Is not Evolution just another religion/faith?

Question

- Religion sprouts from an inspired man. Evolution sprouts from an inspired man, (Ancient Greece, Darwin)

- Religion supports tales occurring before man. Evolution supports tales occurring before man.

- Religion answers questions every man longs the answers for. Evolution answers questions every man longs the answers for.

- Religion cannot prove the basis of its claim, (GOD). Evolution cannot prove the basis of its claims, (surviving-life from non-life)

- The religious defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis. Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis.

- Religion supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true. Evolution supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true.

- Religion assumes to be true based on the thousands of writings supporting it. Evolution assumes to be true based on the thousands of writings supporting it.

- Religion offers a liberty, freedom from evil and its damnation. Evolution offers a liberty, freedom from "GOD" and the "holiness" "HE" requires.

- Religion assumes the ultimate wisdom, and that all opposition lack wisdom. Evolution assumes the ultimate knowledge, and that all opposition contends knowledge.

- Religion offers enlightenment. Claiming all opposition is in ignorance and/or denial. Evolution offers enlightenment. Claiming all opposition is in ignorance and/or denial.

Is not Evolution just another religion/faith?

Answer 1

The theory of evolution is most definitely NOT a religion.

I disagree with the accuracy of your comparison. To elaborate...
1) Evolution did not sprout from an inspired man. Evolution was postulated to explain evidence, and that evidence points to common descent. Evolution was postulated 100 years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and the ones who came up with it first were not greek, nor were they Charles Darwin.
2) "Religion supports tales occurring before man." If these tales are interpreted metaphorically, there is no conflict between science and the bible. It is only biblical literalists that take issue with it. Still, this statement and the supposed comparison doesn't help to define evolution as a religion.
3) If religion is defined as that which answers the questions every man longs the answer for, I guess Jeapardy, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and other such TV shows are also religions.
4) What constitutes proof is up to the individual. Evolution is proven to me. Maybe not to you. That's fine. For the sake of argument, we will say that there is no proof of evolution. But there is a lot of evidence for it. Creationists have no evidence whatsoever, other than twisted science, fallacious arguments, and illogical conclusions. Oh yeah. I forgot about criticisms of evidence for evolution. Regardless of how valid the criticism, that isn't evidence for creation.
5) "Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis" Again, this premise is way off. If you think a particular brand of car is better than any other, you may argue why, but you couldn't prove the statement to be true. And I doubt you would consider your preference for that make and/or model a religion.
6) Evolution is supported only on the basis of the evidence. Prior to the fossil record, and prior to taxonomy, it was assumed that all earth's critters were created from nothing. Then came the evidence. Then came people who looked at it closely. Then came the attempt to explain that evidence...evolution.

I could go on through the rest of your points, but none of them are accurate comparisons between religion and evolution, in my opinion.

Here is a much better breakdown of how religion and evolution differ...
From http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
"1) Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
2) Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
3) Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
5) Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
6) Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
7) Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off into new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982)."

Further (my own argument, not copied and pasted), when you consider that many people from many different established religions believe in evolution, it makes it rather clear that evolution is not a religion. Even if you ask a non-believer what his religion is, he or she will tell you that they are an atheist, not an evolutionist. Personally, I am a christian who happens to believe in evolution. I believe that Jesus is may Savior. I also believe that the bible is the Word of God. When I debate Young Earth Creationists, I am not arguing with the bible. I am arguing with their narrow interpretation of it.

Answer 2

I guess you can say that evolution requires faith as all other beliefs do, but it definately is not a religion. We do not worship Darwin nor his book as holy. On the contrary, his book "On the Origin of Species" defied Christian dogma that only God could have created such complex and wonderful creatures such as ourselves. He gave us a clear, reasonable alternative to the creation theory which fit the observation of nature very, very well.

You cannot compare religious mythos tales with what Darwin was trying to say. Darwin's stories are logical guesses as to what out ancestors might and probably have looked like. The fact that we descend from apes should not be a surprise, since the evidence is in our own physiology. Darwin's stories are deduced from science, facts, while religious stories are hearsay.

Physics too answers questions every man searches for, so does astronomy, and astrology, in fact all science and religion answers questions man searches for.

Religion cannot prove God, and cannot disprove God either. Evolution has been proven! Though it is still considered a theory, it has been thee best theory to fit description of nature and most comprehensive to come along. Not since Darwin has there been a better explanation as to how we became what we are. And yes, we can and have created complex organic molecules from inorgranic molecules.

I truly dont understand how people still dont believe in evolution. The evidence is right there, in your face, everywhere you go.

Clear the dogmatic cloud of your mind, and open your eyes to the truth. God and evolution are not incompatable. I am a spiritual person who believes in god. But I know the difference between a religion and a physical theory.

There was once a time when Columbus thought the world was round and people didnt believe him.. and a man named Copernicus thought we revolved around the sun and religious folks shunned him... are we still persecuting Darwin for proclaiming the truth?

Answer 3

No, Evolution is not a religion/faith!
A religion/faith requires a certain amount of "blind trust"- that is, you believe/trust it because of certain things that you cannot see and cannot hope to ever understand. All faiths/religions have certain ideas that cannot be tested to be true or false.
Evolution is Science and science ONLY deals with things that can be measured and tested. Science makes hypothesizes (explanations) and then tests them. It does not have any untestable elements to it- although certain things in Science might seem like that just because it cannot be tested in one lifetime (but it can be tested if other people follow it for really long time).
Also, Science works because people are always trying to unbiasly gather support for/against an idea. As soon as undisputed proof shows that the idea IS wrong, that idea is discarded or modified to fit the new information. Then, scientists go back and try to gather more support for/against it. Religions/faiths do not do such continual testing.

Answer 4

The problem with your assertions is you are comparing apples and oranges and using semantics to make them look similar.

Science is the process of peer reviewed theories based on evidence. These theories make predictions that have to be verified through experimentation. So I can't just say gravity is caused by tiny little strings pulling on everything and it be a valid theory. I would have to say these little strings pulling everything can be detected with, a quantum comb. If I found those strings with said quantum comb then that shows that perhaps my theory might be valid. If I didn't, I would either have to come up with an explanation why those strings weren't there that could be verified in subsequent experiments OR reject my whole gravity is caused by strings theory. NOT only that, but other scientists (my peers) are constantly making up their own experiments and coming up with their own theories and submit their findings to academic journals for PEER review. Thus through competition and repetitive analysis, scientific knowledge progresses.

Religion on the other hand doesn't make predictions that are subject to the peer review process. I can say God created the universe or Vishnu for that matter. But I cannot make predictions from that claim. Even if I did, say claim that I *found* the garden of Eden with the angel's sword which turns every which way, and it turns out I didn't, that does not disprove the notion that God didn't make the whole universe. Even if I got a fax from, um, Zeus who claimed that he invented Christianity as a joke, that wouldn't disprove anything. Religious leaders could claim that Zeus was the devil, or a super powerful alien, or a mass hallucination. It would be up to the individual to determine whether they accept this as faith.

Science and religion are apples and oranges. Faith vs Reason. That's not to say you can't have faith in science or reason in your faith, but at their core they are two extremely separate things.

Answer 5

Evolution is a "Scientific Theory". That means it is a logic-based model that fits the observable facts. If someone provides scientifically testable evidence that it is flawed, it will be amended. That's how science works. Religion is based on rules that exist because a man in a skirt says that's what the rules are! Slight difference...

Answer 6

Religious types see religious things everywhere. Religious loonies fear that evolution means there is no God, or that God used "random" processes to make life and humanity.

But evolution is not random. Example: when you were conceived, one sperm out of millions fertilized the egg. If a different sperm had made it, you would be a girl, or a blond, or a dwarf. But would that mean that God loved you any less?

Yet the sperm that made you was not random. It was faster and stronger than the rest, so natural selection favored it. This is the beauty of evolution by natural selection, forever perfecting living things.

Answer 7

- Religion sprouts from an inspired man. Evolution sprouts from an inspired man, (Ancient Greece, Darwin)

Just like Gravity

- Religion supports tales occurring before man. Evolution supports tales occurring before man.

Astronomy

- Religion answers questions every man longs the answers for. Evolution answers questions every man longs the answers for.

Science in general

- Religion cannot prove the basis of its claim, (GOD). Evolution cannot prove the basis of its claims, (surviving-life from non-life)

WRONG!!

- The religious defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis. Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis.

BULLSHIT!

- Religion supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true. Evolution supports itself based on the assumption its basis is true.

Uh... What? Doesn't... What?

Answer 8

In the same way that the theory of gravity and a theory of invisible fairies pulling mass togather are equal "faiths." The mistake of ignorant fundamentalists is to assume that all faiths are equal, which, as the above theory of gravity vs. invisible fairy theory shows, is silly.

Answer 9

Separation of church and state was made to protect us from your kind of "reasoning"

Evolution will always be a faith in YOUR mind

Answer 10

no evolution is not a religion.I think your logic is a bit off.