European Union Forums

[DanaRHoward]

Posted a few minutes ago:

"Religion should not be touched in schools. And that goes for the religion of evolution too."

In reality, however:

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Why claim evolution is a religion?

[Bree98]

You really need to ask?

"Some" creationists are feckin' stupid.

[AngelaJHinson]

Because creationists aren't just deluded, they're desperate.

[BettyDFord]

Because it's an unproven system that people believe in without solid evidence. Just like all religions.

[Liv]

One's religion is one's belief; evolution is a belief. Some believe in Gods others in Evolution. Simple as that.

[Millie]

Because the people pushing creationism are FLAT OUT LIARS! THEY will even KILL to get their LIES taught! They are EVIL people that want to teach LIES AS TRUTH!

[Billie78]

Many Christians believe evolution, so that right there should be a hint.

Also, is "The theory of relativity" a religion?...I don't think so

[MaryTMartin]

It's simply an attempt to discredit it. A piss-poor one at that. Essentially, by calling evolution a "religion" for the purpose of discrediting it, it's a tacit admission on their part that religion is completely useless for explaining anything.

[Tessie4]

It's a patently stupid attempt at leveling the playing field between science and religion. Science has no choice but to encroach on the gaps in our knowledge that religion attempts to caulk over with doctrine. By calling evolution a religion, they think it somehow reduces the explanatory power of evolution for the life sciences.

[MarieDLittle]

Evolution is not a religion it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.

[JohnLDehaven]

because it is

[FlorrieXXX]

Coz they think atheism is a religion too. So anything atheists agree with is is a religion. Simple as that huh.

[MichelleBEnriquez]

Because, among other things, they don't understand the differences between:

• a theory of science and a religious opinion (faith)
• evidence and personal experience
• evidence and "proof"
• a law of science and a theory of science

[Emme76]

In their fantasies if they deny science or evolution they think, that will make their god more real so this religious people normally got little knowledge of the scientific method and they own religions.
They don't understand that evolution don't need believers, but the real joke is that when they say that evolution is so false is not science is a religion...so that will mean that any religion could be based in lies...and a forced believe system, like we dumb atheist always say...
Hey, we can make a profit if the lack of believe is a religion we will get the no taxes rules.... we can say our home is our temple and start not paying taxes, like the holyies temples and properties do...lol.. like the old mafia guy say is nothing personal, nothing spiritual, just business

[TeresaESolano]

Because if they openly recognized it as legitimate science, they would look stupid for rejecting it. Not that calling biology a religion is any less stupid.

[Mamie]

They think everything is a religion because they do not know what science is.

[PamelaKEscarcega]

What people mean is that God should not be allowed in school. Religion is any belief that governs our lives. It has nothing to do with only believing in a diety. 1+1 = 4 is a religion if someone builds their life on it. Christianity is a way of life that does not include religion. Being Catholic or Mormon or Jehovah Witness is a religion. Christianity is living like Christ. No religion needed.

[Sukey]

Sour grapes. Federal Courts ruled Creationism religion. It is hoped that Courts rule that evolution is too. The first step of this fantasy is that Atheism be ruled a religion. Then the courts would see that evolution is a teaching of this religion.

Hence the rabid insistence that Atheism is a religion and viral hoots and hollers when any court language is even possibly interpreted to support the idea. Hence, too, the statement that people believe or have faith in evolution.

These types of legal fantasies are related to private readings of the Constitution as if it were subject to person interpretation without regard for historical precedent and the tradition court interpretation of it.

Note that social darwinism, a corrupt, non-scientific application of scientific theories to racism and eugenics is the bases for condemning the entire of evolutionary science as non-scientific. The works of Darwin, which include speculations as to the status of races is pointed out as flawed as if modern science cannot overturn the writings of Darwin that are somehow the same as sacred scripture to be read literally.

It is a cynical and clever application of religious thought to imagined principles of science. It is self-contradictory, but in small bites is plausible. As with any conspiracy theory, this is enough.

[TiffanyJChen]

I agree with Atheist John, but I don't think he meant it the same way that I do. I am a christian, born and raised, but I do believe in evolution. Please don't make sweeping over generalizations about religious people. Most of us are intelligent. Unfortunately, many ignorant religious zealots exist that give Christianity (and other religions too for that matter) a bad name. The same goes for ignorant zealous atheists that are ignorantly claiming that religions hold no value.

I claim myself as a creationist because I believe in God and that he created the universe. While I don't label myself as an evolutionist, I do believe that God used evolution to create man. however, I don't claim evolution as a religion.

[MarkRBonnell]

The answer is in the first part of that quote. They want evolution to be classified as a religion so that it cannot be taught in schools.

[MarieJHamlin]

You are confusing what is a political/social argument with a logical/rational argument. You go to all this trouble listing your logical/rational arguments which have nothing to do with a political/social argument. If human society functioned on pure logic and reason, we would not have the kind of politicians we do in charge of things.

A creationists deals with what they believe are absolute truths. They have a source of written material which they have accepted as absolute truth and regard any humans which do not accept this material as absolute truth as being in defiance of Divine Will. Many of these people who are of a creationist belief are angered that when they send their children to the public schools the children are taught the theory of evolution as if it were established fact. It is their desire that if this "theory" is taught as part of the curriculum, that their beliefs are just as valid as a "theory" (they do not accept or understand what is meant by a "scientific theory") and should also be taught as part of the curriculum. They are told that U.S. public schools can not include any religious material because the U.S. constitution forbids the government from establishing any religion. So, in response to this, these creationists attempt to persuade the public that the theory of evolution is also a religion in order for it to be removed from U.S. public school curriculum. They do not actually "believe" that evolution is a religion. It is a political/social argument where the goal is not the establishment of logic or reason, but the swaying of public sentiment.

Adding to this political/social conflict is the reality that there are, unfortunately, many public school educators of a secularists or atheist persuasion, who actually do teach Darwin's theory of evolution as if it were an empirical scientific fact in the attempt to convince their students that belief in religious texts is for the simple minded and uneducated. And they are successful. Not only in fostering a rejection of religions ideas and ideals, but also a deep seated animosity towards people of religious faith, as can be seen evidenced in other responses to your question.