Response to "More on Religion pt3"

You say "So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?"

Another point: My illustration about evil doesn't illustrate in any way shape or form that creationism is not religious because of it's association with a religious paradigm. You are conflating differing types of associations. Creationism is part of a religious paradigm because it is necessarily dependent on a creator. Evolution has no such dependency relationship with a religious paradigm. Some religious are evil but not necessarily dependent on evil. Some relgions embrace evolution, but don't necessarily have a dependency relationship. But creationism requires a creator, so it is necessarily religious, and no non-religious worldviews have creators.

You said (long quote, sorry)

I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?

No, not poor communication, fundamental disagreement on a wide variety of points. "Descent with modification" is a definition used by evolutionary biologists. It is a definition that Berkeley's site on evolution uses, for example. I don't think there is an ideology of uniformitarianism outside of some creationist books and websites. Evolutionary Theory (I'm using the word "theory" in the same sense as I would if I said Theory of Gravity, by the way) is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different. There is no creed in evolutionary theory. You'll see very sharp disagreements on a regular basis amongst evolutionary biologists. The common agreements are based on extensive evidence(not uniformitarianism, whatever that is) and the disagreements are associated with those hypothesis that don't have strong evidential support. It is the way science works. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science; there is no central authority anywhere that dictates any supposed "uniformitarianism" that I'm aware of; scientists would rightfully reject if even if it did exist.

You said "So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)?"

We're probably getting closer to a better definition, but that is still unsatisfactory. I believe in justice, for example, and justice is non-physical, but that belief in justice is not religious. If by 'non-physical' you mean supernatural, then probably yes.

Anyway, that is my answers for now.