Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 30, 2011 at 1:38pm

That is the work of Micheal Ruse. Quite a character. See also comment on atheism.about.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 30, 2011 at 1:39pm

At the link is the following quote:

…..”Dr Ruse,” Mr. Gish said, “the trouble with you evolutionists is that you just don’t play fair. You want to stop us religious people from teaching our views in schools. But you evolutionists are just as religious in your way. Christianity tells us where we came from, where we’re going, and what we should do on the way. I defy you to show any difference with evolution. It tells you where you came from, where you are going, and what you should do on the way. You evolutionists have your God, and his name is Charles Darwin.”………..

………Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Well, first of all, we seem to expect more out of an idea or set of related ideas than telling us "where we came from, where we're going, and what we should do on the way." (There's no supernatural beliefs, no rituals, just for starters.)

Second, even if that was the generally accepted definition, evolution doesn't seem to meet it. Evolution doesn't say anything about where we're going. The most it can do is provide the mechanism for how we'll get where ever it is that we end up– at least as far as biology is concerned with the question of how we'll get where we're going. And neither does evolution say anything about what we should do on the way. Sure, it's certainly the case that evolution has a lot to say about how we came to have moral intuitions and why we're driven to be moral, but it doesn't prescribe any code of ethical conduct. 

Anyway, the whole notion rests on the opinions of one person, Michael Ruse, and even he has clarified what he meant and it isn't good for the creationists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 31, 2011 at 8:50am

The thing about evolution theory is that it is an attempt to fit an explanation for the origin of species into an overall scientific view of the world. Religion has a magical view of the world. Now, evolutionary theory isn't fully developed and some questions remain (we can see how the horse developed step-by-step, ditto to some extent for man, but what about the cow, to take one example?). Even so, evolutionary theory tries to fit the origin of species into a rational view of the world, no magic allowed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 31, 2011 at 10:26am

Is there some reason to why you chose cows as an example? I gather that it is not relevant to your point about questions remaining, I agree, but I am not aware that cows were extra mysterious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 31, 2011 at 11:42am

I think someone mentioned to me once that while there is that chart showing the evolution of the early horse-like creatures to the modern horse, there is no similar chart for the contemporary beef or dairy cow. I've looked and haven't found one, so as far as I know cows evolved rather suddenly, which in evolutionary terms can be hundreds of thousands of years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 31, 2011 at 12:44pm

Thanks, that's interesting. I wasn't aware of that at all. I already found some articles on genetic studies corroborating your view. The genome of a Hereford cow has been sequenced (2009) and it seems we're more closely related to cows than to our favorite lab animal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 31, 2011 at 1:19pm

I have to retract that conclusion about us being more closely related to cows than to mice. Our genes are more similar to cows than to mice, but that doesn't imply the conclusion I took for granted. One learns with each mistake...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob spencer on December 30, 2011 at 2:34pm

lets wait until "us evolutionists" sacrifice something to Darwin. Perhaps we could start with virgins and work our way up to goats?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on December 30, 2011 at 8:49pm

Right on Bob! Can I have the goat meat afterward? I love it in gyro's!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 30, 2011 at 10:54pm

cool, I'll take the virgins.

What?  They're good in gyros too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kekerusey on December 30, 2011 at 3:04pm

I replied with the following:

It's easy enough to demonstrate that evolution is not a religion simply by comparing the typical characteristics of religions and showing that evolution has none of them. Can I ask you to specify exactly (characteristic by comparable religious characteristic) in what way evolution is a religion then I/we can deal with it directly?

What's the betting it won't get approved or it will be deleted?

Keke

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kekerusey on December 30, 2011 at 3:32pm

Well my last appeared to be wrong ... I shall humbly abase myself before the god of evolution (if someone can tell me who it is), LOL.

Keke

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page