Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OK, not one invisible man but two, which makes for a better narrative.

Although I recognize you're trying to be funny, no, not "one invisible man, but two". No men. Men have nothing to do with it. Omnipotent Creator and to a lesser extent, Destroyer.

Not men.

[Undertoad]

Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Invisible is the more operative word; you don't require any proof of your story at all, right?

Wrong.

Could it have happened the way the bible says it did? Is it possible the earth is only about 6,000 years old?

Yes.

OK, prove it.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class!

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

[elf]

You can't tell a kid "A higher power made people" and not explain who - at which point your kid's teacher just became a preacher. Ohhhh, not good. Therefore, it doesn't belong in school.

Bottom line as far as I can tell is thus:
Evolutionism is based on tremendous amounts of science: question, study, theorize, test. To the best of many brilliant minds' understanding, this is the way things have happened. 1+1=2. It makes sense.

Creationism is based on tremendous amounts of faith in a book, written forever ago by people who had no idea that the human body is made up of cells and that you catch a cold by coming into contact with the germs.

I'm much too tempted start in with the "If God made us in His own image, then what's <i>He </i>standing on?" questions. But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by elf

But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.

I concur.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by elf

You can't tell a kid "A higher power made people" and not explain who - at which point your kid's teacher just became a preacher. Ohhhh, not good. Therefore, it doesn't belong in school.

OK, I'm going to say this one more time, in BOLD and CAPITAL letters, so maybe someone will read it this time.

I DON'T ADVOCATE TEACHING BIBLICAL OR ANY OTHER CREATIONIST THEORY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. NOR SHOULD PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHERS ADVOCATE OR TEACH THE EVOLUTIONIST ORIGIN OF MAN.

Did you get it this time?

Bottom line as far as I can tell is thus:
Evolutionism is based on tremendous amounts of science: question, study, theorize, test. To the best of many brilliant minds' understanding, this is the way things have happened. 1+1=2. It makes sense.

Read previous post about presuppositions. Darwin's origin of man is GUESSWORK. If it was science that life came from non-life, you'd be able to make life come from non-life in a test tube. Since that can't be done, you have NO PROOF!! Just like *gasp* creationist theories!!

Creationism is based on tremendous amounts of faith in a book, written forever ago by people who had no idea that the human body is made up of cells and that you catch a cold by coming into contact with the germs.

Uh, actually, it's been posited that the bible (in the clean/unclean and the "put her away for a week" etc portions) were actually a great idea for the time, and is the FIRST evidence of quarantine as a way to curb contagious diseases. Seems like SOMEONE understood germs way back in the first 5 books of the bible.

I'm much too tempted start in with the "If God made us in His own image, then what's <i>He </i>standing on?" questions. But that's not what this whole thing is about, so I think I am going to back out of this discussion now.

You're right, it's not what this discussion is about, that's a WHOLE other thread. This isn't about why a person belives in one diety or another (or none at all).

[OnyxCougar]

Ah, I see. Well, I'm not sure that squids and whales have different eyes. I know that squids and humans do, but not about squids and whales. This is why I was posting comparisons to squids and humans, not squids and whales. My fault. Entirely.

I don't know why they have different eyes. Perhaps it's because their nervous systems are completely different, so the way the optic nerve handles information is different? Again, I have no clue, that's just a guess.

My best suggestion is to submit that question to AiG and see what they say. Smart bunch of folks, and lots of them are scientists, like marine biologists, etc. That would be the place to get your questions answered. I'm hardly a scientist of any discipline.

Edit to add:

IIUC, squids do not have contact with the air AT ALL, while whales need air to breathe...so perhaps the eye was formed in the whale differently from the squid because it DOES have contact with the air?? Shamu et all sure spend alot of time above water... ?? I dunno...just something I thought of....

[OnyxCougar]

a PDF on Whale eyes (appears to be a children's textbook):

relevant info is on page 3 and 4

http://www.destinationcinema.com/our...ments/v3_3.pdf

quote from page 3:

The vertebrate eye is like a camera that forms a
picture. The visual system transmits the image
in biochemical code to the brain via the optic
nerves. The human eye is similar to the eyes of
other mammals, whales included.

and a really good explaination of the differences between squid and human eyes:

In humans (and in fact in all vertebrates) the inner layer of the optic cup forms the retina. This means the retina is actually "reversed", with the light-sensitive portion (the rods and cones) on the outside. IOW, incoming light has to pass through all of the layers before it reaches the rods and cones.

This is where the idea that the layers provide protection against certain types of light from frying the rods and cones.

In squid (and octopi and other molluscs), however, the eye is somewhat different. The light sensitive portion is on the inside surface, facing the incoming light. Light strikes the rods and cones before the other parts. This means that squid eyes have substantially greater light sensitivity than humans. The nerve fibers of the squid eye don't have to pass through the retina to enter the visual cortex of the brain, they are already on that side of it. By contrast, the neural elements of the vertebrate eye must pass through, and that's what makes the blind spot. Squid eyes have no blind spot.

In addition, squid eyes have a different focussing mechanism (using the lens rather than the cornea) that allows significantly greater function underwater by reducing refraction and eliminating the problems humans have with astigmatism, etc. Squid don't have to wear glasses...

Does that help?

[Happy Monkey]

They are not equal. Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.

Evolution is one of the most profound and important scientific discoveries in history. Pretending it doesn't exist in science class would be a major disservice to the students. The only thing separating evolution from other sciences is the continual effort by religious groups making distinctions without a difference. If the same groups worked with the same fervor to highlight any holes in Einstein, and promote scientists who disagree with relativity, they could make a website just as extensive as AnswersInGenesis. (And I suspect they actually would go after astronomy next, if they succeeded with evolution.) All science is incomplete. There are always more twists and details to discover. That's just the way science works.

[Troubleshooter]

Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?

That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."

Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.

As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.

Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.

So mote it be...

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Ok, the root of the argument here appears to be not whether mutation and speciation occur but what is the First Cause of man, correct?

Yes. Finally. Someone read the phrase "evolution as it relates to the origin of man" that I posted so many times.

That being the case, I believe that the argument dies when we realize that the current evolutionary paradigm is putting the pieces of evidence together to create a theory as to the most likely cause of our current state of evolution and that the bible says "God says it happened this way."


Science deals in trends and degrees of likelihood, the *insert appropriate religious text here* says with 100% certainty it happened this way.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

As to how either of those is presented in a school environment, I can see where a teacher, or even the text, would gloss over the topic of evolution and just say that "scientists say that this is how it happened." That is not a failing of the scientist or the theory, but of the teacher or the publisher.

And my contention is that since ORIGINS is completely unprovable, leave it out entirely.

Again, evolution, when presented correctly, is science, and creationism, no matter how you present it, is religion.

So mote it be...

No, ORIGINS is not science. Any way you try to slice it. ORIGINS is religion, by whatever means you try to explain it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Evolution is science, whether you choose to understand it or not. Creationism is religion, whatever pseudoscientific trappings they try to dress it in. Science has a place in science classes, and religion does not.

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written. In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago? There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.

Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge. God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.

Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend. Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize. No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love. No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president. All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.

Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution? It means their one and only book has been obsoleted. Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history. How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god. Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god. Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.

Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences. Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations. For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence). Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.

God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws. When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay? Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays. How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people? Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.

[OnyxCougar]

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.

Originally Posted by tw

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science.

Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.

Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools.

You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.

Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written.

Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?

In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

You are incorrect. I'm not denying ANY facts. I'm denying a specific set of interpretations based on the facts. It is my belief that a different set of interpretations of the same facts can explain creationism JUST AS WELL as the interpretation posited by evolutionist origins.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

I don't know who views the bible as a book of science. Again, there are ideas of science in the bible, but it is hardly a science text. Your premise is flawed.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago?

Huh? Who said that? I thought you said there were no facts a few thousand years ago? You're contradicting yourself....

There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Who said only the bible can be correct? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said and then tell me I'm wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.
...
Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.
...
You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.
...
Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?
...
Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:
...
But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...

The bible as a tool of influence can easily be a source of 'good' or of 'evil'. The same parable is told in another story called Star Wars. Parables were powerful tools to justify an action or 'prove' the king was chosen by god. But in biblical days, that is how most of mankind knowledge was proven.

Still something happened in Greece long before - and yet was little understood since most people could not read let alone understand Greek. Socrates was using something radical called logic to prove things such as that the gods were simply nothing more than extensions of human traits. Socrates indeed taught things never before comprehended because he was using a new tool – logic. If – then …. For if gods choose people, practice jealously or disdain, and exercise personal will, then gods were not infinite. Even though so much of our early logic and even concepts of social order can be traced to the Greeks, still, people even 1000 years later had no knowledge of the concepts. The tools that so many had to perform 'advanced' thinking were parables from the bible.

It indeed was a good book in its time. And yet its concepts could also be used by (was it the Dominicans?) to massacre another French Catholic people (the Jesuits?). (Does anyone have this story - I cannot find it?) It justified the Crusades – even resulting in the ransacking of Constantinople in 1205. Therefore 'good' was just as easily turned into 'evil' - which means good and evil are based more on emotions - not necessarily on facts. But that is how the bible was used (manipulated) throughout history. We used an early social science to make mistakes - and learn more laws of nature - or god's laws if you will.

People such as DaVinci rescued, demonstrated, and performed logic in a time we call the Renaissance. In the days of Moses, one would only say something - and his credibility was enough? Tools of logical thought were that deficient. As science advanced, the procedures to establish facts have advanced. Currently we use things such as peer reviewed papers, bibliographic citations, and mathematical theory to demand far more before we accept something as fact. At least that is what one who is not a junk scientist does.

Things we call junk science were common in biblical times. Anyone who saw Capt Kirk transport to earth would indeed call him god. Today, we call those 'facts', at best, a parable. Did a burning bush talk to Moses? Ever see a speaker created from the flame of a bunsen burner? Was it god, some electronic wizardry, or just a fairy tale that Moses used to provide credibility to his ten rules of social order? Was Moses nothing more than a great 'innovator' who appreciated a need for better rules? Well we do call him a prophet.

The principles that Moses set forth are historically important and well proven principles. How the principles were created could have been a lie - so common with parables. But what those rules accomplished can be defined as the early principles of a science called law. Ten Commandments (and not necessary the story) are important facts in mankind history.

Principles of creation met the criteria for fact in biblical times. But man has advanced. We no longer believe the principles of spontaneous reproduction because our requirements for facts have made spontaneous reproduction nothing more than a myth. Same can be said of creationism. It too no longer meets the criteria as fact. It too has fallen to the rank of parable or nursery tale. A tale important to mankind's history. But not valid in a world of a constantly advancing science. There is no factual basis for creationism. Only a … we will get to that definition of religion later.

Currently mankind is in another struggle. We can no longer explain a universe that is four dimensional - length, width, height, and time. As we continue to advance, we may learn that this universe is 7 or 10 dimensional. IOW as our tools get better, we must now learn how a particle simultaneously in NYC and one in London are the same particle. What does the bible say about this? Real sciences - the principles that advance mankind - must continue long beyond what is found in the bible.

IOW we develop and then use better tools to learn more facts. Yes many things taken for fact in the first hundred years AD were nothing more than myths. The stars did not 'talk' to us. In the meantime, much great wisdom such as 500 BC Sze Tzu is still not understood even by (corrupt) leaders today who are getting and presenting the Freedom Metal …. because they were ignorant of well proven military science. Go figure. How do you explain that fact? Too much religious beliefs imposed on other people by a president who ‘believes he is god’s chosen one’ … reality and knowledge be damned. More examples of how a Christian religion imposed on others can cause the deaths of about 98,000 Iraqis.

There still are many mysteries (ie junk science proclamations) in the world such as WMDs and aluminum tubes. Even when science says otherwise, still many will believe myths. Mankind still has much to learn.

You may not know anyone who views the bible as an early book of science. And yet is that not what Moses brought down from the mountain? Does the bible say which foods of that time should not be eaten? Right there we have the science of law and the science of nutrition. Where else do biblical people learn how to advance mankind - the purpose of science? The Quran even teaches trade rules. Economics. Another science (although some might argue economics is black magic).

A definition of religion says

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Therein lies my point. In biblical times, the bible was some of the best science (other religions had similar principles and books). But the bible is now an obsolete book. Religious means believing in those old and now obsolete principles. IOW beliefs held with "ardor and faith" - as called emotions. Parables not based upon the newer tools of science such as logic. In Christian religion, god's prophet existed only in biblical times. In religion, god has sent no more prophets? Nonsense. That makes god nothing more than a super human. Or the creation of a good fiction writer.

Religion even in that definition implies no change - no advancement - no discovery - that things will always be the way less educated people believed - only because that was written back then. Religion must be based upon emotions such as “ardor and faith”? It requires “scrupulous conformity”? Any prophets that say otherwise must be wrong because only the bible is correct. Things based only upon emotion and not based upon what we now require as fact.

How trusting must a religious person be? Scam artists recognize the most religious among us are easiest to scam. They are the most trusting. Less likely to ask 'embarrassing' or probing questions. Most easily influenced by junk science reasoning. IOW people with less appreciation for science and most appreciation for the now obsoleted science are better defined as religious. It a trend - not a rule.

That pesky dictionary is not wrong. It also implies what one must do to choose religion over facts, logic, and other tools of science. Use emotion rather than facts.
[Continues in next post]