Evolution’s Religion Revealed

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 23, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Did you know evolution is a religious theory? If this seems strange then read on. In this post I will explain one way that evolution is contingent on religious reasoning. Such reasoning is a constant thread running through the evolution genre, but it can be subtle. If you are familiar with the evolution literature you may have noticed this underlying theme, but exactly how does it work?

Enter evolutionist and philosopher Elliott Sober. In his new paper, Sober continues his work in analyzing the arguments for evolution. He has done much work which is particularly helpful in showing (i) the premises built into the arguments and (ii) the relative strengths of the different arguments evolutionists use. And strong arguments are needed for evolution, as Sober writes:

Continue reading here.

Comments

Dr. Hunter - Yes, evolutionists are so enamored of their belief system, that they seem to be unwilling to admit how many changes would it take to go from a thalycine to a wolf.Scot.David_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Fundamentally, by what premise does one call any mutation an "error", unless one knows the intent of, or is ascribing intent to the process being observed? When one claims that the intent of the process is to "copy" a string of proteins, how is that evaluation of "intention to copy" arrived at? If, during the observed process, a variant string of proteins is produced, why is it an "error"? How can it empirically be known to be an error, unless one uses a design and intent framework by which to judge such "errors"? Furthermore, how exactly would one evaluate the "error rate" of a hypothetically designed process, unless one knows the intent of the designer? If the designer designed in a random variable process, or is accumulating variant proteins for a future project, how then are we to establish an "error"? Unfortunately, there cannot be an examination of evolution without invoking design, because without design there is nothing but chaos and disorder to observe, or to observe with.William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

BVZ:
In what way does the current theory of evolution rely on the exact amount of mutations needed to change one phenotype into another being known?
Not knowing exactly what you mean by the "current theory of evolution" (just a terminology problem,) if we are to to claim that mutations and selection lead to phenotype change, how can we not quantify it? How can we say that a phenotype change came from small mutations if we have no idea how many mutations it would take? It's a hypothesis, and answering that question would be a first step toward testing it. Accepting the explanation is premature.ScottAndrews_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

BVZ:
However, your position is only valid if you can show that evolution relies on the exact amount of mutation being known.
ID is NOT anti-evolution.
In what way does the current theory of evolution rely on the exact amount of mutations needed to change one phenotype into another being known?
The theory of evolution needs something that would demonstrate an accumulation of mutations can do what the theory requires. For example no one knows if any amount of mutational accumulation can allow for the changes required to go from a quadraped to an upright walking biped. And no one knows if mammalian ears could evolve from reptilian ears. As I said the theory of evolution relies on our ignorance.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Nnoel:
You ask how many mutations did it take, but I ask you what is the point of asking the question?
Measure-ability. You know science! It all pertains to BVZ's response. And BTW if it can be shown that undirected processes cannot account for something what is left? The point being is that if you have two choices and one is shown to be pure nonsense, then you have only one left. ID is a double-edged sword- so to speak. It is based not only on the positive evidence but also the negatives against the opposing PoV.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

How many mutations did it take to go from a quadaped to an upright walking biped? How many mutations did it take to go from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear? By trying to answer those questions you will understand the author’s point.
Ah ok, I think I get it now. However, your position is only valid if you can show that evolution relies on the exact amount of mutation being known. Can you support your position? In other words, can you answer the following question: In what way does the current theory of evolution rely on the exact amount of mutations needed to change one phenotype into another being known?BVZ_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

The religion that the article tries to bring up is called 'common sense' in other circles, and I'd have been intrigued by the article if alternate methods could have been suggested. What are the scientists doing wrong? How could they do it better? What would have been more reasonable assumptions to make? Joseph @ 5 : You ask how many mutations did it take, but I ask you what is the point of asking the question? If we can never be 100% sure of anything, and we cant, what are you trying to show? Also, how would one discover how many mutations it took? AS always, I tell you I'm opened minded, I'm searching for answers, I'd like to know the truth (so I read all sides), but evolution-bashing is not ID-building. Do some science! (please) Love you all.Nnoel_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

BVZ, How many mutations did it take to go from a quadaped to an upright walking biped? How many mutations did it take to go from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear? By trying to answer those questions you will understand the author's point.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

"...evolution must be a fact because creation is obviously false" If I understand correctly you are saying that because some evolutionists consider the idea of common descent to undermine the idea of special creation that evolution is therefore a religious idea?Excession_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

The article doesn't use the word 'mutation'. But I can quote the part where mutations are mentioned:
While all of this may sound scientific, it in fact hinges on subtle but crucial religious assumptions. First consider the term paper analogy. It is true that we can scientifically determine the likelihood of whether or not the two students worked independently. We can do this because we understand very well the process of writing term papers. And if need be we could even measure the rate at which students make mistakes, so the probability of the shared errors could actually be calculated fairly accurately. In other words, we have an accurate and reliable model for the creation of term papers and their errors. But what about those shared biological errors? How many of us have created different species? And what researcher can measure the rate at which these errors arise when species are created? Of course we cannot measure such data--they come from our religious beliefs.
The words 'biological errors' are used, which are of course mutations. And like you pointed out, mutations are observed, so why does the author claim "we cannot measure such data--they come from our religious beliefs" ?BVZ_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

BVZ:
It seems to be saying that since mutations, and mutation rates cannot be observed, evolution is religious. Am I missing something?
Yes, I think you clicked on the wrong link. The post says nothing about mutation rates, observed or otherwise.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

BVZ,
"It seems to be saying that since mutations, and mutation rates cannot be observed, evolution is religious."
But...mutations and mutation rates have been observed (see EoE). The problem is that the observations simply don't fit the way the circus is being sold. If I understand Mr Hunter correctly, closing ones eyes to this fact is the "religious" part.Upright BiPed_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Yet more abject nonsense, on the same theme, from Cornelius Hunter. Follow his argument to its logical conclusion and you'd have to assume that finding plagiarism in student exam papers was also a religion. Hunter says: "But Darwin and evolutionists ever since have argued that evolution must be a fact because creation is obviously false." That is a complete and utter fabrication. It's not the fact that creation is false that most scientists, and indeed most of the public in the Western world, accept evolution as being established - it's the fact that the evidence for evolution (from the fossil record and observations of life today and increasingly from molecular biology) overwhelmingly points towards it. If "creation science" had never ever existed - let alone been demonstrated to be false by the overwhelming evidence that its claims such as the age of the Earth being 6000 years old are ludicrously wrong - then we would STILL accept evolution as being the most likely explanation SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE. And that is one reason why evolution is not a religion. Another, of course, is that we would drop evolution in an instant if better evidence demonstrated it to be false - hardly a religious trait. The only religion in Cornelius Hunter's blurb is his own private religion that evolution is a religion - all faith, no evidence, and blind refusal to see the evidence that his faith is wrong.Gaz_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

I have read the article, and I am not sure I am following the argument. It seems to be saying that since mutations, and mutation rates cannot be observed, evolution is religious. Am I missing something, or is this an accurate description of the position of the autor?BVZ_{June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply