The Fight isn't between Science and Religion, But Worldviews.

"The scientist has no method to examine directly the past, Thus he must make assumption in order to come to conclusions. However, Assumptions are unproven, And generally unprovable" I agree, There is no method to directly examine the past, And assumptions must be made in order to indirectly do so. However, You seem to forget that these assumptions must themselves be tested, And they are tested time and time again. Assumptions that fail to hold out are dropped and the theories they prop up are scrapped. That is the whole point of the scientific method. Some fundamental assumptions of evolutionary theory are that offspring inherit their traits from their parents and that they are subject to random mutations. These assumptions can and have been tested, More so today with DNA analysis technology. Another experiment that tests and validates these assumptions are things like dog breeding and the evolution of dogs from grey wolves. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are also here to be examined and they, Again, Do a lot to validate the theory of evolution by natural selection. These are examples of evolutionary processes that we can examine. These processes have been termed "micro-evolution" by some, But what they fail to realise is that micro and macro evolution are the exact same process, Just with a different time scale. There's also the inconvenient truth that scientific theories make predictions and the validity of a theory relies heavily on how well those predictions are borne out by the facts. Here is where Evolutionary theory blows young-earth creationism out of the water. From the existence of MULTIPLE transitional fossils (Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Runcaria to name a few) and the fact that scientists have even located the genetic mutation largely responsible for the split between humans and the other great apes (Chimpanzee Sequencing; Analysis Consortium (2005) and watch this exert from a lecture by Dr. Ken Miller https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=zi8FfMBYCkk). Evidence for evolution is examinable and falsifiable, And has been verified. "Historical documents written by people who lived in that day and are not disputed. So we have the evidence that he walked the earth" Historical documents tend to only be taken seriously when there are multiple corroborations that are consistent and do not contradict one another in any significant way. Also if the documents don't contradict facts that have now been tested and proved to be true. And here we meet religion. There are quite a few contradictions in the bible, So its validity is already questionable on that front. However, Putting that aside, The bible also makes many claims about the natural world and events that are testable and should have some method of being corroborated by modern experiments, But the more significant claims of the bible are either unfalsifiable, Which renders them useless, Or have been proven to be wrong. "Then how can we be sure it happened at all? No one was there to record it or test it or repeat it. " Fossil records? DNA analysis? Anti-biotic resistant bacteria and the like? The process of natural selection is observable, And has been observed. See the following study. (https://www. Pnas. Org. . . ). "Instead one constructs a historical narrative, Consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. " Well yeah. Understand that in the 20th Century DNA sequencing wasn't really a thing so the only evidence available was basically fossil records which, At the time, Were not very extensive. So yes, If an evolutionary biologist, At the time, Wanted to map out the process, A lot of her claims would have been conjecture. All that statement proves is that explaining the intricate details of the evolutionary process is hard. It doesn't say that the process doesn't exist, Just that not enough was known about it and that biologists had to come up with reconstructions to fill in the knowledge gaps. " If something isn't religious, Then it cannot oppose religious claims" I would agree with you if evolution was making a supernatural claim. But it's not. The job of biology is to explain the living world as truthfully as possible. When religions make a claim about the origins of living things they are encroaching upon the sphere of Biology, And in order for Biology to fulfil its purpose as a science it must test the claims made by religion and either verify or falsify them. I would argue, That by making a claim about the natural world, Religious doctrines put forth scientific hypotheses that can and should be challenged. Thus the doctrines are no longer strictly religious but partially scientific and as such are fair game for criticism on a scientific basis. "Does atheism, Which says there is no God, Oppose the religious claim that God exists? Again, Yes. Thus, Atheism is religious. " Does creationism, Which says the universe was made in 6 days, Oppose the scientific claim that the universe is 13 billion years old? Yes, Therefore Religion is not religious but scientific. Do you see how nonsensical your claim is? By your logic the label of "religious" is pretty much useless since it can be used to apply to any truth claim that contradicts a religious claim, And thus applies to every possible truth claim out there. Since every statement about reality must contradict one of the thousands of religions, Any statement of reality is religious. Also, Most atheists are agnostic in the sense that they don't know if there is a God (and neither do religious people by the way), They just hold to the position that none of the arguments put forward for the existence of a God are convincing and that most Scientific theories that explain the universe work perfectly well without the assumption of the existence of a God. The Atheist position Isn't absolute, It's not that there is no God, But that there is no good reason to believe in one. "You can't have your cake and eat it too. Humanists are religious and they act in religious ways. " You have a very broad view of religion, Since it seems to apply to literally any statement of an interpretation of reality, So yeah, By that logic every possible ontological position is religious. A definition of religion would go a long way right about now. Also, You did nothing to support your initial statement that Evolution is a religion. To sum up. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution, For which I have presented a few examples. In terms of evidence, You provided nothing. You still have not defined religion. You haven't supported the claim in your initial argument that there is equal evidence for evolution and creationism. You haven't shown how evolution depends on faith nor how in light of the evidence provided above, It isn't clearly the more logical of the two. P. S. You constantly argue with yourself, Assuming my opinions and positions and taking down straw-men. I'd appreciate it if you stopped, Thank you.