Is the Theory of Evolution a religion?

[rogue06]

IMHO one of the sillier claims made by opponents of evolution is that evolution, or more properly, evolutional theory, constitutes some sort of religion in that the fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory really does nothing more than attempt to describe a part of nature.

Now while evolution and evolutionary theory may be important to a large number of people does not some how transform a scientific theory into a religion. The only conceivable way that evolutionary theory could be construed as a religion would be to accept an overly-expansive definition of "religion" as being anything pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Unfortunately this so cheapens the definition of religion that it opens it up to practically any activity. Literally anything from stamp collecting to being an avid sports fan (even my girlfriend shopping for shoes) could thereby be considered a religion.

IOW, calling evolution, or evolutionary theory, a religion makes the term religion effectively meaningless.

For instance, many folks are interested in astronomy and following the course of the stars. This has been used as the part of several religions such as Zoroastrianism and Mithraism as some have even imagined how they influence people. And yet that doesn't somehow miraculously transform the science of astronomy into a religion.

Moreover, there are numerous glaring differences between a scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, and a religion that more than makes it more than obvious that evolutionary theory is not a religion of any shape or form.

To start, unlike science, religions seek to explain ultimate reality as well as attempt to describe humanity's place and role within it.

OTOH, evolutionary theory merely tries to explain how life changes and adapts over time and our biological background. And in spite of confused assertions to the contrary, evolution does not even seek to explain how life originated (that is an entirely different scientific field). Nor has it anything to say about the origin or destiny of souls.

Secondly, religions provide moral guidelines and structure for its adherents. In contrast, evolutionary theory (like all scientific theories) does not say anything about values or meanings. Evolution is descriptive, it is not prescriptive meaning that it attempts to describes things, not prescribes how things should be.

While it is true that evolution has been used (and of course misused) by some as a foundation for morals and values, this is only accomplished by going beyond evolutionary theory (the science of evolution) and forming a separate philosophy which should not reflect on the theory itself -- much in the same manner that astrological musings should not reflect upon the science of astronomy.

Likewise, while evolutionary theory has been utilized in studying and speculating about any biological basis for morals and values, merely studying religion does not make the study a religion. Sort of like how using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts doesn't therefore turn archaeology into a religion.

Third, religion accepts that there is something beyond natural laws, a "supernatural" powers or powers. Religions accept as evidence such things as revealed truth.

Again, like all scientific endeavors, evolutionary theory, does not take such things into account. That is just the way science works since it is seeking natural explanations for the various phenomena that we observe. It's sort of like how your plumber doesn't explain your clogged pipes by using supernatural intervention but looks for a completely natural answer.

Also, unlike religion, the explanations that scientists propose must be subject to falsification and vigorous efforts are taken to demonstrate that they are wrong. In fact evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, not only welcomes these challenges they are open to being changed or even discarded as new evidence is uncovered. In stark contrast, anti-science types often mock this ability to alter theories in light of new contradictory data[/url].

Fourth, religions tend to have such things as holy texts and laws, prayers, rituals and sacraments, as well as a formal priesthood. This is not the case in science including evolutionary theory in spite of snarky, ill-informed remarks about Darwin being a high priest and his books being scripture. The fact of the matter is they are anything but and many prominent evolutionary advocates have made a name for themselves by challenging Darwin's ideas and showing them to be in need of either modification or correction.

Folks like Conrad Waddington when he proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942. And Motoo Kimura when he proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968. And Lynn Margulis when she proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970. And Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973. And Søren Løvtrup when he proposed Epigenetics in 1974. And Carl Woese when he proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977.

These are all examples of controversial theories when they first came out in that they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory). In a religion such "trouble makers" are rarely embraced but instead are generally kicked out and form their own church or even start a new religion.

Fifth, if evolution is some how a religion it must be the only religion that none of its adherents recognize? IOW, if evolution is a religion then why don't any of its adherents recognize it as such? Ask an evolutionist such as Kenneth Miller what his religion is he will tell you that he is a Christian. Likewise for such folks as Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, Simon Conway Morris, George Coyne, Richard G. Colling, Keith B. Miller, Karl Giberson, Robert Baker and even the person who co-founded the Theory of Evolution with Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Even the more militant atheists who have been involved in evolutionary theory such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers will inform you that evolution is anything but a religion for them.

Nobody, whether theist or atheist will identify their religion as evolution.

What's more, I think some evolution deniers seek to label evolution a religion in a misguided attempt to "level the playing field" but this entire concept is actually implicitly disparaging religion in the process. They don't seem to realize that they are in a sense saying that science needs to be brought down to the level of religion.

[rogue06]

To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:

“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 ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:

"The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example.

Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:

…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."

[Raphael]

I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Third, religion accepts that there is something beyond natural laws, a "supernatural" powers or powers. Religions accept as evidence such things as revealed truth.

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

[rogue06]

I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

This kind of falls into what I mean about expanding the definition of what constitutes a religion. I think the above (not counting the atheist churches) fall under philosophical outlooks or world views rather than religions.

[Catholicity]

I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

Here's the one issue I take. When studied, science is only concerned with what it can detect using the senses as opposed to matters of faith. I believe that if and reasonably so, the two did not attempt to disprove one another, it would be much easier to dialogue. (e.g faith did not try to discredit what can be looked at with the five sense and scientists would just simply say all were here to do is study the natural law, matters of faith are left to the person)

[shunyadragon]

I did just skimm read this, but the following statement I disagree with

Partly because I consider Scientism to be a religion and it does claim that there is nothing beyond the natural laws. (I also consider atheism and agnosticism to be religious positions if not organised religions. although the recent founding of atheist churches the are becoming an organised religion)

The claim there is nothing beyond Natural Laws would be Philosophical (Ontological) Naturalism, and not Science (Scientism Huh?). Atheists and strong agnostics may hold this view, (ie Richard Dawkins). The foundation of Science and evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism, which makes no assumptions beyond scientific methods and Natural Laws. Those who believe in Theistic Evolution, and most other scientists believe in Methodological Naturalism. Science itself nor evolution would not be a religion nor religious belief. The assumption that there is nothing beyond Natural Law is something that the scientific methods could not possibly determine.

[Duragizer]

If evolution's a religion, then I'm a rather faithless observant, 'cause I'd dump it in a minute if a logical, reality-affirming version of creationism were to spring up.

[phank]

This seems mostly a matter of orientation, I think. For those whose religious beliefs are (a) testable and (b) not negotiable, science is clearly uncongenial because it has the nasty habit of testing everything it can. And sure enough, many testable religious beliefs fail the tests. But the point is that this sort of person is religion-centric, and regards the conflict between belief and observation as a religious conflict. Evolutionary theory is in profound and broad conflict with the overall faith of many Christians (and some other faiths), and since this conflict is visualized as falling on religious grounds, evolutionary theory is ipso facto religious. It's a false faith.

Conversely, those whose orientation is primarily scientific tend to look at conflicting religious claims as being bad science. Also known as Making Stuff Up, since it either lacks any evidentiary basis, or isn't testable, or in fact stands soundly refuted by board and solid bodies of observation, theory, and modeling. So at the extremes, the religious person regards everything as religion, which is either true or false religion depending on the assertion. Science-oriented extremists regard religion generally as being deliberate and self-defended ignorance. At best, the religioius person has carefully compartmentalized his faith so that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. So one compartment knows that certain tenets of faith, certain past miracles, are absurd and preposterous. The other compartment "knows" that such miracles happened and cannot afford to be concerned with mechanisms or tests.

I personally see this as a matter of one's posture toward evidence. What does one do if faith requires that all relevant evidence be discounted? What can the intelligent and knowledgeable believer do, except to compartmentalize specific tenets to protect them from honest examination?

[Jonathandavid]

The debate is ridiculous, of course the theory of evolution is not a religion. Otherwise, people are free to construct their religious views using whatever they please, any science can inspire a religious worldview, as can art or philosophy.

I rather like this quote by Stephen Jay Gould, from his essay 'Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding', published in Bully for Brontosaurus. He recalls the legal battles to get creationism taught in schools:

In their recently aborted struggle [sic] to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed retorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that "creation science" - as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals - could not qualify as science by any definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.

Personally, I am always surprised that the term "religion" is apparently used as an insult by the people who think religion is an essential if not the most important part of their lives. Isn't it amazing that such a weighty term is used so lightly?

[shunyadragon]

The debate is ridiculous, of course the theory of evolution is not a religion. Otherwise, people are free to construct their religious views using whatever they please, any science can inspire a religious worldview, as can art or philosophy.

I rather like this quote by Stephen Jay Gould, from his essay 'Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding', published in Bully for Brontosaurus. He recalls the legal battles to get creationism taught in schools:

In their recently aborted struggle [sic] to inject Genesis literalism into science classrooms, fundamentalist groups followed their usual opportunistic strategy of arguing two contradictory sides of a question when a supposed retorical advantage could be extracted from each. Their main pseudoargument held that Genesis literalism is not religion at all, but really an alternative form of science not acknowledged by professional biologists too hidebound and dogmatic to appreciate the cutting edge of their own discipline. When we successfully pointed out that "creation science" - as an untestable set of dogmatic proposals - could not qualify as science by any definition, they turned around and shamelessly argued the other side. (They actually pulled off the neater trick of holding both positions simultaneously.) Now they argued that, yes indeed, creation science is religion, but evolution is equally religious.

Personally, I am always surprised that the term "religion" is apparently used as an insult by the people who think religion is an essential if not the most important part of their lives. Isn't it amazing that such a weighty term is used so lightly?

It is often the case that the word 'religion' is used as a stone to throw at people who believe differently including science.

[Jorge]

To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:

“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 ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:

"The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example.

Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:

…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."

You retain your 'abilities', r06. Here you employ the ol' Elephant Hurling strategy: toss out so much stuff that your opponents are overwhelmed - utterly smothered! - by the sheer magnitude of the task to respond to it all and so they don't respond after which you raise up the 'victory flag'.

The number of errors in your mini-dissertation above are LEGION-SQUARED! I'm leaving it at that. Besides, I had already responded to it a hundred times before TWeb went kaboom. If you didn't listen to any one of those hundred times, combined with the fact that you're repeating the same schtick above, why would you listen now?

Nah ... I've much better things to do with my time. Speaking of which, I've been working on Information Theory for quite some time now (but a good chunk remaining). Stay tuned ... I'll let you guys know when I'm ready to publish.

Jorge

[phank]

You retain your 'abilities', r06. Here you employ the ol' Elephant Hurling strategy: toss out so much stuff that your opponents are overwhelmed - utterly smothered! - by the sheer magnitude of the task to respond to it all and so they don't respond after which you raise up the 'victory flag'.

Whereas the exact opposite approach to presenting a careful examination, is to chant the same dishonest slogans a hundred times, in the hopes that someday they might come true. Certainly beats acquiring knowledge and thinking about it. Why, the very prospect is overwhelming!

[Jorge]

Whereas the exact opposite approach to presenting a careful examination, is to chant the same dishonest slogans a hundred times, in the hopes that someday they might come true. Certainly beats acquiring knowledge and thinking about it. Why, the very prospect is overwhelming!

You're blathering childish nonsense, phank ... I see that you've retained your M.O.
The well-thought-out knowledge that I've presented here at TWeb many, many
times is summarily dismissed by the likes of you and r06 ... so, why bother?

The title of this thread is "Is the Theory of Evolution a Religion?" No, it isn't.
But to many it is undoubtedly a PART of their religious position, be that position
Atheistic-Humanistic, Deistic, or even Theistic. No more need be said.

Jorge

[Wally]

Actually, the answer depends on how you define religion.

Most people casually think of religion as "the worshiping of a deity"

If you distort the definition enough, you end up with things like Scientology being defined as a religion.

I think this is the definition Jorge and his ilk use.

[phank]

As far as I can tell, Jorge considers accepting anything incompatible with his delusions as being a religion. Apparently overwhelming bodies of evidence don't matter when you have "well-thought-out knowledge."