Is Evolution Religion?

Question

Religion: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Webster's Dictionary

Explain your reasoning

Im sorry for not clarifying - i meant Macroevolution, not micro

microevolution has been observed, macro has not

Answer 1

Well, I'm not sure which version of Webster's you got your definition from, but I have the 2003 edition of Webster's New World Dictionary, and here's its definition of religion.

Religion: n, from the Latin religio, holiness. 1. belief in and worship of God or gods. 2. a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics.

Seeing as how Evolution isn't a God(or gods, considering Micro and Macro evolutions), it can't be a religion by definition 1. Secondly, while people can believe in evolution, maybe even worship it(heh, if one's nutty enough. Most people I know who know evolution to be fact don't worship it, but I suppose there might be some nuts out there who do...), there's no code of ethics involved. Scientific rules as to what defines evolution, but no ethics demanding it.

Therefore, it's not a religion. The very definition of religion shows that.

As far as Macro and Micro evolution, while Macro can't be observed, that's because Macroevolution takes place over thousands and millions of years. Last I checked, people barely lived to be 100. Unless someone's able to live for that long, it's impossible for us to truly observe it, at least with current technology.

However, Microevolution is tiny, observable steps within a given species. These are clues to the answer of Macroevolution. It's like a puzzle. Microevolution is observable in the here and now. Macroevolution takes thousands and millions of years. But each moment of Microevolution leads to Macroevolution, one piece of the puzzle at a time. Considering that, Macroevolution is as good as observed from each piece of Microevolution.

So it's not a religion on the basis of the very definition of a religion, and while Macroevolution can't be seen because it takes so long to occur, it can be observed over time by putting together the instances of Microevolution.

Answer 2

No, because it is always being added to with further knowledge and evidence. If it was held with faith we would insist that it was unchangeable. The greatest degree to which ardour applies is in scientists' wish to find out more about it. Ironically, theists and anti-evolutionists like the guy above me claim that the very wish for evolutionists to refine these ideas, their recognition of their incompleteness, is the reason they are not valid. They do not realize that THAT would be what made evolution a religion. And why it isn't.

Answer 3

Evolution is a scientific theory.

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

Notice that none of that sounds like your Webster's dictionary definition.

Answer 4

That makes being the fan of a football team a religion, you realize. Especially if your team is on a losing streak.

I think your quoted definition is a slangish version of the word.

True definitions of religion (note last sentence in last one):

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief

a framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world

a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power

generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.

Answer 5

No, because one of the critical steps in science is challenging the assumptions.

There are two sets of criteria in your definition.
The first set only requires one of three be met:
(Out of order)
Principle -- yes
Cause -- unfortunately, it has become one
System of beliefs -- no (and arguing this point means nothing as the other two are satisfied)

The second set requires both criteria to be met:
Ardor -- in some people
Faith -- no, because the assumptions are continously reevaluated.

Answer 6

Evolution is science. It is not held to "with faith," it is accepted because of evidence. It is also falsifiable, meaning that if something comes along to debunk the theory, scientists will accept it, just as they've done with other theories. I doubt the same can be said of any religion.

Answer 7

UGH! No! Evolution is a scientific concept. NOT a religion. I "believe" in evolution only so far as it presents evidence to back up its claims. That is the opposite of faith--is it not?

Answer 8

No. It's science based on evidence. Just because it has assumptions and is not all as simple as 1+1=2 don't confuse it with blind faith.

Answer 9

Evolution: scientifically observable fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection: Theory supported by masses of mutually supporting evidence. evolution is science. science is the opposite to religion. Say no to jesus

Answer 10

Yes, it is a belief, a world view. It is not science, never has been, never will be. It cannot be tested using scientific methods i.e. repeated, observed, falsified, etc..The same for creation. We look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. The evidence strongly tilts in favor of creation. Classic Darwinian evolution is dying. They continually have to change their hypothesis to fit the evidence. Creationists never have to change their view based on the evidence since the preponderance of evidence supports special creation.