I just want to understand where those with whom I am having a discussion are coming from.
If it's a debate about science -- especially one in which the stakes are not really that high -- I will assume it is OK to challenge thier view without expecting to see their feelings hurt.
In a matter of religion, one would be expected to be more careful.
If someone is claiming to be debating science but would be more accurately described as defending a religious view, then that would present a problem wouldn't it?
You demonstrate no evidence of this.
When you say evolution is a religion, you have a motive. It is not a random string of words. Do you routinely call physics a religion? Chemistry? Geology? Astronomy? Biology?
I'm guessing you call evolution a religion because it implies that evolution is counter to evidence, or not based on evidence. In other words, a fable or fairy tale.
Otherwis, I don't see why you and countless other anti-evolutionists insist on calling evolution a religion. If I'm wrong, tell we what you do imply when you call evolution a religion.