Your definition of religion is not correct. Webster defines as:
a : the state of a
religious <a nun in her 20th year of
religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity
: conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Okay, definition 1b and 3 (which is labeled "archaic" anyway) are contrary to what I stated, but 1a, 2, and 4 are basically what I said. So, since my definition agrees with most of the definition you posted (yours is more generalized but the same thing) ... how is that wrong.
It'd be like if I said, "2+2=4" and you said, "No, you are wrong. 2+2=1+1+1+1=4." Reading comprehension is your friend.
Clearly (and our supreme court has also agreed with this) that naturalism (evolution is based on natural processes and no Creator) is a belief and practice with a worldview based on a belief there is no Creator.
I would say that those who accept evolution AND believe that there is no God do follow a sort-of religion. Belief in no God requires faith, as there is just as much evidence for no god as there is for god.
However, since evolution is accepted by millions of devout believers (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) it is not the "evolution" part of that that makes it faith. The acceptance of evolution is simply the acceptance of the overwhelming evidence supporting it. There is no faith involved.
The first statement of the GTE General Theory of Evolution is that some unknown form of life that has never been observed only imagined which I will call IT, came about as a result of abiogenesis or non-living chemicals formed life complete with the very complex coding system, capability for copying code for reproduction, and all the other complex machinery required for the simplest form of life. IT has never been observed by science and is simply a belief.
Can you provide support for this statement, please? Thank you.
Also, we all have the same facts both Biblical creationist and evolutionists but it is the INTERPRETATION of those facts based on the worldview that matter.
Well, yes. Creationists interpret the evidence that says this planet is millions of years old as being false evidence, either planted by God to trick us (making God out to be a liar and trickster, which would make him worthy of neither worship nor praise), or created by Satan (giving Satan more power than God has given him, the ability to create). Scientists interpret those facts to say what they say. I suppose I could agree with that.
But that puts Creationists clearly outside of orthodox Christianity, since Orthodox Christianity teaches, among other things, that (1) God is good and does not lie, and (2) Satan has no real power to create, only to corrupt what already exists.
So if you believe in a God who lies, and/or in a Satan who has that much power, I support your right in that faith. I will not share in it, however.
For example, evolutionists show common links between certain creatures having the same number of bones on the hand-5. They say this similarity proves evolution.
Um, no. There are WAY more than 5 bones in the human hand. It's actually dozens. And very few other mammals have as many bones in their hands as humans have. Please provide any support that any evolutionist has ever said, 1, that humans have only 5 bones in their hand, or 2, that other creatures have the same number of bones, and therefore evolution is true. Both of these statements are completely false. Not only are the bases false, and therefore no scientist would accept them (a simple look at the skeleton proves it false), no scientist, even if he or she accepted these false statements, would say they prove evolution.
Biblical creationists say the Designer reused a similar design structure in different creatures for a similar purpose.
So do theistic evolutionists.
However, evolutionist simply cannot explain the huge variantion of creature features and functions that are required to exist together for survivability.
FALSE. Evolutionists CAN and DO explain it ... the very way you do: this is what is required to exist together for maximum "survivability" (which isn't really a word, but I know what you mean. The word scientists use is survival).
What evidence do you have for evolution that you are so sure about? Let's discuss it and I will show you the evolutionary interpretation of the "fact" can also be interpreted in a logical way with biblical creation.
Fair enough.
Let's start with the easy stuff:
Understanding Evolution
There are lots of additional links there fore more.
Eagerly awaiting.
