Ah, but there are differences. (1) My statement is testable. It comes with a prediction, namely that under certain conditions, certain consequences will follow. So in principle this could get accomplished in some lab, and then others could replicate the results, etc., although we know that it hasn't happened yet. Verifiability is what makes science different from theology. There are other differences: (2) my statement is based, loosely of course, on my understanding of chemistry, which is a science derived from observations of reality. A theological proclamation (about original sin or something) is based only on faith that the revelation came from a reliable source and was communicated accurately. And (3) my statement involves events which are comprehensible in a step-by-step, cause-and-effect way. Theological doctrines, involving the miraculous doings of the deity, are by their nature beyond our comprehension.These are just some of the ways in which my statement about biology can be distinguished from a statment of religious faith. I know you understand this. It is only the extremely ignorant, who know nothing of science, who don't grasp these distinctions, because they regard everything as an incomprehensible miracle. Those are the ones who see science as just another cult.