"The danger of worshipping Darwin"

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm surprisd our nuetral nemesis hasn't quoted it (out of context) in the other place..

Oh he did. He spent several posts gurning and interrobanging erratically about the "evolutionist thicket" (the subject of the piece was the inaccuracy of the "tree-of-life" metaphor when dealing with horizontal gene transfer). He seemed to lose interest when it became clear that this was really, really old news.

I don't think he's quite grasped that the front page of New Scientist is not an automatic indication of a scientific breakthrough. Really getting tired of that mag I have to say.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

the front page of New Scientist is not an automatic indication of a scientific breakthrough. Really getting tired of that mag I have to say.

Ditched it years ago.

philologos

I think the guy has a point. Not only are people referring to Darwinism in biology, but in several other fields also, many where it isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. Why can't we just take evolution as it is without glorifying it to the extent that many atheists do?

pH

robindch wrote: »

Ditched it years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive#New_Scientist_article

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the guy has a point. Not only are people referring to Darwinism in biology, but in several other fields also, many where it isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. Why can't we just take evolution as it is without glorifying it to the extent that many atheists do?

Why shouldn't they, who are you (or him, or indeed anyone?) to tell other people what they can glorify? What does it matter to you (or him) anyway? Some sense that those doing it are not technically correct?

This is a free country, you're free to glorify your made up God, others are free to honour and respect great men and the works they did (IF THEY WANT TO). There's no compulsion here, when you are forced to repeat an homage to Darwin and ask for his blessing every day at school, when he's specially mentioned as due "respect" in the constitution, when the "Society of Darwinian Scholars" have a stranglehold on state schools and get the government to indemnify them from billions of euros worth of liability for a pittance, I'll be the first to agree with you, until then, why exactly aren't people free do honour and glorify whatever the hell they want to?

philologos

pH wrote: »

This is a free country, you're free to glorify your made up God, others are free to honour and respect great men and the works they did (IF THEY WANT TO). There's no compulsion here, when you are forced to repeat an homage to Darwin and ask for his blessing every day at school, when he's specially mentioned as due "respect" in the constitution, when the "Society of Darwinian Scholars" have a stranglehold on state schools and get the government to indemnify them from billions of euros worth of liability for a pittance, I'll be the first to agree with you, until then, why exactly aren't people free do honour and glorify whatever the hell they want to?

They are indeed, I just don't see how this glorification has any purpose in accurate discussion on matters that aren't to do with biology.

Theres no compulsion to honour Darwin just as much as there is no compulsion to honour Jesus Christ. If your parents have elected to bring you to a religious school when you feel that you don't want to, that's a greivance you should bring up with your parents. It's still not a compulsion.

Glorification of Darwin or evolution beyond the level of merely accepting the biology that he brought forth, does give credence to it being seen almost as a religion.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Glorification of Darwin or evolution beyond the level of merely accepting the biology that he brought forth, does give credence to it being seen almost as a religion.

So I guess hanging a poster of Wayne Rooney on you wall means your part of the Manunitedist church. Why do you attempt to expand the definition of religion to include almost anything?

Mal-Adjusted

what exactly is "Darwinism"? it sounds like some branck off religion, like Luthorism(sp?)
He was the first of two (possibly three) people to propose a theory of evolution...how does that transcribe to worshipping him?

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Glorification of Darwin or evolution beyond the level of merely accepting the biology that he brought forth, does give credence to it being seen almost as a religion.

No, this is just playing with words, many things can be described figuratively as "a religion", but you wouldn't take them literally. For example, many people could describe a passionate soccer as "following man utd as a religion", but it's a figure of speech, no one in their right mind would accuse the Man Utd board or Alex Ferguson as literally being involved in running religion.

As usual you're far to quick jumping between literal and figurative meanings of words to justify your rather absurd assertions. Even if there was an organised system of "evolutionism", with meeting halls, a central text, hierarchy and rules would it be a religion? Would anyone describe say the boy scouts or the ICA as religions? Of course not (except in a figurative sense), people can come together for a common cause or activity, enjoy it, spend time and effort on it and be passionate about it yet it's still not a religion.

Mal-Adjusted

pH wrote: »

Even if there was an organised system of "evolutionism", with meeting halls, a central text, hierarchy and rules would it be a religion? Would anyone describe say the boy scouts or the ICA as religions? Of course not (except in a figurative sense), people can come together for a common cause or activity, enjoy it, spend time and effort on it and be passionate about it yet it's still not a religion.

+1 i do karate, and we have all of the above, meeting halls, central text, heirarchy and rules. would anybody call that a religion? thought not.

chozometroid

pH wrote: »

No, this is just playing with words, many things can be described figuratively as "a religion", but you wouldn't take them literally. For example, many people could describe a passionate soccer as "following man utd as a religion", but it's a figure of speech, no one in their right mind would accuse the Man Utd board or Alex Ferguson as literally being involved in running religion.

As usual you're far to quick jumping between literal and figurative meanings of words to justify your rather absurd assertions. Even if there was an organised system of "evolutionism", with meeting halls, a central text, hierarchy and rules would it be a religion? Would anyone describe say the boy scouts or the ICA as religions? Of course not (except in a figurative sense), people can come together for a common cause or activity, enjoy it, spend time and effort on it and be passionate about it yet it's still not a religion.

There is still no definition of religion that is universally accepted, but here are a few:

Religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
   
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   
4. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
5. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
   
6. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
   
7. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think what Jakkass is getting at, is that when someone highly reveres Darwin, have a devout faith in his teachings, and derive from him concepts that are outside of mere science, it conveys a religious observance to Darwin, or what he has come to represent.
You could say he is their foundation of knowledge, and the originator of their belief system.

pH

chozometroid wrote: »

I think what Jakkass is getting at, is that when someone highly reveres Darwin, have a devout faith in his teachings, and derive from him concepts that are outside of mere science, it conveys a religious observance to Darwin, or what he has come to represent.

And what I'm saying is that just because you highly revere someone, and have 'faith' in them doesn't mean it's a religion or got anything to do with one. There are plenty of examples (see above) of people having 'faith' in an organisation which are not religions. No matter how much I revere Baden Powell, no matter if I take his concepts and apply them outside the scout movement, no matter how much 'faith' I have that his scouting program is beneficial for boys, the Boy Scouts are not a religion. To pretend it actually is, is to deliberate confuse literal and figurative uses of the words religion and religious.

You could say he is their foundation of knowledge, and the originator of their belief system.

Again, this is of no relevance, you can have a charismatic originator of a belief system (for example Marx and Communism) but neither Marxism nor Communism is a religion. The only way you can crowbar "evolutionism" into a religion is to crowbar pretty much every group as well, then you're merely redefining the word religion to mean "any group of people sharing a common belief".

chozometroid

pH wrote: »

And what I'm saying is that just because you highly revere someone, and have 'faith' in them doesn't mean it's a religion or got anything to do with one. There are plenty of examples (see above) of people having 'faith' in an organisation which are not religions. No matter how much I revere Baden Powell, no matter if I take his concepts and apply them outside the scout movement, no matter how much 'faith' I have that his scouting program is beneficial for boys, the Boy Scouts are not a religion. To pretend it actually is, is to deliberate confuse literal and figurative uses of the words religion and religious.



Again, this is of no relevance, you can have a charismatic originator of a belief system (for example Marx and Communism) but neither Marxism nor Communism is a religion. The only way you can crowbar "evolutionism" into a religion is to crowbar pretty much every group as well, then you're merely redefining the word religion to mean "any group of people sharing a common belief".

Exactly, how one defines religion makes all the difference, but it doesn't have to be so generic as "any group of people sharing a common belief."

Scientology claims no belief in a god, but is called a religion, mainly because they want it to be called a religion, but also because it follows this definition:
religion requires "beliefs in something transcendental or ultimate, practices (rites and codes of behavior) that re-inforce those beliefs and, a community that is sustained by both the beliefs and practices

As a Christian, I could say I don't like the idea of such an organization being recognized as a religion, putting it on the same level as my own, but it doesn't really matter. Religion is just a word.

The Boy Scouts do not attempt to explain why we are here, and how life began.

Evolutionism is a belief system that requires faith, and attempts to explain the origin of life, which either involves a deity, or denies the existence of one. By this description, evolutionism could be classified as a religion.

By this definiton:
a system of practices which act according to beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.
...evolutionism does not qualify as a religion.

In light of this pointless discussion, I think you are offended by the word religion, and do not want to be labeled in the same way as the people with whom you most vehemently disagree.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolutionism is a belief system that requires faith, and attempts to explain the origin of life, which either involves a deity, or denies the existence of one. By this description, evolutionism could be classified as a religion.

No it doesn't

The reason Darwin is revered is because was a clever guy that came up with concepts that fundamentally changed how we viewed nature. In fact he is more revered for what he did than who he was. He seems to have been a nice guy, but what people really remember him for was his achievements and what his achievements meant for the rest of us.

He discovered a natural process, happening in nature, that allowed nature to build up from simply components very complex systems.

This process was discovered, not invented, in the same way the speed of light has been discovered. Darwin didn't make up anything new, he simply realised how a natural process was work, and this discover fundamentally changed what we, humans, thought about what was possible in nature. Before Darwin there was no plausible method for nature to produce complexity from simplicity. People had suspected that this might be happening some how, but they didn't have a way that nature could do it.

Darwin didn't produce a belief system. He didn't produce anything (at least not in relation to evolution) He discovered something in nature that was always there, just waiting to be discovered.

Other scientists have done that as well. We revere Einstein for his work on relativity that fundamentally changed how we view the notions of space and time.

As far as I can see the only reason people are comparing Darwin to religion is because his work, his discoveries, over lapped into areas that religion traditionally held sway. But that is just another case of religion over reaching what it knew and proclaiming things that turned out to be wrong. Hardly Darwin's fault now is it?

You said it yourself, because Darwinian biological evolution explains how complex life arose it must be a religion to accept it. Which is nonsense. Just because it provides an explanation in an area that religion traditionally laid claim to doesn't mean it is a religion, or that the people who accept it are following a religion.

Various areas of geology have explained why the Earth is the way it is that directly challenged religious notions of the origin of the Earth, but would anyone seriously say geology is a religion?

And Darwinian evolution is a process that can be applied ot a lot of things, not simply biology. It is simply a natural process. I have used computer programs based on this process to do various things such as sort images more efficently. In computers it is known as genetic programming, and it has nothing to do with biology. But the process that has always been in nature can be applied to a lot of things, in the same way you can apply the principle of how rivers sort stones to various things, or apply the natural phenomena of electricity to power your laptop.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

You said it yourself, because Darwinian biological evolution explains how complex life arose it must be a religion to accept it.

I didn't say that it must be a religion to accept it.
I said it could be classified as a religion. That is because it just can.
Darwin may have not created this belief system, and evolution may just simply be defined as "a natural process," but evolutionism is certainly a belief system. One that does require faith.

Thanks for showing how badly atheists/evolutionists do not want to be labeled as (having)a religion.

Mal-Adjusted

chozometroid wrote: »

Thanks for showing how badly atheists/evolutionists do not want to be labeled as (having)a religion.

bieng one of these things does not necesitate bieng the other, you know

chozometroid

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

bieng one of these things does not necesitate bieng the other, you know

That's true. It just seemed apporopriate in this case. I apologize.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I didn't say that it must be a religion to accept it.
I said it could be classified as a religion. That is because it just can.

I'm not following how? Are you suggesting that anything that puts forward a theory on how life arouse can be called a religion?

Considering Darwinian biological evolution is simply a sub-set of chemistry (life is after all composed of chemical reactions) is chemistry a religion?

And Robin will no doubt point out chemistry is simply a subset of physics. Darwinian biological evolution is simply a physical process, following the laws of chemistry, so is physics a religion now?

Why children go to a physics class room are they worshipping a religion?

chozometroid wrote: »

Darwin may have not created this belief system, and evolution may just simply be defined as "a natural process," but evolutionism is certainly a belief system. One that does require faith.

My understanding is that "evolutionism" is a 18th century term pre-dating and replaced by Darwinian evolution that attempted to assert that life forms have an in-build "desire" to improve upon themselves with each generation.

I imagine though that is not the usage you are using the term with, so I will need you to explain what you mean by "evolutionism" before I can comment on it being a belief system or not.

chozometroid wrote: »

Thanks for showing how badly atheists/evolutionists do not want to be labeled as (having)a religion.

Nonsense, the more people claim incorrectly that evolution is a religion, or that atheism is a belief system, the more reason I have to go on the internet and give out about people claiming stuff that isn't true.

If you stopped I would have nothing to do all day except ring the NTL guy to complain about my picture reception.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

They are indeed, I just don't see how this glorification has any purpose in accurate discussion on matters that aren't to do with biology. [...] Glorification of Darwin or evolution beyond the level of merely accepting the biology that he brought forth, does give credence to it being seen almost as a religion.

There are many, many reasons why it's not a religion, and I'm sure other posters will cover some of them.

But out of interest, do any irreligious people here feel that they "glorify" Darwin?

I've never met anybody who does, or even comes close, though I'm aware that plenty of religious people seem to feel that since Darwin's ideas supplanted pre-existing religious ones, that his ideas must therefore be religious in nature too, and that the guy who produced these ideas occupies the same political place that a religious leader does.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

Thanks for showing how badly atheists/evolutionists do not want to be labeled as (having)a religion.

As above, I think it shows at least equally well that there's a lot of religious people out there who seem to think that everything is a religion.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

There are many, many reasons why it's not a religion, and I'm sure other posters will cover some of them.

But out of interest, do any irreligious people here feel that they "glorify" Darwin?

I've noticed the usage of that term and similar terms and I'm inclined to be cautious when replying because it is one of these terms that doesn't really mean anything and can mean almost anything. I don't want to say I don't do that and then have listed back things I would do (such as stick a statue of the man up) and be told that is glorifying him.

I can't say I've ever meet anyone who has ever "glorified" Darwin in the religious sense that they proclaim the "glory" of the man. I'm not even sure how that would work if someone did, which is why I'm not sure if that is what Jakkass means.

I do know lots of people who would say Darwin was a great man, or a great scientist, or someone who contributed greatly to understanding. Is this "glorifying"? Possibly in the looses sense of the word. So perhaps that is what is meant.

If that is the usage I would be interested in the argument that this isn't justifed.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine though that is not the usage you are using the term with, so I will need you to explain what you mean by "evolutionism" before I can comment on it being a belief system or not.

Wow, once again I must say I am not claming that evolutionism (doctrines/theories of evolution, to answer you) is a religion. I am saying that one definition of religion would classify it as a religion, while another definition would not. I personally don't care.

So now you want to debate about whether a particular word is a belief system or not? Perhaps we should each define our own belief system (for the sake of semantics), make a name for it (ex. Wicknightism), then debate about it, so there is no confusion. A belief system is a belief system. If it is based on everything Darwin taught, then it is a belief system orginated by Darwin, which is what I said in my first post.

Neither chemistry, nor evolution, are religions, based on this definition: requires beliefs in something transcendental or ultimate, practices (rites and codes of behavior) that re-inforce those beliefs and, a community that is sustained by both the beliefs and practices

Considering evolutionary theory is just a theory, I would not associate it to a religion. It just appears to be one because its proponents certainly share this common belief in something supernatural.

Wicknight, I enjoy debating with you, because you are intelligent, and make a lot of interesting points, but do you have to turn every discussion into a semantics debate? I realize we must use words properly for the other person to understand our intended meaning, but sometimes it is just excessive. It seems that even when words are not misused, you want to interpret them the wrong way on purpose, or claim a different meaning, so that you can somehow devalue someone's post.

Evolutionism is the theory of evolution or the worldview based on the theory of evolution.

AtomicHorror

chozometroid wrote: »

Considering evolutionary theory is just a theory,

Just? As opposed to what?

chozometroid wrote: »

I would not associate it to a religion. It just appears to be one because its proponents certainly share this common belief in something supernatural.

Where's the supernatural in evolution?

chozometroid

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Just? As opposed to what?

Fact. I know.....religions.....
I'm just saying, since it only claims to be a theory, it shouldn't be put in the same category as religions, which claim to know some ultimate truth.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where's the supernatural in evolution?

Life spontaneously arising by chance, from chemicals, which originally came from a source(parallel universe) outside of the universe, or whatever M-theory imaginings one can come up with.


Wicknight:
the word "supernatural" here used means: an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe

the word "outside" here used means: the space beyond the universe's known limits.

darjeeling

chozometroid wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where's the supernatural in evolution?

Life spontaneously arising by chance, from chemicals, which originally came from a source(parallel universe) outside of the universe, or whatever M-theory imaginings one can come up with.

Evolution describes how biological species change over time. The origins (supernatural or otherwise) of the universe and of life are not part of the theory of evolution.

Myksyk

darjeeling wrote: »

Evolution describes how biological species change over time. The origins (supernatural or otherwise) of the universe and of life are not part of the theory of evolution.

I would have thought this would be THE most basic thing one might know about evolution but obviously not.

chozometroid

darjeeling wrote: »

Evolution describes how biological species change over time. The origins (supernatural or otherwise) of the universe and of life are not part of the theory of evolution.

I said:

Life spontaneously arising by chance, from chemicals

Is this not what evolution presumes?

Perhaps the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, but proponents of the theory certainly do not stop with the origin of the species.
We're talking about more than just species changing over time.

Galvasean

chozometroid wrote: »

I said:
Is this not what evolution presumes?

Nope, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Hence why there are theistic evolutionists.

chozometroid wrote: »

Perhaps the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life,

Yes.

chozometroid wrote: »

but proponents of the theory certainly do not stop with the origin of the species.

Depends on which proponents. While an atheist evolutionist would certainly dismiss the concept of God in relation to evolutionary theory, a theistic evolutionist believes both God and evolution are compatible.

chozometroid wrote: »

We're talking about more than just species changing over time.

However, that is not evolution.

darjeeling

chozometroid wrote: »

I said:

Life spontaneously arising by chance, from chemicals

Is this not what evolution presumes?

No. It doesn't matter how life came into being. Once life has got going / been created, the theory of evolution describes how natural selection (and random processes - but that's a tangent) will lead to changes in lifeforms over generations.

chozometroid wrote: »

Perhaps the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, but proponents of the theory certainly do not stop with the origin of the species.
We're talking about more than just species changing over time.

People who advocate a greater understanding of evolution will of course have opinions on other matters too. Not all of their opinions, though, originate in the theory of evolution.

chozometroid

Just to keep things in perspective, this topic is about the proponents of Darwin, not just evolutionary theory.

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Hence why there are theistic evolutionists.

darjeeling wrote:

Life spontaneously arising by chance, from chemicals

Fair enough, but Darwin believed in abiogenesis, right? And this is a precursor to his theory of evolution.