Can evolution be classified as a religion?

In light of the definition upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court* on multiple occasions that atheism, and most probably by extension evolution, is a protected religious belief, even if no god fills the place parallel with other established religions. Therefore by the strictest definition, evolution/ Neo Darwinism is a religious belief system which is held mostly by those claiming to be atheists. This is confirmed by the belief of those holding to the evolutionist faith, of a supernatural** origin of all time, space and matter and/or creation of life.

Compared to the Genesis account contained within the Jewish, Christian and to a degree the Muslim and other faiths, where the belief is that In the beginning God created everything, the religion of evolution teaches, in the beginning nothing created everything. Neither model conforms to the known laws of science, both models require a belief beyond that which science has known and can predict.

The Genesis account is admittedly a miraculous event and by definition, is beyond the known scientific laws of nature, whereas those adhering to the nothing created everything model deny the existence of, and/or contort scientific laws to avoid the admitting their blind-faith in the proposed supernatural event is a religious belief.


* The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.   See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).   A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961);  Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring);  Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981);  Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.  Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted);  see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970);  United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965).   We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.   See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).   Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”   In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”  Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted).   As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-ci....m2Az6wZG.dpuf


**(su.per.nat.u.ral = beyond or above nature, not explained by natural phenomena)

 

Some say that NASCAR is a religion... but what is the point of labeling evolution a religion other than to annoy some atheists?

 

It's all about making belief in fairies appear 'normal' - residual to the rapid demise of religion in the western world. they'll grab anything which reassures them that they're not the odd ones out now.

 

Ah, is this another person not knowing what the word "equivalent" means? The reasons you have given is not enough to claim that evolution is a religion. However, that is merely a semantic distinction. If there is any argument you wish to throw at evolution, you should be able to do so regardless of the status of evolution. Atheists don't reject religions _because_ they're religions, but for other reasons which sometimes can be summed together under the umbrella of religion. Therefore, determining that evolution is a religion would do nothing to the argument (except for possibly making the debate harder to follow).

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, what you want to focus on here is abiogenesis. That's much harder, since it's not actually always happening.

 

good post.

many atheists have no problem with buddhism for example, and it's classified as a religion. it's a comfort move, and in keeping with a dependence on titles, to ignore the fact that atheists reject religion because of the supernatural claims primarily, and reject individual religions on merit (or lack of).

 

Interestingly....the Most Non Atheist person on our planet believes in evolution, we refer to him as the Pope.

 

catholics will be the last men standing in the west.

 

What basis in natural law are you making such a claim?

 

"Pope Francis has been head of the Catholic Church for less than two years, but in that time he has managed to overshadow his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, with his progressive statements on issues ranging from gay marriage to capitalism. On Monday, he did it again, saying evolutionary theory does not contradict biblical teaching—at an unveiling of a bust of Benedict."
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franci...ot-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

Though I am sure this is not "Empirical" enough to convince your mind and must be dismissed for lack of "Proof"

 

protestants are scary.

 

Well, if you want to deem such comments as "Empirical" evidence, then you should also deem the opinions of others (that are not qualified scientists) as "Empirical" evidence. It seems that there is an appeal to authority taking place on your part.

 

Like I said....nevermind.

 

The pope may be non atheistic but he isn't a Bible believing Christian.

- - - Updated - - -

The NASCAR fan base does not believe is supernatural events or processes as part of the fanaticism. Evolutionists do.

 

Wait a minute. You presented a piece of evidence, I analyzed that evidence and made further inquiry pertaining to that evidence and why that type of evidence is not acceptable when being delivered by another source (person). Now you want to say "nevermind"?

 

"Remember that other people may be totally wrong. But they don't think so. Don't condemn them. Any fool can do that. Try to understand them. Only wise, tolerant, exceptional people even try to do that." - Dale Carnegie

 

What supernatural processes do evolutionists believe in? Perhaps first we need to define what constitutes supernatural?

 

No....you questioned my comment on the Pope, I showed you documentation on it's accuracy, then you tried to sideline into something else....as you usually do rather than admit your opponent was correct. I have grown tired of your stupid games and poor excuse for debate and discussion, so I have decided to bow out rather than waste further time.

 

So you are now admitting to abandoning the battlefield.... the battlefield of debate/discussion. Yes! I also questioned your comment on the Pope... not as to its accuracy,,, but rather why you would accept it as evidence and not accept the same type of evidence from some other Joe Blow who also does not have credentials that would qualify either to have the title of scientist. I also pointed out my suspicion that you were therefore making an appeal to authority... to which you do not argue, but rather and merely "bow out"... abandoning the discussion/debate (battlefield). Your fail,,, NOT mine.

 

People who don't understand the science, nor are willing to try to understand it due to intentional ignorance and a steadfast belief in ideas forced into them as a kid are likely to think of evolution the way you do. Your lack of understanding of evolution doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you lack understanding.

 

Wow - that is probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard a theist make.

And THAT, my friend, is saying something!

 

The sticking point to me for why religion is so ridiculous is because most of the time, said God of said religion possesses petty, human traits and emotions that are beneath such an entity. The God of the Bible is described in such a way that it is obvious he is reflective of attitudes during the time period he was written about. If this is the guy we are supposed to be worshipping, we are all screwed.

It's also humorous to me that the Jews don't believe in a heaven for mere humans. Heaven is another human concept, invented by people during the time frame heaven was conceptualized. Prior to Christianity, heaven was God(s) domain, and that was it. But of course, a "heaven" for good people and "hell" for bad people provided those with power a means to control. Using fear to rule people the way you want to rule them is nothing new.

 

This is total nonsense. We have clear ways of qualifying sources.

If you are proposing to listen to empirical evidence found by science then the rules of science apply and those who are not scientists must be considered relatively unimportant.

If you are talking about religious "evidence" then those who are not theologians must be considered less demanding than comments from those expert in religion.

If you are proposing any other kind of evidence, then you better have some other sort of measure, as without that the evidence is most probably pure garbage.

A lot of the problem on this topic comes from people mixing methodologies and ignoring expert opinion from within the appropriate methodology.

 

The definition as in Meridian Webster's Dictionary.

The origin of the universe from nothing life from a mud puddle and a cow turning into a whale (of course given enough time and typewriters).

- - - Updated - - -

The same can be said of your ignorance of Genesis.

 

Hell is nothing more than God's judgement for sinners, just as prison is Man's judgement for criminals. Christians believe Jesus the Messiah served our sentence with His death on the cross for we who believe He did so and our judgement has been paid.

 

Again with the petty emotions and primitive ideas developed by human beings for human beings. Human progress has moved past religion, which is why religion is struggling to update itself with the times instead of the other way around.

Your willful ignorance of the scientific truths around you impedes humans potential. Mostly because you're a voter, and you probably bred or will breed at some point in time.