Why is evolution the only branch of science that creationists want to claim is a religion?

Answer 1

It is because they take useless ideas and try to make them facts. They ignore the fact that the only reason they can repeat an experiment is because when God made the world He made it orderly.

Answer 2

Because there are people, ignorant of the actual nature of scientific method, that use evolution as a club to attack religion. These are people with a belief system: "God does not exist". They have no proof of it, yet they assume evolution supports them.

It's nonsense. Any scientist will admit that you cannot prove a the non-existence of something without exhaustive testing EVERYWHERE and EVERYWHEN, something FAR beyond our power as a people.

God may exist. When a group of people try to convince others that God does not exist because evolution is absolutely true, they do a disservice to science and religion.

Evolution is a partially proven theory, the best we have in science yet to explain the evidence. But science is ALWAYS open to new facts, changing evidence. No theory is sacred, no fact written in stone. It is unscientific to bash a belief system with a theory. It is STILL possible that God created all species just the way they are, though this is a very unlikely idea from a scientific viewpoint and has nothing to prove it scientifically, yet it is not disproven.

Christianity, more than any other religion, has been open to scientific theory, and although resistance has been fierce, it HAS changed, has grown, has adapted and joined us in the 21st century. Islam is an example of one that has not.

Be patient. Understand their reservations. They don't owe anyone to "believe" in evolution. Most of them DO accept that it is the best scientific theory so far. They just see no reason yet to give up a less likely but more dear idea (not theory, of course).

When enough proof is presented, and evolution is established in a stronger way, they'll adapt. They have in every other area of science, haven't they?

I still don't see the majority of Christians refusing to fly or take ships for fear of falling off the edge of the world.

They just need a bit more proof. As much as I think evolution is the most likely answer to the puzzle, I understand their stance.

Answer 3

The religion of evolution is a dead-end and a very dangerous practice. I am more charitable toward the creationists now that I have thought about it. Consider many conservative Christians who are also closet evolutionists. Think about it, they desire the death penalty, they don't want vaccines for STDs, they think people get what they deserve, they want people to marry in their race... Not the example of Jesus that I know.

Evolution is a science, relatively shallow I think. But the implication for people is serious. Since people are the largest force acting on people, this implies our fate is related to how we behave toward one another. If we create a world where kind people prosper, then mean people will have the squeeze put on them. So it is still entirely spiritual with regards to man. A moth may be subject to the environment but we are our own environment. Troublesome for religion. I am opposed to the religion of evolution and for the science of evolution.

Answer 4

I do not hav e a problem in accepting that some people believe in evolution. I think that without a spiritual basis of understanding, something has to make sense. I also understand that not everyone has been awakened towards the which are eternal. So evolution teaches certain people about the evidence they have about a possibility that things evolved. Those people who believe it accept the evidence as proof. I do not, but that's just me. To me, evolution does not explain certain things about what is observable in nature. I think Ben Stein had some good points about Intelligent Design. If Evolutionary Theory wasn't a religion, it wouldn't act like one in banning intelligent discussion.

Answer 5

On what basis is evolution a science?
You can't repeat it -you can't repeat history, either. OK
So, you look at the evidence, have a hypothesis and look whether what you see will refute or agree with your hypothesis.
So, you hypothesize that life evolved from very primitive forms of molecules which became cells which finally became animals.
So, you look to find developed but "half-ready" animals, so to say -in fossiles, in everywhere. You find none.
You try to think what does a developing, half ready, evolving kidney or aquaporin or vinculin or .. look like. And suddendly you realize that a half ready one can't live, can't exist.it is either there as ready or none.
Then you look at the mutations that are the vehicle of evolution, what do they do nowadays -they casue cancer or diseases, almost exclusively.
Then you look at the fossiles -and you find footsteps in the same layer as dinosaurs -and numerous other examples which do not fit with evolutionary theory and then you start to question:maybe macroevolutionhas not taken place!

Darwin's sparrows on Galapagos indeed had evolved but they were still birds -many kinds but birds, not monkeys. Concluding from microevolution that macroevolution must exist takes a LOT of faith, a true leap of faith.
Human mind is an obstacle to faith, not because there is too much of it but because there is all too little of it -as CS Lewis said!

Answer 6

I don't know if they claim it a religion as much as they claim it is against the word of God. Which dose not make sense. There are many things that don't jive with what Christan's believe the Bible says and or the word of God. If you are gonna dispute a field of science, why not dispute all other religions. Just go ahead and claim there is only one God, only one true religion and condemn the rest.

I personally fear what the American Christan Church and it's Evangelist are doing to America and freedom.

Answer 7

To be fair, many of them want to claim that all science is a religion.

Answer 8

IF humans evolved then the evolution was random. Why if evolution is random did we all come out the SAME? If one painting is the same as another painting would you not agree they were created by the same artist?
How then was man created ALL the same if evolution is random?

Answer 9

It's a bit less pleasant to argue against open-heart surgery. There might be consequences to that, especially if they keep eating so many cheeseburgers.

Answer 10

Because they are afraid the Physicists and the Chemists are going to nuke and poison them. They are already alive, so Biologists are harmless.