No, it's science. Different beast altogether.
The reason it's not religion is that religion relies entirely on faith. You can entertain a religious belief and it matters not whether there is any valid evidence or argument in support of it. Religious beliefs are generally constructed in such a way that it's impossible to perform any test which would invalidate the belief.
Scientific theories, on the other hand, have to be falsifiable in order to be valid. There are many different and independent ways that common descent could potentially be falsified, but in all of the vast amount of evidence we have so far discovered, in the form of fossil evidence, genetics, cladistics, phylogeny, biochemistry and so on, it never has been. Common descent is so strongly supported by objective evidence that it would be obtuse to regard it as anything other than a fact.
Evolution does not have 'its own morality' as another respondent suggested, any more than gravity has 'its own morality' - Evolution is simply an observation of how the world really is. Nor does it have a 'deity' - We accept that the flipping of a coin involves 'random chance' but we don't invoke a deity in that process, so there's no reason to invoke one in evolution either.
So, common descent is a scientific fact, and not in any way a religious belief.
2006-08-30 05:24:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Well, I don't know. First, would a one-celled organism be classified as a critter? Or merely a critterling or critter-lette? maybe just a crit? And what would the religion be called? Critterism seems almost perverted sounding, like an illegal fondness of sheep or something. -bleck! How about Criticism? ahahaha... sorry. umm... Darwinism? I don't know why, I just came up with that name out of the blue... I don't think it's so much a religion as a philosophy, unless you make ritual sacrifices to that "original critter being" or something, and then I think it might be called something else, look that up in a book on psychiatric disorders. Anyway, I agree with evolution and have a separate religion, is that ok? Could I be part of your "critter church" and my church? Well, that's all I have, fun question, thanks. -Rick
2006-08-30 12:43:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. That's science. Only people who try to use evolution to say there absolutely is no God is using it as one would use a religion. But it's not a religion in and of itself. It's akin to saying that if one believes 2+2=4 they must have math as their religion.
2006-08-30 12:35:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kithy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is an explanation of what we cannot know for sure. Since it is hard to prove history, we must believe that life came to be in a certain way. If you believe something, it is your religion.
Evolution has its own morality (make sure the species survives) and its own deity (random chance). So yes, that makes it a religion.
2006-08-30 12:29:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Morwen 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, if you believe it it's a belief. And I'm sure Webster defines 'religion' as a belief.
2006-08-30 12:25:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by lmartyn09 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
No it's science which differs from religion in that science deals with reality.
2006-08-30 12:28:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by bonzo the tap dancing chimp 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you classify Science as a religion then it is.
2006-08-30 12:25:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Yep, cause it reliy's on faith in something that not only has it not been proven, but what evidence they do have is fabricated.
2006-08-30 12:29:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I guess its just belief in nothing, that there is no God. it is not a religion. P.S we did not evolve from nothing - God made us.
2006-08-30 12:26:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by miss_jennifer79 2
·
1⤊
4⤋
Why can't God have designed evolution, too? I mean it is living perfection. Why can't it be of God?
2006-08-30 12:26:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Earth Queen 4
·
0⤊
2⤋