Is evolution a religious belief?

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-circuit/1467028.html#sthash.m2Az6wZG.dpuf


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

 

Great posting NB... I had read those statements of the court but somehow lost the link wherein I found them... Thanks for posting them to this forum.

 

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to rule a belief that there are no gods qualifies as a religious belief, but to the extent that those holding those beliefs are often so fervent about their beliefs, even more so than recognized religions of the world, the ruling by SCOTUS seems to have merit.

 

Is astronomy a "religious belief"?

For instance, a certain Young Earth Creationist claims that the Universe, despite being visibly older, is only 6000 years old.

So is the Palomar Observatory a "church"????

 

Evolution is a scientific theory... while religion is a spiritual endeavor.. Science makes the Bible stories silly and bogus unless you read them to the deeper, spiritual message.

 

But you forget, Margot....there are those Christians whose faith is so WEAK....that if there is the slightest bit of "fiction" to the Bible...even the tribal creation myth of Genesis....

in their minds, their entire belief-system would collapse. Even postulating that life on Earth, the Earth, or even the entire Universe was older that "what the Bible says it is."

 

Well, that's certainly true... their religious beliefs would collapse.

 

That would be up to the individual to determine and whether he/she puts into practice a form of worship or devotion toward astronomy.

Is it possible for one to make a visual determination as to whether or not something is greater than 6000 years old? Explain what level of visual acuity is necessary to make such a determination based solely on visibility?

If a person desires to use the Palomar Observatory as a church and depending on the permission of the owner(s) of that facility granting such permission, then the Palomar Observatory can be classified as a church.

 

No because evolution is based on observed evidence.

 

Evolution is based on science, not religious faith.

 

So there is 'evidence' available wherein evolution has been seen as a current event? In other words: is there evidence wherein evolution has been witnessed by one or more competent witnesses who have no vested interest in the event?

 

Please provide the particular scripture wherein the 'Bible' says that the Earth or even the universe is a particular age. Do not provide an interpretation of scripture.

 

It hasn't yet. Maybe you have made a new discovery? Would you like to share that with us?

 

Yes.

10 char

- - - Updated - - -

Is the meaning of "based on" confusing for you?

 

Then please provide a link to such evidence.

 

Who can claim to have 'visual evidence' of the origin of the universe which is the foundation of the religious belief evolutionists have of how we arrived here?

Just to clarify early on, animal varieties (poodles, spaniels, wolves, etc.) is not, for the purpose of this discussion, evolution. On that there is no contention. What is at odds is macro-evolution of change over time of one kind of animal (cow) into another kind of animal (whale). This has never been observed contemporaneously nor is there undisputable evidence from any artifacts.

- - - Updated - - -

Is providing that evidence impossible for you to accomplish?

 

Not at all I'm just listening to music and drinking vodka. Ask me tomorrow.

 

Evolution is not a religious belief. It does not have a god, it does not have any other object of "worship", it has no dogma since as a scientific theory it is subject to change should the scientific evidence require it (to date none has arisen).

Atheism is a philosophy. It is not a religion since it does not have a god, there is not other object of worship, and there is not established dogma other than god does not exist. As an agnostic atheist, should irrefutable evidence of god's existence be found, I'll readily change my perspective.

As for "observing" that the earth is not 6,000 years old, it seems those arguing that it is dismiss the fact that sciences such as geology, archeology, chemistry, biology, genetics, etc. are all derived from and substantially based on observation.

 

Evolution cannot be a religious belief because it would be rejected by any critical thinker if evidence didn't support it.

The beauty of science and critical thinking is that nothing exists without evidence. It's not romantic or exciting, but there is truth in simplicity.

 

I am using the Supreme Court's legal definition of religion, when they state believe in no god is equal to belief in god(s). Likewise, since evolutionists believe everything originated from nothing, that belief seems to qualify as a religious belief since in is not based on observation.

We agree, the scientific method requires observation and repeatability. Since there are no records of history back beyond six thousand years, anything beyond that is speculation and based on too many suppositions to be counted as science.

 

If true, why then do so many people believe events occurred without any evidence or even a written record?

 

Evolution of what, exactly? Evolution is a process that applies to many different fields of study. Whether someone considers "evolution" to be a religious belief would depend entirely upon that person's particular religion, wouldn't it?

I am not aware of any major religion that holds the process of evolution as a foundational belief. If you know of one that does, then why not simply share with us the name of said religion? Why be so cryptic?

 

Wow if this is true I can create a "study" group and then become tax exempt. Thanks Supreme Court.

 

I explained evolution for the purpose of this discussion in the OP.

As far as religions that hold evolution as a core belief, the debate is can evolution be classified as a religion considering the factors in the OP

- - - Updated - - -

You can get ordained and double park too.

 

What can be more simple than 'faith'. Therefore, 'God did it' is the simplest answer... to attempt to explain how or why God did it, only makes the matter more complicated than need be and denies the operation of 'faith'.