Sorry about dropping out of this thread for a week. I bought a game from my XBOX 360 that has greatly diminished my productivity.
: Yeah, I know how that goes. I don't have an XBOX, but I can get more than a little caught up in Lara Croft.
Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not give the cause, nature, nor purpose of the universe. It is solely an explanation of how species (not life!) come about. So I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a religion according to the given definition.
I think we're probably all on the same page regarding evolutionary theory. But, I've met more than a few evolutionists (albeit not all!) who do become so dogmatic regarding evolutionary theory that they become quite religious.
Christopher, you had asked in your earlier thread that, if for the sake of this discussion, we all were to agree that "evolutionism" is a religion, would that be a "bad" thing.
Not really, IMO. There are plenty of religions, and it seems as though new religions are being manufactured lately. One more in the mix isn't going to be a "bad" thing.
Christopher you also said: Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not give the cause, nature, nor purpose of the universe. It is solely an explanation of how species (not life!) come about. So I fail to see how evolutionary theory is a religion according to the given definition.
Again, I don't agree that evolutionary theory in of itself is a religion. But, I do see more and more religious attributes arising in committed Evolutionists. An Evolutionist will take, on faith, certain beliefs. A common criticisim against the Creationist is that they throw God in the gaps: Whatever is not understood is attributed to God. The Evolutionist doesn't throw God in the gaps, but will allow unproven hypothesis to be thrown in the gaps instead. Just as the Creationist has faith in God, the Evolutionist has faith in the unproven hypothesis, including the unproven hypothesis of the origin of species.
Take for example these two paragraphs from good old Wikipedia regarding the origin of species:
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.
Isaak, Mark (2005). Claim CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.
Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Trevors JT, Abel DL (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. PMID 15563395. Forterre P, Benachenhou-Lahfa N, Confalonieri F, Duguet M, Elie C, Labedan B (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1–3): 15–32. PMID 1337989
Then take this statement that heads the very next topic:
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Penny D, Poole A (1999). "The nature of the last universal common ancestor". Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9 (6): 672–77. PMID 10607605
So, we see that on the one hand, there are Evolutionists who are willing to admit that there is no certainty regarding a common ancestor, and even will state that there is really no need to understand that which they cannot explain.
But, then there are the Evolutionists who will make the jump to state, as fact, that "all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestral gene pool.
It is jumps like these, which are basically leaps of faith in unproven hypothesis, that start to blur a hard scientist into a believer in "Evolutionism".
In response to both Vault and Christopher regarding ID: I'm not in anyway promoting ID, just using it as an example of how one could "test the waters" of whether one is dealing with someone who isn't dogmatic about evolution and someone who is.