So what if evolution is a science? All knowledge, which is the essence of science, is based on assumption based on the limited observations of human beings under certain creations. Everyone has as much faith as the average Christian in concepts that they take to be true, namely, everything they believe in, be it science or deities. Nothing is proven, and we just assume general rules for things simply because they haven't yet been disproven in our limited, warped, and self-centered perception of all creation.
Any scientific theory starts out with a set of hypotheses taken on faith before being verified. In the case of evolution there's not a jot of evidence for universal common descent or the efficacy of the principal evolutionary mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection. The spiritual implications of revealing the lie of evolution whuc h threatens materialism, plus the brainwashing of many, along with peer pressure sustains this house on sand. But a 1000 years, even a trillion, even a zillion years , are but a few moments in the eyes of an eternal Creator. I'll give it 50,000 , by then evolution would be a laughing stock and a lesson in humility for those who got to caught up in details and bothered about looking 'logical' over being truthful.
Case in point: In Uncommon Descent a question was posed to Nick Matzke: If one saw a row of coins all heads on a table, would they attribute it to chance ? Nick Matzke did not give a straight answer to the question.
Abiotic natural factors can never in principle assemble a system with codes of any kind. Codes require taking advantage of physical properties to causally link two or more things or actions that aren't accounted for by physical laws. For instance, a man uses a fire to signal danger so aa small tribe goes into hiding. Physical laws explain the fire to how detected by the eyes and and the runung. But physical laws DO NOT entail a causal link between a fire and running. One can as well see the fire and walk to it. I'd suggest Signature In The Cell by Stephen Meyer.
Religions have no evidence. They are built entirely upon untested, unproved, faith based rationales.
They form assumptions based on the absence of evidence. To respond to questions that have not yet been answered.
Because it is easier for an authority to say, "a god did this", than to say ,"we don't really know".
I don't have a personal religious affiliation and I consider my self a scientific person without a specific religion. Evolution goes under the genre of science, and should be treated as such. I don't know if I believe that it is a religion in itself. It could be understood in that way.
I personally believe that evolution is a scientific theory that may or may not be true. I personally have no religious affiliation so my answer may vary from others peoples perspectives, however, I was raised to associate with the scientific community. Evolution is a branch of biology and should be treated as a science. But again, there is no way of saying that evolution is the only possibility when it comes to the creation of human kind.
Evolution as a scientific theory does not require as much faith as any religion, because theoretical evolution is not a spiritual stance. It is purely scientific, and not disputable according to the evidence that supports it. However, many religious believers oppose evolution on the basis of Biblical teachings, and likewise, many evolutionists disregard spirituality on the basis of evolution. I do not believe that spirituality and evolutionary science are explicitly contradictory. The only aspect of evolution that requires any amount of faith is the origin of living matter. Science has proven practically every other aspect of it.
Faith is belief in the lack of evidence. Acceptance of evidence obviates the need for faith since evidence can be tested and falsified to produce a factual account of the way things work. Religion has no such body of evidence and requires belief without evidence to keep adherents in line.
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Ask your science teacher, or google it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better.
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
I must have faith in a God, because I cannot observe one. Science needs no faith. It's evidence based. I can see it, I can replicate it, therefore it is. Evolution, while we do not know EVERY single minute detail of how it works, is still science. There is overwhelming acceptance of the evidence meaning one thing. That is not faith any more than 2+2=4 is.
While one could actually argue this and be correct you can't compare the evidences in any sensible manner therefore it's not something that an argument could really produce a sound conclusion for using a specific method. The only way to make this sound is to extend beyond a point instead of referencing a specific point such as with Skepticism which challenges all knowledge versus just deistic knowledge or scientific knowledge.
Religion has no such claim. Religions unfalsifiable nature leads to its inherent flaws as a system. Unfalsifiable claims have very little weight and should not be taken as strong hypotheses.Rather Evolution is falsifiable in the sense that any substantial proof against it would allow us to pass on the hypothesis and not upgrade it to a scientific theory. It wen through those riggers and passed. Evolution is a scientific theory and is as good as fact while religion can never have such claims.
Other people will probably provide good arguments, and so I'll just vote, but, since I have to write 50 words, I will bring something up. The image you used to demonstrate evolution is very inaccurate. Evolution has multiple branches and is not going after a certain goal. OUr species is not the accumulation of millions of years of directed "evolution".