How can anyone, ANYONE seriously call Evolution a religion?!?

Question

If that's not just THE most ridiculous statement...

Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a process.

It is not random but DOES include mutations which are random. Natural Selection is non-random.

Evolution the FACT is that it indeed has happened and is still happening. Evolution the THEORY is how and why it happened.

Now, please realize that the word "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent". And with there being literally MOUNTAINS of evidence for Evolution, one must call it a fact. There is no way around that.

Less than 1/10th of 1% of the world's scientists in fields related to our origins (geology, biology, anthropology, etc) believe Creationism is even an OPTION. That means the evidence is clearly in favor of Evolution.

Please... PLEASE everyone look at this site. It's about common misconceptions about Evolution.
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm#1

I hear it all the time. "Evolution is JUST theory", "Evolution is a religion", "It hasn't been proven", "It takes more faith to believe in Evolution", "What about the missing link? That's proves Evolution is false", "How could you say we came from monkeys?", etc.

People... get an education. What is happening to and in our schools anyway? Have any of you read a science book at all? I mean really... this is all just sad I'm sorry to say.

Answer 1

The people who call evolution a religion are people who know absolutely nothing about it and base their judgment of it on false premises. Those people don't know the definition of a scientific theory either and they base their whole view of the evolution on the misconceptions they have about it.

Answer 2

The whole theory of evolution is not fact. Natural selection of favorable mutation has been observed in the field and in the laboratory sufficient times to qualify. Other aspects of evolution are "just a theory" like gravity is "just a theory". The phylogenetic tree is well-established, but sufficient inferences have been made to qualify it as theory only. When genetic analysis was added to anatomic taxonomy, the predictions were astoundingly is support, but there were a few surprises about relatedness. The fact that the anatomic predictions so strongly predicted the genetic homologies indicates it is a sound tested theory. Anyone who would suggest that it has not been tested and is not a theory is an outright liar.

Natural selection is a stoichiometric process. It is random in the sense that there are no guarantees that the favorable mutation will be passed on. How many creatures with de novo favorable mutations died? Many. The term "random" is often exagerated. Chemical reactions, another stoichiometric process, are random in the sense that you don't know which molecule will react with which other molecule, and the backwards reaction occurs many times. This does not mean chemical reactions are unpredictable.

To finish by answering your primary question: "Scientific" Creationist are liars. They have no case (as indicated by the US Supreme Court). As a result, they just try to sway public opinion with empty rhetoric, cherry-picked data, and outright lies. One of their favorite tactics is to level the playing field by attempting to portray science as a competing theory. This is a lie, since creationism is not a theory -- there is no evidence, so there are no predictions of the evidence to test. They call evolution a religion to make the appearance that it is just competing dogma, and they call scientists "evolutionists", so they don't have to call their opponents "scientist" and extend the illusion that there is any balance between the sides by playing to the idea of a Creationist/evolutionist duality. Such lies and they believe they have the moral high ground.

Answer 3

People don't like to admit the religion is based on some old stories written a long time ago and evolution is based on modern science. They know that modern science can explain the crap out of everything way better then religion. So as a way to justify their rejecting of obvious science and accepting a 2000 year old story, they try to pretend evolution is just a story too.

Answer 4

technology is learn of the particular international how can the actual understand the metaphysical (god) i'm unable to understand spirit from count for this reason i turn to non secular books that specify the nature of god faith takes the lifestyles of God and the soul on faith yet technology also takes many stuff on faith. The very conception of a an exterior actual international is an act of religion for which no information will be presented. Summarizing this philosophical aspect Thomas Nagel writes: in case you attempt to argue that there could be an exterior actual international, because you does no longer see homes, human beings, or stars till there have been issues accessible that meditated or shed mild into your eyes and brought about your seen adventure, the answer is glaring: how did you recognize that? it truly is merely yet another declare about the exterior international and your relation to it, and it must be depending upon the information of your senses. yet you may count on that categorical information about how seen thoughts are brought about on condition that you'll already count customarily on the contents of your ideas to allow you to recognize about the exterior international. and that is precisely what has been pronounced as into question. in case you attempt to coach the reliability of your impressions by technique of appropriate on your impressions you're arguing in a circle and could no longer get everywhere.

Answer 5

If all the evidence points to evolution as a fact, even a scientific fact --- why is it still called the THEORY of evolution?

Answer 6

You're wrong in oh soooo many ways.

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Answer 7

You are correct, of course, and I'll show you my proof of evolution if you'll show me yours. Since it is now a proven fact, pushing things like creationism or intelligent design is a waste of time -- which is itself provable, as neither theory, being irrefutable, can have any consequences in the real world.

Answer 8

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Who referred to evolution as a religion, someone here on answers?
thank you.
It isn't, it is a scientific theory.

Answer 9

Sorry, I'm still going to give my kids presents on Darwins Birthday.

Just kidding. :)

It IS sad that so many people just don't understand The Theory of Evolution. Take the people who wrote the article on the link you posted for example...

-SD-

Answer 10

I've never heard anyone refer to "Evolution" as a religion. It isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory.