Evolution is a religion

I would like you to fully understand the fact that, despite your intentions, we are debating upon the resolution given. The proposed resolution which you seem to enjoy debating upon would be, The theory is evolution is a religion. If we were to debate that, I think the odds would be so massively stacked in the Pro favor that it wouldn't be a debate at all. The fact is, we must debate the resolution states, and as you have said, "I have no issue with that..." so you've already accepted the con side of the case, therefore the judges must default to Con as the Pro has accepted my argument. Also, I would like to point out the Pro has not even responded to any of arguments, therefore your only decision, as the pro is unwilling to debate the predetermined resolution, is to vote Con. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm going to add this section, because I feel that it'd be interesting to debate upon the theory of evolution. Keep in mind that I've already won the round, and that we're debating the one-sided proposed resolution which -SHOULD NOT- have any bearing on the outcome of this round. To clarify, we'll be debating that: The theory of evolution is a religion. Now then, we really must clarify just what a belief is. A belief would be the following: - confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof The fact is, science is not a religion. When you are asked your religion affiliation, you don't point out your view on every single issue, because some issues tend to be contradictory to science or contradictory to faith. Religions, despite literal definitions, have a contextual definition. By that, I mean take for example the word "gay". It literally means happy, but you must define the word as used in context, which is homosexual. We can clearly see, that if you look at religion not literally, but the actual idea of a faith system that involves the purpose of the universe, and the purpose of human life inside that universe, evolution does not hope to answer these. A better definition of religion would be A faith-based system that attempts to explain natural occurences by supernatural forces, as well as attempts to explain human purpose. Religion largely focuses on human life, whereas the idea of evolution focuses on A) the world, not the universe B)human creation and animal creation, not human purpose. So, throughout this argument I'll be using this definition of religion. Let me go into my points of discussion: 1) Religion involves faith, science does not. 2) Religion is attempts to explain natural occurences via the supernatural, whereas science uses the natural to explain the natural. 3) Evolution does not link to human purpose, only human formation. 4) Evolution explains the world, not the universe 1) One could argue that religion involves faith, however it doesn't. We see this, because, like any scientific theory, we base our thoughts off of what we see to be the most logical. Logically, the idea of a supreme benevolent omnipotent omniscient 30 year old middle-eastern is not so valid. Logically, however, the idea of micro-evolution holds so much more weight. Science is based off of logic, reason, and research, whereas religion is based off of magic. This shows that the theory of evolution is not a religion. 2) Religion uses the idea of a God to explain the creation. We see that, religion itself is based off of some unfounded principle that's completely illogical - take for example the native indian tribes in the Americas. They believed in Rain Gods and Crop Gods, all to help explain what makes things work. Science, however, uses already known scientific laws to help explain what makes things work. Science is the child who unscrews the lightbulb to see hhow it lights, religion is the child who points and yells, "Magic!" Clearly, two diverse things. 3) My opponent disregards a large fact of evolution. He says that, because evolution falls under the category of, "Explaining human creation" that it must be a religion. This is clearly faulty logic, because he discounts the fact that religion is majority based off of human purpose. Science and evolution does not deal with human purpose, it deals with SOLELY human and animal formation. 4) ~a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe~ was the set definition. Religion is, metaphorically speaking, a rice paddy. It attempts to explain everything within that rice paddy, whereas evolution focuses on one miniscule grain of rice in the bottom of a Vietnamese man's basket. This is CLEARLY not the same! In fact, if we take the defintion as literally as possible, since science does not deal at all with the universe it does not qualify as a religion at all! I shall now move on to my opponent's arguments: My opponent stated the following, It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences. However, the logic he presents here is contingent on an idea that, "Science will be right 100% of the time at the very instant a theory is created". As I explained above, this is not the case. How do you think the old scientists felt, when they were ridiculed, disowned, prosecuted, simply because they had new thoughts? Take for example Galileo, he was sent before the inquisition because his view, a scientific one, was considered to be in opposition to the church. Because his scientific observations were questioned, does that mean that it wasn't real science? No! My opponents entire argument is based around the ideal that evolution is not real science because it has not been proven yet, and it has claims of illegitimacy. I have given you an extremely potent of example of where this logic holds true, but I shall divulge further. My opponent has made no mention of micro-evolution. He broadly claims that "evolving from a puddle of slime..." however I have not adressed this point. The point I have addressed is the idea of micro-evolution, and idea so widely accepted that to claim it is "wild speculation" is as ignorant as ever. As my opponent has not addressed this issue altogether, you see that he consents to the Con. Also, my opponent claims that evolution is, "an atheist religion". I will address this next speech. Finally, it is necessary to clarify some things. Science is not a rock, it is not some set-in-stone idea. Science is a self-correcting machine, it constantly reworks itself and reforms itself based off of scientific observations of the time. So, we see that evolution is the best possible theory we could have to date, and because of this we accept it as fact until something better comes along. Science, as I have shown, is based off of logic. It is based off of the faculty of reason whereas religion is based solely off of faith. You can clearly see that reason and faith are true completely opposite entities and you must, I repeat, you must vote in a Con ballot. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I would just like to restate that when voting for the winner of this debate, I have clearly already won, and the above case is only for intellectual discussion, not for the actual round. When you make your decision, PLEASE base it off of the case I have presented in my opening argument. To Traditionalist, I understand we all make errors, it's alright. However, you cannot change the structure of the debate. Once it has been presented, it is our duty as debaters to debate the given structure. You're forgiven, and I'm glad that you're making me think about this issue, however when writing a resolution please try and think of one that cannot be interpreted so loosely so easily. Best of luck! ~HQ