Evolution is a Religion?

Question

Micro Evolution = SCIENTIFIC FACT
It is a known fact that DNA can be rearranged to change an animal’s characteristics. Take the many different breeds of Dogs or Cats as an example.

This should not be called Evolution. Since it’s not evolving into a different species. It’s the same species with just different characteristics.

Macro Evolution = RELIGIOUS BELIEF
This is taught in our schools as science when its actually a ‘faith based belief’ that the occurrence of mutations will only supply good traits over time via natural selection.

This goes directly against the Scientific method, which is investigating phenomena by gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. One can only observe what exists in the present. It is easy to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex.

The average person is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed).

Evolution is the religion to which they are committed.

Answer 1

Yes, Macro evolution is a religion if we define religion as faith based practice. People get bent out shape about this because they bring extra baggage with the word "religion" and don't want to equate it with science.

However, science is largely a religion. Take for instance the electron, noboday has ever seen an electron, they can only measure its effects in space. Therefore, scientist must BELIEVE in electrons, since it is not scientifically, objectively visible.

I would caution you to equate micro evaluation as scientific FACT. Sure, it may be more observable than macro, but be weary of anything you call a FACT, for that implies there is no possiblity of change, and science has always been proven wrong.

Answer 2

"Micro Evolution = SCIENTIFIC FACT
It is a known fact that DNA can be rearranged to change an animal’s characteristics. Take the many different breeds of Dogs or Cats as an example."

---Well, you are right on this one. However, creation is still scientifically flawed.

"This should not be called Evolution. Since it’s not evolving into a different species. It’s the same species with just different characteristics."
--- This is evolution, because it is the biological changes of a species' DNA to form a new variation. That is what evolution is.

"Macro Evolution = RELIGIOUS BELIEF
This is taught in our schools as science when its actually a ‘faith based belief’ that the occurrence of mutations will only supply good traits over time via natural selection."
---You know, science is not faith. There is substantial evidence, overwhelming evidence to support evolution. Tiktaalik, Australopithecus afarensis, Archaeopteryx, Cyndictis, etc.

"This goes directly against the Scientific method, which is investigating phenomena by gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning."
---This is not the scientific method, the scientific method is to gather evidence, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, compare the data, and draw a reasonable and likely conclusion. This is what was done with evolution. Evolution was the hypothesis, scientists tested it by observing minor variations between modern species and major variations between modern and extinct ones, they compared the data by seeing if it contradicted other scientific data from different fields, and then drew the conclusion that it fit perfectly into the scheme of life and made sense. Since then more evidence has been gathered to make evolution as true as it is today.

"One can only observe what exists in the present. It is easy to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex."
---The evidence is in the rock and the DNA of modern animals, dumbass. If we needed a time machine to prove a theory correct, we'd still think the earth was flat and dinosaurs stood vertically.

"Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present originated."
--- Tough words, seeing as you weren't there to see the world be created in seven days and the only evidence you have is a prejudiced and contradictory book that is 1,000 years old.

"Evolution is a belief system--a religion!"
--- Wrong, it is a scientific theory. It is based on scientific observations. You know, if you lived back when dinosaurs were first discovered, you would have said that they were living animals because "God wouldn't let his creations become extinct" simply because the bible tells you that. When you find a living dinosaur (excluding birds) you let me know.


"Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists."
---If creationists changed, why do they use fraud evidence to support their claims and mold the facts into fiction so it can fit their theory?


"But the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present."
---As I said before, evolution is a scientific theory. No matter what you say, the creation argument has so little evidence that is actually valid it could almost be ignored were it not for people like you who don't know how to think.

"Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). "
--- You are not prepared to accept the fact that there may not be a God, or that you are wrong. So this is the pot calling the kettle black. And I believe in both God and Evolution, there is no conflict.




Try harder, old buddy.

Answer 3

I would strongly disagree. While evolution is technically a theory it is one based on a large base of scientific and historical records. Do we have a complete picture and understanding of it yet? Not fully, and we may never have the complete picture. Even given that it is still the best answer for the questions at hand. It is not a faith based idea. There is no mythical, magical icon to be worshipped. No fear and guilt based incentives for believing. No illusionary reward of a heaven if you are a good sheep and have blind faith. Bottom line is that evolution is fact based and religion is fairie tale based.

Answer 4

I think our biggest problem is we do not try and find what we are capable of mentally, the life we have is just life with social status and belief systems, so we are programmable even as we fight not to be we will be programed, so in what you are saying is true as each child is born this program or system will follow until one day it will be What ever someone had in mind, but what would we be without being programed, an animal no longer in existence. So how far will our minds allow before change is needed and what makes some of us leave the program, is it we know it not right or resistance

Answer 5

Evolution is science. It is based on a systematic analysis of evidence. The fact that anatomic taxonomy, based on the fossil record, predicted the genetic homologies found when the technology became available is a clear demonstration. You can try to make up your own definitions for your politicoreligious reasons, but Creationism is not science and evolution is not religion.

Answer 6

I agree absolutely. Most evolutionists look at the evidence with the presupposition that no creator was involved. Every possible answer is considered except the possibility of a creator. Their judgments are completely bias.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. -- Webster's Universal College Dictionary

About faith...it takes a lot of it to "believe" all this just happened by chance.

Answer 7

It is not a scientific fact. There are people called "evolutionists" but it is not a religion. But really , I would like to meet an evolutionist to ask them why, eventhough Darwin admitted that he had no idea what he was talking about, they believe in evolution and why, if we evolved from monkeys, are they still here? None of the other "species" are still here. Whats so special about monkeys?

Answer 8

It is absolutely not a religion. Those who believe that the evolution is true and that we originated from apes believe they are the missing link. Maybe their narrowness on their belief that there is no God make them monkeys. God is everywhere he cannot be seen but his reactions in our lives is clearer than those scientific theories. The story of Gods creation might be a fiction but anyone can believe that adam and eve as the first humans might be the first logical thinkers of Gods creation, they might be the first austrluphitecus, homo erectus or whatsoeverer. so in any case if the evolution is true it is still Gods creation.

Answer 9

I do not worship a fossil record.
I do not have a shrine to Homologies.

Religion requires faith. Religious beliefs do not require evidence and do not have to withstand scrutiny. A religion simply is. If you don't agree, find a different one.

The theory of Evolution is science. If you disagree with it, conduct a study and conclusively debunk it. If you are correct and your experiment can be duplicated then others will reject the Theory of evolution as well

Science and Religion are not the same.

Answer 10

No, it's a scientific explanation of how god created a multitude of living things. Science is not religion, nor does it try to be. It operates by logic and mathematics, whereas religion addresses those concerns we have that must be taken of faith because of a lack, or an ability to perceive, sufficient data.