point can never be altered. Creationists aren't trying to find the answer; they have the answer. They are trying to find scientific proof to fit their answer. How is that science?

The supreme court decided that creation is not science. The new question is if science is a naturalistic religion.

[HRAAB]

The supreme court decided that creation is not science. The new question is if science is a naturalistic religion.

 

Right, but the YECs I personally know, from listening to them, don't accept that.  Just wondering about their answer to the question.

 

eta:  Sorry, it's off topic.  I asked my question in another thread.

[HRAAB]

Religion is about faith in something whether it is proven or not.   Science is not about faith.  Scientists don't ask people to just agree with them blindly. 

 

Science is not religion based on my definition/understanding of religion.  I see you're asking if science is naturalistic religion.  I have a had time separating religion from the supernatural; in fact, I just can't do it based on my personal experiences and observations.

[Lady Florida.]

For me, I don't believe in evolution.  I accept evolution as the best answer we have to date.  Could that change?  Absolutely.  When there is enough evidence that has gone through the rigors of being observed and tested.  Belief has nothing to do with evolution.

 

Belief and faith are for the supernatural - those things that can't be observed or tested.

 

 

Evolution is not a belief system. Similarly, gravity is not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fact.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Beat me to it.  "Accept" vs "believe" are important linguistic distinctions I always come back to.  Believe whatever you wish to, or not, based on any faith, or not.  Theories are accepted, or not, based on aggregate empirical evidence.

 

It's apples and oranges.

 

 

I don't think of evolution as a belief system, but as a scientific explanation based on tested evidence and observation, as many have stated above.  Something that can change, over time.

 

 

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. This means that any observations and experiments can be explained within the framework of the evolution theory and that no observations have been made that would not agree with the predictions made by the theory.

It does not mean that evolution is the "truth". It does not mean that not at some point a theory will be developed that presents a different explanation for the phenomena and stands scientific testing. It does not mean that new observations might not be made some day that disagree with evolution theory and require a different approach.

This how science works, and what the term "scientific theory" means.

Science is not a belief system. I do not need faith, I do not need to "believe" in evolution.

 

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Science is not a belief system. Evolution is the accepted science. Evolution is not a belief system. I no more believe in evolution than I believe in gravity. I never use the words "believe in" when talking about evolution, even if I'm referencing creationists. For example, I explained to ds that creationists don't accept the scientific theory of evolution, not that they "don't believe in" evolution.

[kubiac]

I'm just gonna leave this here and back out slowly:

 

[Lady Florida.]

Edited.

 

Maybe you were fixing the link while I was posting, or maybe my computer was just wonky. Your link is working fine now, so I'm deleting my OP.

 

I love They Might Be Giants. :)

[FO4UR]

Religion is about faith in something whether it is proven or not.   Science is not about faith.  Scientists don't ask people to just agree with them blindly. 

 

 

I agree that science is not about faith.

 

I would argue that the Theory of Evolution is an idea that scientists ask people to just agree with....somewhat blindly.  There are things we do not know, and we all have to accept that.  Modern Scientists make some assumptions about those things that we do not yet know.

 

 

I would argue that Science would not espouse either Creation or Evolution, but Science should present the facts (and the possible interpretations) and leave the things that must be assumed up to the next generation to discover.  We do a great disservice to Science when we interpret science through the lens of Evolution, in a narrow minded vacuum that does not allow for other interpretations.  (Same could be said of Creation vacuums, but Evolution has the backing of the Science Community and Creation doesn't.)

 

 

It was not asked if Evolution is a religion...it was asked if it's a belief system, and it is absolutely a belief system.  There are many things that the Evolutionist simply believes.  Those beliefs are based on facts, but we don't have ALL the facts and so the theory as a whole must be taken as a belief, not a fact.    

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree that science is not about faith.

 

I would argue that the Theory of Evolution is an idea that scientists ask people to just agree with....somewhat blindly.  There are things we do not know, and we all have to accept that.  Modern Scientists make some assumptions about those things that we do not yet know.

 

 

I would argue that Science would not espouse either Creation or Evolution, but Science should present the facts (and the possible interpretations) and leave the things that must be assumed up to the next generation to discover.  We do a great disservice to Science when we interpret science through the lens of Evolution, in a narrow minded vacuum that does not allow for other interpretations.  (Same could be said of Creation vacuums, but Evolution has the backing of the Science Community and Creation doesn't.)

 

 

It was not asked if Evolution is a religion...it was asked if it's a belief system, and it is absolutely a belief system.  There are many things that the Evolutionist simply believes.  Those beliefs are based on facts, but we don't have ALL the facts and so the theory as a whole must be taken as a belief, not a fact.    

 

The bolded is fundamentally incorrect, as the Theory of Evolution has been constantly challenged and has changed over time as additional evidence has been found.

 

When you say "Science" should not espouse Creation or Evolution you are ignoring the purpose in science of having a theory.  And upon further review, your last 3 sentences demonstrate conclusively that you do not completely understand what a scientific theory is.

[albeto.]

  Modern Scientists make some assumptions about those things that we do not yet know.

 

Can you give an example of one of these assumptions about which scientists don't know but accept anyway?

 

 

I would argue that Science would not espouse either Creation or Evolution, but Science should present the facts (and the possible interpretations) and leave the things that must be assumed up to the next generation to discover.

 

Then you would be mistaken. Science does present the theory of evolution as a fact. This is a fact that is continuously corroborated with new information. To date, there exists no evidence that suggests an alternative theory to the biodiversity we see on the planet. If there were, it would be eagerly explored.

 

 

We do a great disservice to Science when we interpret science through the lens of Evolution, in a narrow minded vacuum that does not allow for other interpretations.  (Same could be said of Creation vacuums, but Evolution has the backing of the Science Community and Creation doesn't.)

 

Science isn't interpreted through any lens, it is a methodology by which the natural world is explored and understood. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have thus far. Scientists are confident in its accuracy, however if an alternative explanation were discovered and supported, it would modify or replace the theory of evolution as needed to explain the natural world.

 

[La Texican]

.

[Slache]

Can you share an example for how most scientific evidence is ignored or misinterpreted or misunderstood?

 

DNA (Information does not form by itself.)

Irreducible Complexity

The obviously flawed dating methods, such as the C-14 isotopes proving data collected to be incorrect

I think every(but maybe just most) of the missing links have been disproved, but they're still used as evidence.

 

While the theory of how creationism is true might change, the starting point, the first book of the Bible, never changes.  Since you're starting with the Truth, your original starting point can never be altered.  Creationists aren't trying to find the answer; they have the answer.  They are trying to find scientific proof to fit their answer.  How is that science?

 

I meant that our view on the ice age and such has evolved over the years. Sorry for not being clear. You're right.

 

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/icr/drjohn/drjohn_81.htm

 

Thanks. I'll email it to my Kindle and read it this weekend. :)

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

 

Article on the "whale tail" that some creationists argue proves the young earth belief:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

 

A link to wiki as it provides a wealth of additional citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

Thanks. I'll email them to my Kindle and read them too. :)

 

 

See you all later.

[albeto.]

DNA (Information does not form by itself.)

Irreducible Complexity

The obviously flawed dating methods, such as the C-14 isotopes proving data collected to be incorrect

I think every(but maybe just most) of the missing links have been disproved, but they're still used as evidence.

 

 

 

You gave me a list of claims that have been thoroughly debunked. These things aren't ignored, they have no tangible support. 

 

But thanks anyway. 

 

:)

[HRAAB]

I agree that science is not about faith.

 

I would argue that the Theory of Evolution is an idea that scientists ask people to just agree with....somewhat blindly.  There are things we do not know, and we all have to accept that.  Modern Scientists make some assumptions about those things that we do not yet know.

 

 

I would argue that Science would not espouse either Creation or Evolution, but Science should present the facts (and the possible interpretations) and leave the things that must be assumed up to the next generation to discover.  We do a great disservice to Science when we interpret science through the lens of Evolution, in a narrow minded vacuum that does not allow for other interpretations.  (Same could be said of Creation vacuums, but Evolution has the backing of the Science Community and Creation doesn't.)

 

 

It was not asked if Evolution is a religion...it was asked if it's a belief system, and it is absolutely a belief system.  There are many things that the Evolutionist simply believes.  Those beliefs are based on facts, but we don't have ALL the facts and so the theory as a whole must be taken as a belief, not a fact.    

 

Perhaps it would help if we started out with a common definition of certain words.  In my experience, belief is a religious word.  It means to accept, with faith, the words of someone else as truth regardless whether it's observable or proven or if there is any evidence  - such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, the resurrection.  I can't use the word 'believe' for science.  Scientists don't simply 'believe'.  That they trust their senses, yes, but not believe.

 

Even when I was a Christian, I would say "I believe in God; I accept evolution as it is currently understood'.  And just because we don't have all the facts, does not make it a belief.  If the Christian story had even the smallest fraction of fact behind, perhaps I would still be a Christian.  If evolution had no more fact behind it than does Christianity, scientists would not be accepting it.  But that's not what belief is about; it's about maintaining faith against all odds.

 

So, no, evolutionists do not simply believe many things, although many evolutionists still maintain belief in God.

[HRAAB]

"How is that science?"

 

 

I meant that our view on the ice age and such has evolved over the years. Sorry for not being clear. You're right.

 

 

 

 

Then you agree creationism is not science?

 

Is this why we debating whether evolution is science or a belief system?  Because if evolution were viewed as a belief system, then it would be on equal footing with creationism?

 

Creationism is a belief system/religion

Evolution is science

Science is not a belief system/religio

[Mrs Mungo]

I would argue that the Theory of Evolution is an idea that scientists ask people to just agree with....somewhat blindly.

I disagree. First, scientists definitely to not want or expect people to accept anything blindly. *Educators* may do that. The school system may do that. And I would even agree that many people on both sides do this. But, it isn't what scientists want or expect.

 

 

I would argue that Science would not espouse either Creation or Evolution, but Science should present the facts (and the possible interpretations) and leave the things that must be assumed up to the next generation to discover.

Evolution is a fact. How things evolved, how life came to be on earth, how life came to be in its present form? Those are things partially explained by science and partially not (at this time). But, creationism has no facts (I am a Christian who believes God caused everything to be). There is nothing to support it. It is a religious/faith matter and has no place in science.

 

This is what I was talking about before when I said that not everyone comes from the same set of assumptions or is talking about the same thing when we start talking about evolution.

[Cricket]

I think when people say evolution is a belief system they are actually thinking of scientism.  

[Slache]

Creationism is a belief system/religion

Evolution is science

Science is not a belief system/religio

 

Evolution and Creation are both beliefs. Science will determine which is true.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think when people say evolution is a belief system they are actually thinking of scientism.

But that doesn't work because many Christians accept evolution.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Evolution and Creation are both beliefs. Science will determine which is true.

 

*sigh*

No they are not both "beliefs." One is a scientific theory and the other is a religious belief.

[Cricket]

But that doesn't work because many Christians accept evolution.

 

In my experience, people who call evolution a belief system are YEC and it's often paired with atheism.  I think the YECers who use it are confused as to what they are trying to say.  Maybe there are others who use that phrase?  

[LucyStoner]

Evolution is a generally accepted scientific theory which is consistent with well observable facts and reviewed data. It is not a belief system. It is not a religion. It is about what we think, not feel; about what we know, not have faith in. As we go forward the theory could be expanded on further or disproven.

 

Evolution isn't about the origins of the universe. It is about what we can show happened once some life was on earth. There is a lot we don't know. There is certainly no way to prove or disprove that some supreme being had a hand to play or not. There is however much to disprove the idea that the earth is young or that humans didn't evolve.

 

The idea that life is a mere 6000 years old flies in the face of science, no matter how much people with an admittedly biased agenda try to claim otherwise.

[FO4UR]

Can you give an example of one of these assumptions about which scientists don't know but accept anyway?

 

 

 

Then you would be mistaken. Science does present the theory of evolution as a fact. This is a fact that is continuously corroborated with new information. To date, there exists no evidence that suggests an alternative theory to the biodiversity we see on the planet. If there were, it would be eagerly explored.

 

 

 

Science isn't interpreted through any lens, it is a methodology by which the natural world is explored and understood. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have thus far. Scientists are confident in its accuracy, however if an alternative explanation were discovered and supported, it would modify or replace the theory of evolution as needed to explain the natural world.

 

 

If new information is being added all the time, then we have to accept that we do not have the complete picture.  The continual corroboration that you speak of is in danger of being filtered through the *belief* that the theory of evolution is THE way things work on the planet.

 

 

You said that it's the best explanation we have so far.  That's it.  It's the best explanation that scientists have come up with so far. In order to believe that evolution is true, you have to *believe* some things without seeing/touching/observing them. 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it would help if we started out with a common definition of certain words.  In my experience, belief is a religious word.  It means to accept, with faith, the words of someone else as truth regardless whether it's observable or proven or if there is any evidence  - such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, the resurrection.  I can't use the word 'believe' for science.  Scientists don't simply 'believe'.  That they trust their senses, yes, but not believe.

 

Even when I was a Christian, I would say "I believe in God; I accept evolution as it is currently understood'.  And just because we don't have all the facts, does not make it a belief.  If the Christian story had even the smallest fraction of fact behind, perhaps I would still be a Christian.  If evolution had no more fact behind it than does Christianity, scientists would not be accepting it.  But that's not what belief is about; it's about maintaining faith against all odds.

 

So, no, evolutionists do not simply believe many things, although many evolutionists still maintain belief in God.

 

 

Belief is not a religious word ime, but I would agree that belief means accepting something that you cannot observe or prove to be true.

 

 

 

The bolded is fundamentally incorrect, as the Theory of Evolution has been constantly challenged and has changed over time as additional evidence has been found.

 

When you say "Science" should not espouse Creation or Evolution you are ignoring the purpose in science of having a theory.  And upon further review, your last 3 sentences demonstrate conclusively that you do not completely understand what a scientific theory is.

 

 

It amazes me that one can stridently accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and admit that it has changed over time as additional evidence has been found...all in one thread.  

 

Yes, we find new evidence all the time.  Maybe we'll find evidence that debunks everything mainstream scientists today believe.  If we hold too tightly to the Theory of Evolution, I fear we will be too rigid-in-belief to see what is right on front of us.  (I think there is too much rigidity on both sides of the spectrum of belief!)  At one time, the world was flat...and evidence was poo-pooed.  What *I* believe doesn't matter...the world still goes around regardless.

 

Don't let hubris stand in the way of science, is all I'm saying.

[Mrs Mungo]

Evolution isn't about the origins of the universe. It is about what we can show happened once some life was on earth.

I think this is often a point of confusion on both sides. Plenty of people on both sides conflate evolution with origin theory and all of that. Inexact language is one of the tactics used by people like Ham to manipulate the data and public.