Is Macroevolution Religion?

[inquiring mind]

Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.

 

[xianghua]

Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.

we can say that all experiments and observetions support creation (since all experiments and observetions support that a cat stay as a cat) and evolution is base on belief (that a cat can evolve into something that isnt a cat).

 

[pitabread]

we can say that all experiments and observetions support creation (since all experiments and observetions support that a cat stay as a cat) and evolution is base on belief (that a cat can evolve into something that isnt a cat).

This is the opposite of true.

 

[pitabread]

Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.

In my experience, one of the hallmarks of modern creationists is convincing themselves there is no evidence of the things they oppose. Thus, it's easier to outright deny what they are opposing and then reframe the situation rather than deal with the reality of it. E.g. that 'macroevolution' is quite well supported by evidence and even has real-world application.

This is more about creationist mindset than anything.

It also speaks to the fact that the creationist movement is completely screwed and most don't want to admit that.

 

[pitabread]

Here is what creationist Todd Wood says about the situation:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is noconspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

This is something the vast majority of creationists can't acknowledge. It's rare to find a creationist like Todd Wood who is honest about the situation.

I also suspect he's probably more secure in his beliefs than the average creationist.

 

[Rubiks]

Admittedly, "religion" is a bit hard to define, but I don't think evolution would fall under even the broadest use of the term.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it's just a left-handed attempt to perpetrate the big lie of creationism, that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God.

 

[inquiring mind]

Here is what creationist Todd Wood says about the situation:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is noconspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

This is something the vast majority of creationists can't acknowledge. It's rare to find a creationist like Todd Wood who is honest about the situation.

I also suspect he's probably more secure in his beliefs than the average creationist.

Todd, like so many others, doesn’t seem to distinguish between micro and macro level evolution in the article. That makes evolutionists happy because they don’t like that separation (even deny it), and like to lead the unsuspecting with the inclusive phrase of ‘evolution.’ Of course, there’s “gobs and gobs,” as he says, of evidence, but in the observable microevolution sense only (in the form of adaptation). Macroevolution (gradual transformation from one kind to something altogether different) is another story (weak, speculative support only), and it imo requires faith.

 

[pitabread]

Todd, like so many others, doesn’t seem to distinguish between micro and macro level evolution in the article.

There isn't much of a real distinction though. The terms "micro" and "macro" evolution don't have a rigid formal definition and are often used in colloquial fashion even in scientific literature.

In creationist-speak, microevolution is just "evolution we accept" and macroevolution is just "evolution we don't accept". Even among creationists there is no consistent usage of the terms.

Macroevolution (gradual transformation from one kind to something altogether different) is another story (weak, speculative support only), and it imo requires faith.

Sure, this is what you need to believe. I get it. It's wrong, but I get it.

 

[Speedwell]

Todd, like so many others, doesn’t seem to distinguish between micro and macro level evolution in the article. That makes evolutionists happy because they don’t like that separation (even deny it), and like to lead the unsuspecting with the inclusive phrase of ‘evolution.’ Of course, there’s “gobs and gobs,” as he says, of evidence, but in the observable microevolution sense only (in the form of adaptation). Macroevolution (gradual transformation from one kind to something altogether different) is another story (weak, speculative support only), and it imo requires faith.

Macroevolution begins with speciation, which has been observed.

 

[inquiring mind]

There isn't much of a real distinction though. The terms "micro" and "macro" evolution don't have a rigid formal definition and are often used in colloquial fashion even in scientific literature.

In creationist-speak, microevolution is just "evolution we accept" and macroevolution is just "evolution we don't accept". Even among creationists there is no consistent usage of the terms.

Macroevolution begins with speciation, which has been observed.

If the terminology becomes too much of a problem, rest assured science will define micro and macro to their advantage... sort of like with 'kind' and 'species' is my guess.

 

[Ophiolite]

Admittedly, "religion" is a bit hard to define, but I don't think evolution would fall under even the broadest use of the term.

There are doubtless followers of many religions who do not understand those religions, who are unaware of their fundamental principles, whose practice of their chosen religion is at best lip service. None of that in anyway devalues those religions.

In the same way there are individuals who profess a belief in science, yet do not understand its methodology and don't really grasp most of its conclusions. They are no different from those flawed followers of religion. Only in this regard can science be considered a religion.

 

[Speedwell]

If the terminology becomes too much of a problem, rest assured science will define micro and macro to their advantage... sort of like with 'kind' and 'species' is my guess.

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Linguistically, it is a relative qualifier and there is no evidence, either scientific or biblical, that it establishes an immutable taxonomic barrier.

 

[pitabread]

If the terminology becomes too much of a problem, rest assured science will define micro and macro to their advantage... sort of like with 'kind' and 'species' is my guess.

Species is another challenging thing to define; there are no hard and fast boundaries in nature. Defining different species concepts is more for the benefit of human classification and to make things easier to identify and study.

"Kind" has no scientific definition in biology.

The real crux of the issue is that creationists have never demonstrated any sort of biological boundaries that they claim exist in nature when it comes to evolution.

Plus, what I said previously is all of this is moot. Denial by creationists of the evidence for common ancestry of organisms and trying to relabel such things as faith or religion, says more about the creationist mindset than anything else.

Most creationists can't deal with what they are up against.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Linguistically, it is a relative qualifier and there is no evidence, either scientific or biblical, that it establishes an immutable taxonomic barrier.

Genesis says 'according to their kinds.' The most relevant Merriam-Webster Definition of ‘according to’ here appears to be 'in conformity with or depending on.' Doesn't that constitute a barrier?

 

[Tone]

Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.

After reading your title I thought you were asking if the phenomenon of religion itself were macroevolution. You know, like if it is the explanation for the reality of consciousness, which may be the propeller that drives evolution...from the first tiny spark, to absolute consciousness. Anyways, my thoughts on what you are actually saying is that, basically, what I'm getting is that evolutionists tend to lay hold of whatever works. Evidently, if you choose to trust in whatever they write and say about what they have "proven", they have utilized a framework that is useful for explaining some things that occur in "nature" and they can use their observations to make predictions and to maybe create some technology...? Well, that's pretty cool; I only wish that they would acknowledge the Creator who has equipped them with the ability to do these things. Also, I would have them know that what they are observing and doing is very limited and it will not be untainted, so long as what they are working with is subject to corruption. So, whatever they carve into stone, so to speak, and become dogmatic about, actually limits their ability to see and do even more wonderful things...very similar to man's religious debilitations.

 

[pitabread]

I only wish that they would acknowledge the Creator who has equipped them with the ability to do these things.

Many scientists including biologists do just that. Christianity and the science of biology are not mutually exclusive.

Why is this so hard to understand for some folks?

 

[Tone]

Many scientists including biologists do just that. Christianity and the science of biology are not mutually exclusive.

Why is this so hard to understand for some folks?

Obviously I am speaking to those who are atheists...the vast majority I would imagine.

 

[VirOptimus]

Scientists, academia, and a multitude of supporters accept macroevolution whole-heartedly. This despite there is no definitive long-term biological evidence to make it so. They defend and hold on to their belief and faith like the creationist does with Genesis. It sort of gives them a distinct natural world religion to cling to, in my opinion.

Your opinion is of no value in science. Its all about data and evidence.

All of the data and evidence support the ToE.

 

[VirOptimus]

Obviously I am speaking to those who are atheists...the vast majority I would imagine.

You want atheists to talk about god(s) they dont believe in? Thats crazy.