Is believing in evolution similar to believing in a religion?

[JemyM]

But when you breed two dogs, you don't get a cat!!

For an intellectual response to quotes like above, I recomend this video.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

But it doesn't. Evolution isn't a conscious agent that "decides" or "waits" or does something like that. It doesn't have a "direction" or "goal" or "purpose." (Also, that bit about famine or reduction of DNA length or genetic drift doesn't make any sense at all, on any level.)

Structures like wings or eyes don't magically appear all at once; they develop over millions of years, with each surviving mutation producing an improvement in the capacity to produce surviving offspring. We know from a variety of lines of evidence with remarkable accuracy how birds evolved from dinosaurs, or how the eye evolved (in parallel in a number of different lines, too), and any number of similar things. If you don't know what evolutionary biology says about these processes, you can't possibly hope to rebut it. Thus far you've failed to show any evidence that you have any degree of understanding about the claims of evolutionary biology.

That is what i was getting at. I never said they do. I do know its a slow process. I was simply pointing out how of the 2 kinds you referred me two kinds of evolution , the one that stops for a period of time is illogical to me. When i say grow wings, i mean when you have information there that wasnt there before. I dont like to write it out like that because it makes me feel like an uptight idiot.

 

[Prime Junta]

That is what i was getting at. I never said they do. I do know its a slow process. I was simply pointing out how of the 2 kinds you referred me two kinds of evolution , the one that stops for a period of time is illogical to me. When i say grow wings, i mean when you have information there that wasnt there before. I dont like to write it out like that because it makes me feel like an uptight idiot.

Punctuated equilibrium has a pretty solid argument behind it, though. Punk eek doesn't claim that structures like wings or eyes appear out of thin air either, nor that evolution "stops" between the bursts of extinction and speciation.

Lots of complex structures work like this. Consider our economy, for example: we had a long run where nothing much changed -- existing structures grew, existing ways of doing business changed a little, and so on. However, the system built up internal tensions and instabilities, and suddenly, BOOM! it all goes up in smoke, and we enter a severe recession and a period of turmoil. Eventually, it'll sort itself out, a new equilibrium will emerge, and we'll have another period of steady, stable development.

The period of steady economic growth is like one of Punk Eek's equilibrium periods. The global financial crisis is like one of Punk Eek's extinction events. The period of turmoil following it is like one of Punk Eek's speciation explosions. As the ecological niches freed up by the extinction event (financial/economic crisis) are filled by new species (new businesses), a new equilibrium will be established, and we'll see another long and boring period of ecological (economic) history.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Punctuated equilibrium has a pretty solid argument behind it, though. Punk eek doesn't claim that structures like wings or eyes appear out of thin air either, nor that evolution "stops" between the bursts of extinction and speciation.

Lots of complex structures work like this. Consider our economy, for example: we had a long run where nothing much changed -- existing structures grew, existing ways of doing business changed a little, and so on. However, the system built up internal tensions and instabilities, and suddenly, BOOM! it all goes up in smoke, and we enter a severe recession and a period of turmoil. Eventually, it'll sort itself out, a new equilibrium will emerge, and we'll have another period of steady, stable development.

The period of steady economic growth is like one of Punk Eek's equilibrium periods. The global financial crisis is like one of Punk Eek's extinction events. The period of turmoil following it is like one of Punk Eek's speciation explosions. As the ecological niches freed up by the extinction event (financial/economic crisis) are filled by new species (new businesses), a new equilibrium will be established, and we'll see another long and boring period of ecological (economic) history.

So can you explain why evolution is like the boom and bust cycle of the economy?

 

[Guest]

No, it certainly isn't.
There's a great book (cheap, plain english and brief) on the subject. It addresses many of these silly misconceptions that some (religious) people very often have (wonder why?).

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

I would recommend this book.

 

[The Wanderer]

The nature of science is that you should be able to question and test everything, you cant do that with evolution. And hence the question, since you cant prove evolution, can it be considered a religion?

Evolution ... for Dummies,

Darwin.
"Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, who realised and demonstrated that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1]"

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Prime Junta]

So can you explain why evolution is like the boom and bust cycle of the economy?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "why?"

 

[Ionstormsucks]

The nature of science is that you should be able to question and test everything, you cant do that with evolution. And hence the question, since you cant prove evolution, can it be considered a religion?

Well, let's say it's not that easy to simulate evolution... but that does not mean that there is no proof. Evolution is nowadays an accepted fact in science. I guess people always think it isn't because they know the term "the theory of evolution"... probably heard it in school, etc.

But evolution is no longer a theory and the term "theory of evolution" is not correct. What people really mean is "Darwin's theory of evolution" which is indeed a theory. Scientists do not agree on the specifics of evolution - there are small details (really tiny ones) in which opinions differ.

 

[Prime Junta]

To be specific: there is the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is something that has been observed in various ways. The theory of evolution explains the how, why, and wherefore of it.

 

[Squeek]

Believing in religion certainly is similar to believing in evolution. What's factual about them may be entirely different, but the parts that require faith are similar. People tend to want to explain and share their beliefs in them, and then they want you to believe it too -- and that's just flat-out identical.

I've never been to Katmandu. I've never seen it, heard it, smelled it, felt it beneath my feet, nor have I ever tasted it. But there are plenty of indications of it. So wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that there probably really is such a place? Probably?

But that's not human nature, is it? Anyone who voiced that conclusion publicly would be considered a moron or worse. "Katmandu is real! Believe in it, you fool!" That's how believing in religion is like believing in evolution.

 

[skavenhorde]

But that's not human nature, is it? Anyone who voiced that conclusion publicly would be considered a moron or worse. "Katmandu is real! Believe in it, you fool!" That's how believing in religion is like believing in evolution.

That's seems like quite a stretch there, squeek. People haven't come back from heaven and said "Man what a great trip!" Whereas with Katmandu people could physically do this.

The real difference which I think has been mentioned here is that with evolution you observe actual real life things that you can see, feel, smell, taste (if you wanted to ), and hear. Whether they are bones or real life animals, they are still here.

With religion, you have faith. It's more an inner journey than outer physical journey like evolution.

Let's take the example of the burning bush. You either believe it spoke or you don't. There is no way to observe one way or the other on who is right or who is wrong. No way to test miracles. No way to know if the Gods or God hear you when you pray. Heck there isn't any way to know if there is only one god or many other than through faith. You can't see any of these things happening, but with evolution you can see how one animal adapted to a changing environment and evolved. This is of course through a long period of time but the evidence is tangible.

Don't get me wrong faith is a powerful force unto itself, but to compare religion to evolution is like comparing the soul to apples.

 

[Essaliad]

I've never been to Katmandu. I've never seen it, heard it, smelled it, felt it beneath my feet, nor have I ever tasted it. But there are plenty of indications of it. So wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that there probably really is such a place? Probably?

But that's not human nature, is it? Anyone who voiced that conclusion publicly would be considered a moron or worse. "Katmandu is real! Believe in it, you fool!" That's how believing in religion is like believing in evolution.

Are you being ironic and/or parodying religious nuts? Surely nobody seriously thinks that is anything remotely like religion.

By the way, evolution is observable. Refer to bacterial mutation. Did you never learn biology, Damian, or is that against your religion?

 

[Squeek]

Excuse me for providing a straightforward example. It was only an example, not a definitive one (hence the term, “example”).

Does it take religion to be able to understand your own limitations or keep track of what you know firsthand and what you don't? Is understanding what you accept on faith only for the religious?

Here's another example for you then, one at the other extreme. Albert Einstein developed his theories of relativity after thinking about the relationships between space and time, and later gravity, until his answers occurred to him.

But after he shared his conclusions, some of which were astonishing, most scientists still didn't accept them. His were the greatest scientific ideas in over two hundred years, and they weren't recognized correctly by the world's greatest scientists.

Why not? I think most scientists today would tell you that they were just too difficult for most folks to understand. His theories didn't change. They just got easier to understand.

Arrogance and stupidity have a lot in common, don't they?

 

[Essaliad]

You still fail at analogy, sorry. Einstein had calculations to back him up. As his theory of relativity includes gravity, and given that gravity can be seen at work every day (unless someone'd like to insist it's a mystical magical mysterious force, hur hur hurrrr), it's not. A. Matter. Of. Faith. I could insist some obscure country doesn't exist, but oh wait, what if I've met people from there? What if it exports something and I'm eating food that comes from there? I could pretend absolute stupidity and claim that it's all a conspiracy and everyone is lying, but that'd be an exercise in extreme idiocy. Do you now see why your example was ridiculous?

Faith is belief without proof. I can't imagine why people trying to argue about religion don't comprehend this simple fact.

 

[Squeek]

Einstein had calculations to back him up...Faith is belief without proof.

Einstein's theories weren't proven for years, some for many years. That's why he didn't win the Nobel Prize for his theory of general relativity, isn't it? The Swedes didn't accept his calculations as proof. But you know better, of course.

Having said that, I think I'll stop, trying to make sense for a while.

 

[JemyM]

Right. For Squeek ancient mythology with a ressurected spellcaster, who exorcises unclean spirits, is equal to all empirically supported science in the world.

 

[Squeek]

Thanks goodness someone understands me! Apparently I don't, because I thought I was suggesting that science, like religion, can sometimes be beyond a person's ability to fully comprehend, requiring faith to reach the correct conclusion.

 

[Corwin]

Science is a religion!!

 

[JemyM]

Thanks goodness someone understands me! Apparently I don't, because I thought I was suggesting that science, like religion, can sometimes be beyond a person's ability to fully comprehend, requiring faith to reach the correct conclusion.

In science you use imagination to create a hypothesis and then you can test it to see if it's true.

In religion you are told what you must imagine, or else.

 

[Prime Junta]

Science is a religion!!

Only metaphorically, the same way that football is a religion.