Evolution is a religious teaching

by lrkr 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  5go

  Oh, and speaking of ignoring inconvenient contradictory findings...

  4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

  What I have no faith in evolution it is a theory that works with the facts available currently. I don't need faith in evolution to believe it. I need Faith in you to believe your gods exists. Which I don't have any faith in you. You appear to be a fool to me.

  Main Entry:

  1 faith

  Pronunciation:

  \ ' fath\

  Function:

  noun

  Inflected Form(s):

  plural faiths \ ' faths, sometimes ' fathz\

  Etymology:

  Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

  Date:

  13th century

  1 a : allegiance to duty or a person: loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
• 

  Satanus

  Rollerdave
  
  I see a lot lacking in the current evolution theory. However, evolution's holes are being filled in. Interestingly, darwin expected that to occur. This is happening, not just in the fossil/archeological feilds, but support is coming in from dna work. The evidence that has been accumulated is enough for me. This is NOT what i wanted. But, i had to make an honest decision.
  
  Religion, on the other hand, has been loosing ground on practically every front where it has been confronted by science.
  
  It's quite impressive when you consider that the theory of evolution is only about 100 yrs old, whereas christianity has had 2000 yrs to get itself together into a monolithic, impenetrable spiritual force. It is as fragmented as it ever was. Evolutionary science is slowly moving ahead, like an unstoppable bulldozer.
  
  S
• 

  lrkr

  See, I think that the mixing of a discussion about evolution and a Creator is wrong. They are 2 different topics. The situation is similar to Galileos fight with the church. The church insisted that because the bible says that the sun comes up- that is evidence that the divine word says that the sun moves around the earth. Quite a leap. They staked their reputation on an unclear and subjective wording. And got a little bit of a black eye over it.

  Soo... 500 years later- the Catholic Church wisely stays out of the evolution discussion. The pope has even issued statements that evolution is not inconsistant with Christianity. Newer religious sects however (pentecostals, evangelicals, and of course JWs) wander right into the mess and stake their entire belief system on 2 oddly worded, possibly allegorical chapters in Genesis- the oldest, most weakly attested book in the entire bible.

  Say what you want about the Catholic Church- but at least they learned to stay out of science. (OK- they're still a bit meddlesome in some aspects of science- archeology, contraception).

  The concept of a creator is a totally different argument from the question of evolution. One is philisophical/religious, the other is science.
• 

  RollerDave

  on the contrary! I see them as one and the same.

  The holes in evolutionary theory are not even close to being filled, the more one learns the bigger they get. The so-called simplest forms are far more complex than Darwin had previously imagined, and in every field there are contrary indications, but you sure don't hear much about them.

  Polonium halos, the law of causation, entropy, even simple mathematical probability, it just doesn't add up for me.

  Again, I state: If it works for you, more power to you, but don't try to claim it is not faith-based or proven. Not even close.

  I am just sick and tired of holding my tongue while a bunch of cocksure and arrogant evolutionists go on about how they have the only truth, the only possibility of truth when it is just not so.

  While I state my belief as one possibility, you cannot seem to muster that much objectivity and resort to unsupported assertion, illogic, and ad hominem attacks.

  Cloud the issue, whatever.

  Looks like you defend your belief system with ardor, and I don't blame you.

  I have previously pointed out the faith you need to believe something which simply cannot be proven.

  Ardor and faith.

  Religion.

  OK 5go, have at me again.

  I have to admit, 5go, I too regard you as the fool in some things, but with the deepest respect, I assure you.

  Peace out,

  RD
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  So Rollerdave then are you in agreement with the WT's statement that evolution is taught as a religion and it is wholly structured on a belief system in its understanding

  That is the topic of this thread ?
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  Oh, and speaking of ignoring inconvenient contradictory findings...

  I didn't 'ignore' it, my dictionary, WordWeb, only has those two definitions.
• 

  RollerDave

  I would agree with them, much to my regret, that the way evolution is taught, glossing over any inconsistencies while making bold assertions as to it's truth is very much like the way religion is taught.

  I also have observed that even though you may find a fossil, you have no direct knowledge of how it lived, or that it even ever had any offspring that survived.

  Calling it a belief system is totally consistent, and that it could just as easily be the result of bias on the part of the scientists involved is not too much of a stretch.

  Of course, I wasn't there, but then neither were you.

  So, I find myself in the unenviable position of agreeing with the WTS this once, but hey....

  Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

  Not bad for a fool, eh 5go?

  RD
• 

  RollerDave

  Fair enough, Lore, point taken.

  Accusation retracted.

  RD
• 

  LtCmd.Lore

  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

  Well, using that definition, I suppose accepting evolution COULD be considered religious.

  But only if germ theory is as well.

  ---

  It attempts to explain a phenomenon, that is otherwise attributed to demons, curses from god, or evil spirits.And since I've never personally witnessed a germ infecting a human body, it requires a certain amount of faith to believe.

  Faith in the scientists who seek out the evidence, faith in their interpretations of what they found, faith in their honesty and abilities...

  Was it extremely improbable that a germ would spontaneously enter a body? That it would have the ability to reproduce and spread all on its own with no pesky or annoying God to cause it or remove it?

  It is a simply mind boggling improbability, yet this is EXACTLY what you believe, and that my friend, takes FAITH.

  So have at it, believe it if you want, I won't try to dissuade you, but don't fool yourselves that you have some kind of monopoly on reason and have stripped yourself of such nonsense as faith.

  Unless you can shrink to microscopic size and see the germ with your own eyes instead of through microscopes, unless you can look over the shoulder of every scientist so you don't need to take his word for it, unless you can also see everything going on inside the body and see the stuff that he DIDN'T find or use your shrinking machine to see the germ before it infected the body...

  You can't 'know' without a measure of faith.

  That, my friends, makes it a religious teaching. Just another of the doctrines in the religion of secular humanism.

  ---

  If Evolution is religion, so is Germ Theory.

  Lore - W.W.S.D?
• 

  RollerDave

  If evolution=religion then germ theory does too, huh?

  The problem with that is that germ theory can be put under a microscope, observed to be happening in the here and now.

  The same cannot be said about evolution, it is entirely interpretive.

  Subjective, even.

  But it was a nice exercise.

  RD