Is Evolution Really A Religion?

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Mark Parsec's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (47 days 4 hours ago.)

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory created to explain the diversity of life we see in the world.

 

It is a theory in the strong scientific sense (other scientific theories include Relativity and quantum mechanics), rather than the layman's sense of "theory" (which equates more closely to the scientific term "conjecture").

 

It is falsifiable (yet still unfalsified) and makes accurate predictions.

 

It does not require any faith, since it is evidence-based.

 

The whole conception of a "missing link" ceases to make sense when you understand the theory of evolution - all fossils found are "missing links" of sorts.

 

As an example, if we have an ancient fossil, called A, and a more recent one called Z (believed to be a descendant of A), then Creationists assert that there are no transitional fossils between them, no "missing link". Later, another fossil, M, is found, dated midway between A and Z, and which shares some similarities with both. Now the Creationists say "look, there's no transitional fossils between A and M, and none between M and Z, so now there's two missing links those evolutionists havent managed to find!" and so on.

 

It would take only 1 (one!) fossil "out of place" to falsify the theory of evolution. For example, the discovery of just one fossil rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata would blow the theory of evolution out of the water. No such find has ever come to light, despite much searching. Every fossil found has been entirely compatible with the theory of evolution.

Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (47 days 3 hours ago.)

Ben, Thank you for your comments. It is filling in those "transitional zones" that can really stretch the imagination... millions of years. Indeed, many "missing links" have been falsified. When we conjecture to believe that something is so without hard evidence we are entering into the realm of faith.

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (47 days 3 hours ago.)

Indeed, but in the case of evolution there IS hard evidence.

 

Evolution itself does not predict that fossils will exist at all, and their existence is certainly not a prerequisite for evolution.

 

Evolution predicts parameters between which we should expect a fossil from x location dated y years ago to fall between, but whether or not such a fossil is found (or even exists) isn't significant. All that matters to evolution is that any fossils that do happen to be found, which do happen to exist, are compatible with evolution. So far, every single one is. Just one fossil rabbit found in pre-cambrian rock is enough to falsify it!

Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (46 days 21 hours ago.)

However, there have been reported cases of myriad fossil remains, even "human" remains, being discovered in deposits that were not consistent with their anticipated evolutionary development. Such cases include "humanoid" footprints in sedimentary deposits along side dinosaur tracks, "humanoid" skeletal and artifact remains being found in limestone and igneous deposits deep within the earth, etc.

 

Adherence to the evolutionary model still requires the individual to accept the "evidence" to be consistent with and validation of the theory, which is not always the case. Evolutionists, like religionists, have a tendency to neglect, avoid, or explain away the inconsistencies that do not fall within the paramaters of their belief system.

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (46 days 21 hours ago.)

Reported cases yes, independently verified cases no.  Not one.

The most famous case of supposed humanoid footprints alongside dinosaur tracks, the "Paluxy River Mantracks", turned out to be not humanoid tracks at all, but those of a three-toed bipedal dinosaur. Others like "Piltdown Man" have turned out to be fakes when subjected to scrutiny (as was the Turin Shroud).

As mentioned previously, evolution itself is an empirical fact for which science must attempt to provide an explanation, like gravity, not a model (like Newtonian mechanics or the theory of evolution by natural selection).

It is possible, although extremely unlikely due to the overwhelming evidence from numerous separate sources (radiometric dating, fossil analysis, molecular biology, lab tests etc), that the model (natural selection) we use to explain the *mechanism*  of evolution is imperfect.

Scientists, when following the scientific method rather than letting their personal beliefs cloud their objectivity, unlike religionists, are quite happy to discard an explanation when a better one comes along. As yet, natural selection remains undiscarded as an explanation for the empirical fact of evolution.


Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (41 days 21 hours ago.)

Ben, your argument is based on empiricalism. This assumes that man is capable of grasping a certain knowledge of the world around him based solely upon his senses. I maintain that there are vast regions of reality that we are incapable of measuring, weighing or calibrating. Reality is slippery... as is the quark. If you try to measure it, it slips away and appears somewhere else. That defies the known laws of physics. Man's knowledge is limited. He is incapable of knowing everything.

 

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (41 days 20 hours ago.)

Modern empirical science isn't based solely on our senses, but it does include some degree of assumption that the data we obtain from the world (through our senses or through measuring devices) can be trusted. Its an assumption that as been born out by the accuracy of many predictions.

If we can't trust anything we sense or measure then we cannot ever know anything about the world outside our own minds: We can only be sure of our own existence and nothing else.

The quark does not defy the known laws of physics. At the level of the quark, the applicable physical model is quantum mechanics, and quarks don't defy that! The uncertainties and other quantum things that appear strange to our macroscopic-centric minds do not apply on the scale of genes or individual organisms.

I strongly agree with you that man's knowledge is limited, and as individuals no human is capable of knowing everything (we've already accumulated more knowledge as a species than any single individual can know).

Perhaps (or probably) we as a species will never know everything, but that's no reason to throw out what we DO know.

We end up with a choice between trusting empiricalism (filtered through the scientific method), solipsism or the possibility that everything we experience of the world is designed specifically to deceive us by a malevolent and incredibly powerful entity.

Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (34 days 13 hours ago.)

Your argument proves my point in that empircalism does not operate consistently. The laws of physics function differently at the quantum level... what about beyond that? As we look into the microcosms of the universe we discover how little we DO know (to use your emphasis). The problem with your theory is that it assumes that man is capable of truly understanding everything that there is to be known.

 

You question Intelligent Design, but seem to have no problem promoting astrology... How is that compatible?

 

I cannot agree with your assertion that some "malevolent" entity has designed the universe in such a way as to specifically deceive us. Unless, that malevolent being is the finite assumptions of our own imaginations to place a human veil of understanding over the infinitely complex and incomprehensible universe.  

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (34 days 9 hours ago.)

The universe operates consistently, but at present we have seperate models for different scales, as the models we have are only accurate within certain parameters (better than they were, but still not perfect, e.g. now we have Einsteinian relativity which is accurate over a wider scale than Newtonian conceptions of gravity were).

 

One of the goals of physics is to unify these seperate models (i.e. produce a single model that works across the scales).

Empiricalism doesn't require the assumption that man is capable of truly understanding everything - indeed science has already gone far beyond the point where any one person can understand it all - extelligence lets us exceed our human limitations, though there will almost certainly still be limits we have not come close to reaching them as yet.

Whatever the limits are, empirical science is our best hope of reaching them, rather than accepting far tighter limits of our own imagining.

 

I don't promote astrology, it is superstitious nonsense, hence my spoof All True Horoscope article, and my critical comments on several astrology related articles here.

 

The reasoning behind the suggestion that a malevolent (deceitful) entity could have designed the universe is simply that the evidence we can see contradicts the religious accounts of creation.

If there was an intelligent designer, they must have placed the evidence we see (e.g. for evolution by natural selection, a 13-15 billion year old universe, Earth not being the centre of the universe etc) into the universe, evidence which, if there is an intelligent designer, would be there only to deceive us (specifically to deceive the ability to reason that presumably the same creator provided us with).

The evidence is not from human imagination, although the models constructed to explain it could be said to be (although they come more from reason than pure imagination) - they are certainly human creations and could be wrong (in fact certainly are, which is why they only work for limited scales), although they are demonstrably close to right within the spectrum for which they were designed to operate as can be seen from their predictive power.

Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (34 days 4 hours ago.)

Now, think about this statement that you made, it is the Achilles heel for your entire argument... they are certainly human creations and could be wrong (in fact certainly are, which is why they only work for limited scales.

 

You know, Ben, 200 years from now, if mankind should live so long, they will be looking back at this age and saying, "Man, they didn't know anything. They sure were superstitious. Their science was primitive."

 

Your intense defense of empiricalism rings of zealotry. So, perhaps we are more alike than either one of us are willing to admit.

 

I am willing to admit that empiraclism provides a wonderful functional tool for calibrating huge sections of reality.

 

I am willing to admit that there is a possibility that my paradigm of reality is inaccurate.

 

I am willing to admit that limited aspects of evolution are probably true.

 

However, I must absolutely maintain that there is overwhelming evidence that the universe and human life, our planet, was designed by an intelligent being. The complexity of DNA establishes it far beyond the realm of chance.

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (34 days 2 hours ago.)

The models are wrong (or incomplete, they are certainly pretty close to describing reality correctly within their range but not 100%).

However, the fact that we can make models that are so accurate, and the fact that we can discover their limitations and seek to improve the model as a result, strongly indicates that the universe is the result of some simple rules, and higher order phenomena are emergent from these.

As to the humans of 200 years hence, I completely agree - our current technology, while orders of magnitude more advanced that it was only 100 years ago and improving ever faster, will be viewed as extremely primitive. As a species we are incredibly superstitious, and that is manifest in the popularity of many irrational beliefs, astrology being just one example.

I'm confused by your statement about zealotry.. you suggest I'm a zealot and go on to say this makes us more alike. Do you consider yourself a zealot? I don't consider either of us to be zealots.

I'm intrigued as to what parts of evolution you accept could be true. I accept that current neo-Darwinian models (like current models in physics) could be imperfect, but evolution itself is an observed fact and the fact that the theoretical models we use to explain this fact make such accurate predictions confirms that, even if wrong, they are close to the truth.

My "paradigm of reality" is based on the evidence, and thus subject to change should new evidence become available that demonstrably provides a better explanation for the facts and better predictive accuracy.

The complexity of DNA is most certainly far beyond the realm of pure chance, I think everyone agrees on that. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not a theory of pure chance.



Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (34 days ago.)

Hi Ben,

 

By zealotry, I was suggesting (tongue in cheek) that we are both tenacious in arguing our positions to the utmost. No derogatory intention.

 

As far as neo-Darwinian models, I agree that they are imperfect. Unfortunately, in science an error of less than 1% can open up a Pandora's box of unanticipated alternative explanations.

 

Now, referring to your paradigm of reality, which is based on evidence. How do you measure the evidence of love, honor, honesty, and moral virtues? Or there opposites, hate, dishonor, dishonesty, and lack of morality. Are these nothing more than neurological oddities?

 

Is there a divine purpose to life? If not, then who is to say that anyone's authority is any more or less valid than anyone else's? Each person becomes the authority.

 

Is there life after death? If not, then what difference does what we think or do in this life ultimately make?

 

Is it possible that life forms can exist in realms beyond our ability to calibrate or measure? Is it not possible that man's finite "evidence" is missing the "Big" picture?

 

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (34 days ago.)

Aah, I agree that we're both tenacious in arguing our position, and that's a positive thing!

Evidence of love, honour and so on is not evidence about the fundamental reality of the universe, they are concepts emergent from human consciousness. In terms of human purpose and the meaning we make for ourselves in life these things are of course vitally important. Science has a fair idea of how these concepts arose, and science knows that they came from human minds. As concepts, they exist only in relation to human minds, rather than having objective existence of their own.

If there isn't life after death, or if there might be but we're not certain of it, that means that we should make the most of this life - it might be all we have! Our lives may ultimately make no difference to the universe, perhaps in a few million years (or less!) humans will be extinct. But that doesn't matter now.

It is possible that life forms could exist in realms beyond our ability to calibrate or measure, but if they do, it doesn't really make any difference to us, since they won't be existing in our reality, which we can measure fairly well.



Respond to this comment

» left by Mark Parsec ^(23,731)
Mark Parsec (32 days 20 hours ago.)

Is it not possible that the concepts of our minds (love, honesty, etc)  reflect deeper causes, principles and laws of nature that are not within our ability to calibrate? Is it not possible that these things reflect a reality beyond our tangible existence?

 

When it comes to life after death, are not the historical records, traditions and beliefs of untold millions of people and thousands of cultures sufficient evidence that there is something that our scientific methods have not quite been able to tap into?

 

And when it comes to other life forms existing beyond our realm of reality, even if we are not capable of detecting them, and measuring them, that does not necesarily mean that they are not capable of detecting, measuring, and interacting with our reality. Kind of reminds me of the three blind men feeling an elephant and one says, "It is a tree trunk" the second saying, "It is a wall" and the third saying, "It is  a snake." We only glimpse in part the reality of the universe that is around us and then are arrogant enough to believe that we have the capability to definitively describe what it is. I think this error of empiricalism. There is, by far, more to reality than we are able to detect with our feeble human brains. We really are quite proud of our human accomplishments aren't we? 

Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Morrish ⁽⁸⁷⁸⁾
Ben Morrish (32 days 13 hours ago.)

Concepts of our minds arise from our minds, and there is no evidence to suggest they represent laws of nature - they are a high order phenomenon, emergent from our minds, rather than a low order phenomenon from which our minds have come from.

The human mind is conscious and programmed to want to survive. The traditions and beliefs of untold millions of people are a consequence of that, and tell us something about human nature, human psychology, but there's no reason to assume that such beliefs are true.

Lifeforms that exist beyond our reality may not be detectable, but if they interact with our reality, then those interactions would be detectable. There is no sign of any such interaction.

With the three blind men and the elephant, they don't need to know its an elephant to know beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't, for example, a fire.

Our human accomplishments are something there's no shame in being proud of, and there's no arrogance in that - we've done well, but we have a long way to go, perhaps further down the road we'll come to limits we can't pass, but that's no reason to give up trying.

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: