Religion is focussing n a God. That God usually is seen as the creator and ultimate authority. If you personify Evolution it can become a God. It created all of nture.
Religion involves faith. God is not proven (beyond doubt) and there is little or no physical data to work with. Evolution has some data but it is limited in scope. There is corroborating dagta but no more than Scriptures or claims of Miracles and Godly influence. Most of the data available is subject to interpretation.
Ultimately religion is based on faith. That faith supercedes all data. Evolution declares that it can create all forms of life despite there not being sufficient evidence to back it up. The believe that anything can be done over time is pure faith and flies against the proven notion that there is such a concept as impossibility.
I looked for a thread that discussed this and failed (perhaps I did not use the correct parameters.)
People inaccurately promoting or denigrating evolution declare that, evolution does no such thing, because it is not philosophy. People who actually work on it and aren’t mixing it with philosophy would say “It is the scientific theory which best explains all of the evidence we have. There are a number of edge cases where we have insufficient data to explain them, and there will undoubtedly be tweaks to details of the theory, but the overall premise is very well supported.”
Faith without data is generally unworkable, to my knowledge.
It is “Well, this happened, that much is utterly plain from the evidence. How it happened, we need more data to tell.”
A common misconception among those denying evolution is that they equal evolution with the belief that everything got started without a Creator. Whether there was a Creator or not is a matter of belief, it is not evolution in the biological sense of the word. Also the initial origin of life is not evolution in the biological sense of the word - biological evolution started after there was some form of life.
That biological evolution happens is a fact, not a matter of belief. What happened in the distant past is a story with gaps but fossils and genetic data show that evolution has acted during a very long time.
Combining biological evolution (a fact) with the very long history of life lends support to the theory that populations have evolved from earlier forms to something else.
This is information based on scientific research. It does not require faith, except in the sense that we trust that scientists report facts, not something they have only imagined without any facts. Therefore, biological evolution is not a religion.
Only in the short term or for small changes. There is no actual evidence that Evolution can do the historical changes claimed for it. That is where the faith comes in
I would not write evolution with a capital letter (‘Evolution’) because it gives the impression that evolution is something more than an ordinary process in nature.
I am not fully sure what you mean by ‘can do the historical changes claimed for it’. That populations have changed throughout the millions of years is backed by scientific evidence. I guess you mean something else.
The history of biological research is very short. Therefore it is impossible that we would have eyewitness testimonies about evolution during millions of years. Instead, there are other type of evidence.
Genetic data gives rather strong support for common ancestry between distantly related species.
Predicted intermediate (connecting) forms between earlier species and later, different kind of species have been found in many cases - not between all life forms but that is a basic expectation considering how few individuals turn into fossils and the gradual loss of old fossils due to erosion and other natural processes.
As far as I know, there is no hard evidence for the claim that life would be relatively young (less than 100’000 years) or that the current species would have suddenly appeared without any ancestral species. So, there are evidence supporting common ancestry and evolution whereas there are no evidence supporting alternative hypotheses.
No one thinks Evolution created all of nature. The theory of evolution only explains biodiversity. That’s it. The theory of evolution is not used to explain how the universe changed over time, how stars form, how solar systems form, or how planets change over time.
That’s what science is, interpreting data. The difference between the evidence that supports evolution and Scriptures is that you can observe the evidence for evolution yourself. We don’t have someone’s writings about what a fossil looks like. We have the fossil that anyone can look at. All of the evidence for evolution can be verified independently of anyone’s say so. The same isn’t true for the claims made in the Bible.
One of the oldest scientific organizations is the Royal Society. It’s motto is “Nullius in verba” which is latin for “take nobody’s word for it”. This highlights the empirical nature of science, as well as the history of how the scientific method was developed by people like Francis Bacon. The theory of evolution is based on empirical evidence. You don’t have to take anybody’s word for the evidence. It’s available to everyone.
Evolution doesn’t declare anything because evolution is not a person. The vast, vast majority of experts in biology do accept the theory because of the mountains of evidence that point to it. Until a better theory is put forward that can better explain the data it will be the theory the scientific community uses.
If we were to compare the human and chimp genomes could you tell us which of the genetic differences between the genomes that evolution could not produce, and why?
Neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution demonstrate that complexity and new information can be produced by evolution.
Christians who deny evolution are denying God’s sovereignty and his ability to providentially intervene. On the molecular level. By mutations.
Yes, but not everything based on faith is a religion. All knowledge and use of logic is based on faith. But there is a difference between blind faith (which disregards the evidence) and reasonable faith (which agrees with the evidence). And there is a difference between the objective evidence of science (based on written procedures which give the same results no matter what you want or believe) and the subjective evidence of religion (based on personal experience).
On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming. The genetic code of all the species is a detailed record of how evolution produced the changes. It is not historical in the usual sense of human records, but the genetic record is sufficient for an extension of the word “historical,” and by this record we do indeed have an account of what happened and when.
No one in this forum is qualified to make this judgement. No one here deserves such a low blow.
There are many reasons that various Christians find evolution repugnant or untrue that have nothing to do with a denial of God’s sovereignty. In fact, most of the Christians I know who reject evolution or what they call “secular science” do so because they do believe that evolution is in conflict with God’s sovereignty.
Richard demonstrates regularly that he is greatly concerned about a right understanding of God’s work in the world and the protection of faith in believers.
As to the original question, I would say that it depends .
Many people, including myself, a Christ-follower, think that the scientific theory of evolution or, as Darwin called it “descent with modification” best describes what we observe in nature. That is based on overwhelming scientific evidence. As well put by @mitchellmckain scientific reasoning ultimately comes down to faith in underlying principles, but well-established principles made by humans over centuries, as creatures that can reason.
On the other hand, some people use evolution to make “leaps of faith” well beyond the domain of science, such that “there is no God”, and other philosophies. One could call this “evolutionism” and that, in a sense, can be a religion. I don’t subscribe to this “evolutionism” as a religion.
I would say that my points are nicely expressed by the late Pastor Tim Keller here:
Those were significant, and significant to leave out.
Try looking at the macro world instead of the micro one. You might be less certain.
I might suggest you look at the 1st Ken Ham thread this evening… Discussing bird Evolution.
Even you might have second thoughts, hopefully.
I also don’t look at the propaganda of communists and national socialists.
Nor do I look very seriously at the claims of proof for psychics, fairies, UFOs, reincarnation, or the healing power of crystals.
Others here might do that sort of thing and I am confident they can do a good job at refuting such claims. That is what the experiences of my life assure me quite well.
The macro world is just as much a product of the genome as the micro world. When we compare genomes we can see the genetic differences that produces those physical differences at the macro level. That same comparison also shows us that evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for those differences.
I am sorry, but burying your head in the sand is not a valid position. I have presented valid data and information, although there is at least one here that refutes that.
To understand you have to understand physiology and the mechanics of bird flight. I even gave a link to the breakdown of those mechanics.
However, there is always a certian amount of philosophy and interpretation not to mention the unwillingness to see beyond our own certitude.
For some no proof is needed, for others no proof is enough.
it applies to belief in God. It also applies to belief in the totality of Evolution
You make the connections at microcellular level without even trying to see whether they could be made at the macro level. That is your faith, not scientific proof. You think that one will prove the other. It does not.
The nested hierarchy demonstrates that they were made at the macro level.