The answer to this question may surprise you as it did me. As I debate Atheist-evolutionists, and debated them to see more of how they think, than to win the debate. Looking into what they do for their cause, compared to what we do for ours. I started seeing a similar pattern. Not the same pattern, a similar pattern. So let's look at the definition of religion first:
Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Now let's compare this to evolution. If you take away supernatural, and just use natural. Let's see if it fits:
Evolution: a strong belief in a natural power or powers that control human destiny.
The natural powers that evolutionists will claim makes Evolution work are: 1) Natural selection. 2) Survival of the fittest. And because Evolution is a claimed progression of life through the evolution process, it is also a theory that is supposed to control a natural human destiny. The next step of proving Evolution as a religion is proving that it takes faith to believe it. So let's look at faith.
Supernatural faith: religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power.
Natural faith: complete confidence in a person or plan. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person.
The person the evolutionists have natural faith in, is Darwin. The plan is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Loyalty or allegiance to the cause, or the person, can be tested during a debate. Because if you make Darwin, or his theory, look bad. You will witness their loyalty and allegiance as they will feel insulted. And they will lash out at you because like Christians, they take their faith and belief personally. There is nothing scientific about taking a theory personally. Nor is it scientific to take an allegiance to it in order to defend it. This is because the evidence is supposed to prove theory and convince people. So personal human intervention, or taking a personal stance goes beyond science and strays into the realm of religion. The other part of being a religion is the need to evangelize. So let's look at what evangelizing is.
Supernatural evangelizing: To preach the gospel . Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to both Christians and non-Christians. The intention of most evangelism is to effect conversion to Christianity or to adopt the belief.
Natural evangelizing: To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them. To share news of something in order to convince someone to join or otherwise accept it . If they have to give up faith and believe in another idea, then it is a conversion just like converting through salvation.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book called the God delusion. In which his goal in writting the book was to effectively covert (evangelize) Christians to atheism (evolutionism). In the video below where Dawkins is interviewed, this point is pointed out in the first 60 seconds (so you don't have to watch the whole thing if you wish not to). Dawkins does not deny this. So an atheist-evolutionist goal is to write books and convert those who disagree with him? What is scientific about convering (evangelizing) people? Nothing, unless what you believe is a religion. Then it makes all the sense in the world.
Christians look for non-believers, or those who have strayed from the belief, to convert them.
Evolutionists often search out Christians on the web, at work, or in casual conversation, to convert them to their way of thinking. Both types of conversions (Natural and supernatural) require the rejection of one belief in order to accept the other. And for both, it is a gradual process of losing faith in one so that faith can be applied to the other.
Why does one faith have to be given up to believe another? Faith is a total commitment to a belief in something that cannot be proven to an absolute. Faith also is a way of thinking that requires a certain amount of control over your life. Example: If you have faith in God, you would try to adhere to the teachings that is claimed to change your life. If you adhere to evolution and no belief in God. Then you would adhere to what ever that theory taught you about life. You cannot have faith in opposites at the same time.
What God's word says.
What evolution theory says.
1) Earth before sun.
1) Sun before earth.
2) Oceans before land.
2) Land before oceans.
3) Light before sun.
3) Sun before light.
4) Land plants first.
4) Marine life first.
5) Fruit tree before fish.
5) Fish before fruit tree.
6) Fish before insects.
6) Insects before fish.
7) Plants before sun.
7) Sun before plants.
8) Man was created from solid matter.
8) Man evolved from liquid.
9) Bird before reptiles.
9) Reptiles before birds.
10) Man brought death in the world.
10) Death brought man into the world.
11) God created man.
11) Man created God (out of need).
12) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water.
12) Atmosphere above water
13) All life was created by God.
13) All life just happened, and evolved.
14) There is a Creator.
14) There is no Creator.
15) There are moral rules (sin).
15) There are no rules (no sin).
16) There is a purpose and goal to life.
16) There is no purpose, no goal.
17) There is a soul.
17) There is no soul.
18) There is eternity.
18) There is no eternity.
19) Life after death.
19) No life after death.
20) Jesus died for our sins.
20) Jesus was a myth.
21) Heaven and Hell exists.
21) Heaven and Hell does not exist.
A part of the evangelizing process is testifying for your faith and belief:
Christians: Will often give life testimonies of how the conversion has helped them change their life.
Evolutionists: Will often give life testimonies of how losing their faith in God helped them change their life.
Excerpt from that site where a person gave up being a Christian. Notice how evolution played a major role:
A good friend who was non-Christian pointed out things to me like evolution, rational logical points. Why is it that Christians stop using their brains and rational thought? Why did we dogmatically hold onto irrational ideas when plain common sense is staring us in the face? This has been the most painful decision ever for me. Its like losing your best friend. It's worse when you realise it was all a joke anyway.
My response: Evolution has become a theory of excuses. Where the answers to certain unanswerable question are just basically cop out answers. Example: Which came first, the eye of the vision center of the brain? Sounds like an unanswerable question, right? Wrong. The excuse answer given is: They evolved together. Sounds feasible right? But is it scientific? No! There are no two human organs in the body with the same complexity. Which means anything that is more complex takes more mutations which requires more time. So which would you say is more complexed, the eye or the brain?
And this answer of "evolving together" is used on just about every situation where mare than two organs, or two systems are required for either one to even work. The other part to what was said above about it felt like losing a friend. How do you get those feelings about something that never existed?
Another part of the evangelizing process is to congregate and discuss how to improve the methods of how this is done. Both Christians and evolutionists do this. You can go to either type forum or blogs and see both sides ask the question: How do I debate them, reach them, or just the simple question of: help me with this person.
Another part of the evangelizing process is the use of scare tactics or threats:
Christians: Use the threat or scare tactic of Hell, and going to it if you do not believe as they do. This is a future threat because it can only happen after you die.
Evolutionists: Use the threat or scare tactic of ones credibility being destroyed if you do not believe as they do. This is a here and now threat as it can be carried out while you are still alive. And is done on a daily bases as each Christian-creationist gets stereotyped as an uneducated moron, among other things.
Another part of religion is indoctrination. And to also have an established place to accomplish this. A place where no other idea or doctrine can be taught that is against or the opposite of the current doctrine.. And the one being taught cannot be questioned because it is a learned way of thinking. So let's look at what indoctrination is:
Indoctrination: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments. The foundation of teachings that is fundamental to a higher level of understanding and participation. Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically. Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that theindoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
And this applies to both sides of this issue. Neither side can deny this.
What's in the future, prediction vs prophecy:
Prophecy (religion): knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source).
Prediction (evolution): A statement foretelling the possible outcome(s) of an event, process, or experiment (usually from a natural source).
Indoctrination, and the established places to achieve this:
Christians: Use churches or other gathering places including the web. In these places you have only one type of belief being taught, and usually one or more people who are experts in that subject to teach it. Anything that is the opposite, or challenges it is usually rejected. The belief is taught in a step by step process starting with easier things to lay the foundation, then the harder things to build upon that foundation.
Evolutionists: Use schools and Universities. Or other gathering places including the web. In these places only one type of belief is allowed to be taught, and usually one or more people who are experts in that subject teach it. The easiest parts of the theory is taught first to lay the foundation of faith. Then once understood and accepted as the process of life, the higher learning parts of the theory are taught. This is to build upon that foundation already laid.
And like with both beliefs, the easier foundational part has to be accepted before the rest can be taught and understood. A person who rejects either belief will not accept the higher areas of learning concerning that belief.
Each established place to indoctrinate have rules of what can and cannot be taught. Schools you cannot teach creation, churches you cannot teach evolution. Even to the point of rejection by the establishment for not taking the ideas that are indoctrinated without question. Rejection can be a form of banishment (suspension or expelled or just being rejected and thrown out), failing grades, denied degrees, lost jobs, credibility destroyed, etc... Another sign of a religion is the ability to get a non-profit status to operate and teach what is believed instead of government grants. Non-profit status used to be Charities and churches only thing. Now more and more atheist-evolutionist organization are filing and getting non-profit status as a 501c3.
Evolutionist religion are also setting aside a day to worship the god Darwin. It's called Evolution Sunday (link). The pic above shows that it's not about the theory, but the man who came up with it (the Darwin god). So bring the kids and they will be indoctrinated.
Not having a problem with what is claimed as science being mixed with religion:
Evolutionist-atheist often complain that creation is not science. But is evolution, the biggest part of science, a religion? There are thousands of theories that exist. Not one of them compete with creation like evolution does. Theory of electricity does not compete with creation. Theory of gravity does not compete with creation. But evolution does. And what is even more strange is that most supporters of evolution have no problem mixing evolution with religion as long as evolution is in full control over origins. And that every aspect remains. Except they will allow a variance as long as God becomes a being who "had" to use evolution in order to create.
Evolutionists allowing such mixing shows just how easy evolution really is as a shoe in for a religion, or just a total replacement of religion. As shown above, it has all the ear marks of being a self sustaining religion which makes it the main choice if the main religion happens to be removed from the public. And if evolutionists really have that goal, then there should be evidence of them trying to remove God from everything, right? You cannot go a week looking at the news without hearing about some atheist organization having something removed just because God is on it. They even want "In God We Trust" removed from our money.
If you would like to comment or debate the subject discussed here, you can go to this forum where the discussion is already taking place: Evolution Fairytale forum.