Oh it does. What you are doing is taking things in different categories and saying they are different. Like dog and two. They're different categorically and to say they are different is to say something meaningless. You need to find two things in the same category. Science and religion might work because each is an area of inquiry but, as Stephen Jay Gould argued, each represents a non-overlapping magisterium.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I find your lack of faith...disturbing...
-Darth Vader
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
I find your lack of faith...disturbing...
-Darth Vader
Look up the definitions of faith and belief. At the level I'm speaking, they are interchangeable.
I'm only arguing semantics because you're not making sense with your words. "OP that asserts that Evolution is a religion" is categorically meaningless as well. Evolution is a process, specifically of speciation. Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory about that process.
Both faith and science are grounded in confidence in axioms. One in God/gods, the other in empiricism.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Actually the study of microbiology and Genesis in the Bible is the same facts but are told as separate stories.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (09-18-2020)
At what level are you speaking because you'd have to be going on the basis that a belief simply exists within each and that argument is categorically meaningless.
There are two different belief systems:
Evidenced-Based and Faith-Based. These are two entirely separate systems by definition... Discounting the vast differences in those belief systems is categorically disingenuous.
I find your lack of faith...disturbing...
-Darth Vader