Secular Evolution - Religion?

[Dr. Shane]

David Koot:

Quote:

---

I think it is fair to say that long-age, Darwinian evolution was shown to be a belief system based on insupportable assumptions. As far as trappings of a religion? Well, maybe.

---

The Bible is clear about the orgins of the universe. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that God's authority comes from the fact that He is the Creator.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1

"But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." Deut. 32:15-21

"Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel. By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof: and I will enter into the height of his border, and the forest of his Carmel. I have digged, and drunk water; and with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of the besieged places. Hast thou not heard long ago, how I have done it; and of ancient times, that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps." Isa. 37:23-26

"Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen... Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?... Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto." Isa. 44:1, 8-10, 15

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex 20:8-11

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4:11

Is secularism a form of religion?

It seems to be and evolution seems to be its authority much like creation is God's authority. Secularists will defend evolution like Jehova Witnesses defend their faith. If one ever challenges a JW they quickly come up with some explanation. Secularists react in the same way when evolution is questioned. Any college student that has had a secular professor knows this story all too well. A secular evolutionist, just like the Jehova Witness, always has an answer no matter how silly they sometimes are.

I try to be careful to categorize those that are secular in that they do not believe there is a divine creator. They shouldn't be lumped in with the group of professing Christians that are inclined to believe in evolution.

[bevin]

There are three types of 'understand the world' systems

(a) Those that have beliefs which they assume are true, and try to counter any attempt to disprove those beliefs

( Those that have hypotheses that they use to predict the results of experiments, and try hard to find experiments for which the predictions are wrong

© Those for whom predictiveness is irrelevant, who just want to feel nice

The first is religion and third are religious

The second is science

The first is 99% of creationists

The second is 99% of scientists

The scientists have had much more success in predicting the future and in curing disease and in making people's lives better than the religionists

More than 90% of the population in general just doesn't get this - so they try to cast the science people into their own mold

/Bevin

[cricket]

There are more than these 3 types. Can you give a reference to support your statistics?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

(a) Those that have beliefs which they assume are true, and try to counter any attempt to disprove those beliefs

---

Secular evolutionists fit right, nice and snug into this category. That is why they work so hard to keep any material that might challenge evolution out of the classroom. They fear the free exchange of ideas much like the papacy feared dissention during the Dark Ages.

Biblical creationists do not assume their beliefs are true. They believe the Bible is true. And thus they are religious. But note, creationists do not deny being religious. They consider it a virtue.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Biblical creationists do not assume their beliefs are true. They believe the Bible is true.

---

whereas a scientist would consider "the Bible is true" to be a hypothesis that needs to be studied by careful experiment.

Such an approach leads to the discovery that

• there is no general agreement on what the Bible actually says
• that even within the parts where the text is clear, there are parts that are mutually contradictory

For instance, there are many Christians who believe the Bible is true, and who think that a long age earth with life evolving on it is the most likely explanation for the origins of what we see about us. There are others who can't understand how they think this way. Some reading it believe the dead sleep, others that they go straight to heaven. etc.

The Bible is one of God's means of communicating with people. But a blanket statement of 'The Bible Is True' says more about the person making the statement than it does about the Bible.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

There is no disagreement that creationists are religious and that creationists base their beliefs on religious material - the Bible.

However, many secular scienctists are equally religious and hide behind the guise of science. Rather than admitting that their evolutionary beliefs are indeed the basis of secularism, they talk themselves into believing it is all about science.

Honest scienctists admit there is a possibility of intelligent design - not to be confused with Biblical creation. Honest scientists have no agenda and we are seeing more and more come onto the scence although I was never previlidged to have one as a professor.

The basis of God's religion is His creative powers. This is demonstrated in the Bible as I quoted in the beginning post in this thread. Secularists know that if they can somehow prove that God is not the Creator, they can take away His authority. Conversly, if they can prove evolution to be true, they can grant authority to secularism.

Secular evolutionists place more faith in the creation than the Creator. The Bible says one thing but when the creation seems to say another, they place their faith in what the rocks, ice and fossils seem to be saying. In this way they worship the creation instead of the Creator just as rebellious Israel of old did.

Not all evolutionists fall into this radicul, secular category. Many do, especially in acedemia on college campuses. I commend those who seem to look at everything and state there is more than one way things could have happened.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

More than 90% of the population in general just doesn't get this - so they try to cast the science people into their own mold

---

and Shane is in this 90%

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Not all evolutionists fall into this radicul, secular category. Many do, especially in acedemia on college campuses. I commend those who seem to look at everything and state there is more than one way things could have happened.

---

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

However, many secular scienctists are equally religious and hide behind the guise of science. Rather than admitting that their evolutionary beliefs are indeed the basis of secularism, they talk themselves into believing it is all about science.

---

Indeed. You are quite correct, from my observation. Axiomatic to secular evolution is the insistence that there is not a Creator God. The foundation of their beliefs? I propose that philosophy and/or religion drive science. I submit that long-age evolution arose out of the philosophical mindset of the 19th century--"the age of optimism." In this country, transcendentalism was a manifestation of the same mindset (as in, "The Chambered Nautilus," and Ralph Waldo Emerson & company)

That is every bit as much of a religion, as is Christianity. Their faith is in the invincibility of progress, whether in terms of origins--the now-discredited spontaneous generation theory--or social Darwinism, which led to the Great War. (That reminds me of the countless hours invested in experiments to somehow generate simple cells out of 'organic soup.' The ducks were lined up in a nice, neat row-which, itself, disqualified the experiment in terms of randomness in nature--but, in spite of that, it still didn't work.) In my opinion, a recent manifestation of that faith in the inevitablity of progress, is Stuart Kaufmann's theory about the self-organization of matter, per his book, "At Home in the Universe."

David Koot

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Secular evolutionists fit right, nice and snug into this category. That is why they work so hard to keep any material that might challenge evolution out of the classroom. They fear the free exchange of ideas much like the papacy feared dissention during the Dark Ages.

---

Oh, yes. When the matter is pressed--when flaws in the theory and problems with the data are brought to their attention--they go on the attack mode. They 'circle the wagons.' When I pointed that out on the public forum, they actually admitted doing so! Of course, they initially downplayed any problems, but under probing questioning, finally conceded that there are, indeed, fundamental weaknesses in the Darwinian theory of long-age evolution--even that it has been discredited in the views of some scientists. And, all of that was served up with a mega-dose of ridicule.

[Bravus]

I think it might be being thought of/discussed backward here. Atheism is the religious perspective that is the root, evolutionism (I use the 'ism' to denote a belief system, which is related to but separate from the scientific study of evolutionary mechanisms) that is the branch. Once your basic assumption is that the natural world is all there is, and there is no divinity, then all the rest follows from that.

Saying atheism is a religious perspective is different than saying it is a religion, however. (And part of the problem in this discussion is also that we have no working definition of 'religion'. The religious tend to define it one way, and atheists another. Can we find a good consensus definition?)

So Shane seems to be arguing that atheism/secularism arises out of evolutionism, whereas I'd argue that the reverse is more generally the case.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Saying atheism is a religious perspective is different than saying it is a religion, however. (And part of the problem in this discussion is also that we have no working definition of 'religion'. The religious tend to define it one way, and atheists another. Can we find a good consensus definition?)

---

How about Webster's Unabridged?

"re·li·gion (ri lijÆÃn), n.

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. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

9. get religion, Informal.

a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

[1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religi$n- (s. of religi$) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(!re) to tie, fasten (re- RE- + lig!re to bind, tie; cf. LIGAMENT) + -i$n- -ION; cf. RELY]"

I would propose definition #1a, up to the word 'especially': "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." That is a general definition. The phrase starting with "especially" becoms more specific.

Quote:

---

So Shane seems to be arguing that atheism/secularism arises out of evolutionism, whereas I'd argue that the reverse is more generally the case.

---

I couldn't agree more. Religion drives science.

[bevin]

---

I couldn't agree more. Religion drives science.

---

I disagree. Most science is driven by a search for the ability to accurately predict the world around us, and has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Most science is driven by a search for the ability to accurately predict the world around us,

---

The key word is most. I wouldn't encluded evolutionary science in that but that is certainly true of sciences such as medical, etc.

[olger]

Although they lack any theological acumen, secular evolutionists are quite religious. Zealous even..

gcw

[David Koot]

Okay, guys, how about the definition of 'religion'? Bravus is right. We need to define our terms. What do you think of the definition from Web. which I posted? Several of those would seem to apply to evolutionists.

[bevin]

Evolutionary science is absolutely about predicting the world around us.

It is the consequence of the drive to predict where oil is, where water is, where earthquakes happen, how diseases happen, how the body develops, ...

It just happens to provide strong evidence that a literal reading of the pre-Babylonian Bible books is wrong as an accidental side line.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Evolutionary science is absolutely about predicting the world around us.

---

Believe it or not, I know creationists that predict where oil is, where water is and how diseases spread.