[dila813]

What makes evolution any less of a religion than creationism?

Our ancestors founded their beliefs according to these scientists by observing the world around them and making assumptions. This according to them is the foundation of religion.

Sounds like modern day scientific literature and theories would meet the same definition.

[firebrand]

Do you actually believe that with all the bombardment reproductive DNA has received, it has never once been altered? Or perhaps you believe that if it was altered, it was too few times to make any difference, or that this somehow made no change in the next generation, even of that one organism? Or perhaps if it made changes, these changes soon faded away, whether they were beneficial or not?

That seems pretty close to a superstition to me.

[4Liberty]

Excuse met but -- if you can repeat (replicate) a cause-&-effect experiment - it isn't religion, it's an empirical law.

Religion asks about (& answers) the question of The FIRST CAUSE of everything (all matter, life, etc.)

That "cause" can never be empirically proven -- and never will be.

Even if we saw an angel, -- a scientist would wonder, "I wonder what THAT is made of, and where it came from (cause of it."

So, evolution or science studies localized cause and effect, while religion address The FIRST (Original) cause of everything.

These two endeavors are not inconsistent, but -- they are different kinds of knowledge, or understanding.

I'm an atheist, and really have no interest in speculating about the "first" or original Cause. But others are certainly entitled to engage in that speculation, in a congregation or group, on Sundays, if the want to.

I see no contradition between being a scientist all week long, and going to church on Sunday. I just have no interest or need to quiet my mind, by pursuing the latter.
But it's a free country....

-4Liberty