Atheism = Belief in Evolutionary Theory = Atheism

[monta]

I notice that for a lot of people atheism is synonymous with belief in the theory of evolution.

I have also noticed that for a lot of people belief in the theory of evolution is synonymous with rejecting Christianity.

I know many Christians who believe in the theory of evolution though I have to admit I don't know any atheists who don't believe in it.

Do you think you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist?
If you are an atheist would your 'lack of faith' collapse if the theory of evolution was disproved?
Is the theory of evolution incongruent with the beliefs of mainstream religions ?

For me atheism means one thing , I don't believe the probablity of the existence of a god is strong enough to merit belief, thus I do not believe in the existence of a god.

 

[Bloomdido]

Evolution is proven. It is fact. There is nothing left to faith. There are theoretical aspects to how evolution happened along the way but I don't need to believe in it like I don't need to believe in the internal combustion engine.

 

[monta]

The theory of evolution is eminently probable, but it is not yet a proven fact, I personally believe in it but that is besides the point.

My questions relate to the concept of atheism being tied up in evolutionary theory, when it predates it and if the theory of evolution were to be disproved I would still be an atheist, the two ideas are not hinged on each other for me.

 

[Willamena]

Do you think you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist?

It's not a requirement, no.

 

[Watchmen]

Interesting question. If an atheist doesn't believe in evolution and, because he is an atheist, he doesn't believe in faith/creation...where does the atheist think the origins of the world come from? Fascinating. I suppose such a person does not exist.

 

[Zephyr]

The theory of evolution is eminently probable, but it is not yet a proven fact, I personally believe in it but that is besides the point.

Evolution is just as proven as gravity or the chemical model of matter. Scientists have directly observed evolution (notably in fruit flies), and we all feel the results in some way or another whenever flu season runs by. Not sure about full-on species changes, but somebody more knowledgeable like PW would know a lot more about that than me. The only potential controversy is the means of evolution, and even for that the current model works pretty damn well.

 

[themadhair]

I notice that for a lot of people atheism is synonymous with belief in the theory of evolution.

Have you ever noticed that the people advocating this viewpoint tend to know very little about either? Just a thought.

I have also noticed that for a lot of people belief in the theory of evolution is synonymous with rejecting Christianity.

I think this only held by biblical literalists.

Do you think you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist?

No. I remember a very strange email correspondence I had with an atheistic Raelian. The question you ask us pretty equivalent to this one: Do you think you have to believe in gravity to be an atheist?

If you are an atheist would your 'lack of faith' collapse if the theory of evolution was disproved?

This question doesn’t even begin to come close to making sense. If the theory of gravity were disproved would that make me doubt my lack of faith? Pretty much the same question and equally as meaningless.

Is the theory of evolution incongruent with the beliefs of mainstream religions ?

I would have said yes before reading some of the threads on this forum. I hope the answer the yes for the scientific literacy of the world.

Interesting question. If an atheist doesn't believe in evolution and, because he is an atheist, he doesn't believe in faith/creation...where does the atheist think the origins of the world come from? Fascinating. I suppose such a person does not exist.

False dichotomy.

 

[Watchmen]

False dichotomy.

Then show me such a person. I don't deny the possibility - I just don't think he/she exists.

 

[Panda]

Then show me such a person. I don't deny the possibility - I just don't think he/she exists.

I have to agree with you here. Though it would be remarkable to find such a person.

 

[Willamena]

If an atheist doesn't believe in evolution and, because he is an atheist, he doesn't believe in faith/creation...where does the atheist think the origins of the world come from? Fascinating. I suppose such a person does not exist.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with origins of the world. That said, he could believe that the world has always existed. Some on RF have expressed this view.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I know many Christians who believe in the theory of evolution though I have to admit I don't know any atheists who don't believe in it.

I can say the same thing but I can also add that a great many of those atheists who claim to believe in evolution couldn't give you a comprehensive explanation of what evolution is. They simply claim to believe in it because that is what they were told was scientific fact. Their acceptance in this is very similar to Christians who believe in Creation because that is what their preacher told them. I think the number of people who actually explore the evidence of either is rather low. Although, statistically, on this forum, I think the number is very high.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suppose such a person does not exist.

I suppose there could be several other theories an atheist could hold that do not go along with evolution, such as aliens putting us here.

There really isn't any reason why you have to be an atheist to realize that evolution did happen. Plenty of Christians even acknowledge that the Bible stories of creationism are metaphors (for more than one reason. i.e., the moon producing light, which the bible says it does but we know now it doesn't), and accept evolution as how we got here.
I personally believe that the higher powers that be use physical means to cause manipulations in our world, such as guiding comets to earth to get the whole life process started.

 

[monta]

Evolution is just as proven as gravity or the chemical model of matter. Scientists have directly observed evolution (notably in fruit flies), and we all feel the results in some way or another whenever flu season runs by. Not sure about full-on species changes, but somebody more knowledgeable like PW would know a lot more about that than me. The only potential controversy is the means of evolution, and even for that the current model works pretty damn well.

I know modification within species especially insects is proven (even more convincing than our old friend drosophilidae) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm but evolutionary theory is still in the process of being proven, the evidence so far is a strong indication of validaty and I don't doubt it is the most logical explanation, but to jump to a conclusion without incontrovertable conclusive evidence is hubris.

 

[monta]

I am not directing this at anyone in particular.

I find making a declaration about the validity of a theory especially when you clearly don't have anything more then a passing familiarity with the concept ridiculous and annoying.

In rl I have had arguments with people who think because I purport that evolution has not yet been proven conclusively I must not believe it is true.

But this is not my main focus in posing these questions, which is why do people believe atheism hangs on evolutionary theory being correct. Both atheists and non atheists seem to buy into this idea wholesale.

 

[themadhair]

I am not directing this at anyone in particular.

I find making a declaration about the validity of a theory especially when you clearly don't have anything more then a passing familiarity with the concept ridiculous and annoying.

In rl I have had arguments with people who think because I purport that evolution has not yet been proven conclusively I must not believe it is true.

But this is not my main focus in posing these questions, which is why do people believe atheism hangs on evolutionary theory being correct. Both atheists and non atheists seem to buy into this idea wholesale.

How many scientific theories do you know that have been ‘proven’? To my knowledge there are a total of 0.

And why is that people who actually know a bit about science don’t buy into this idea?

 

[DadBurnett]

Atheism does not equal evolutionist. And in my view, being Christian does not automatically exclude the theory of evolution.
I believe in God as Creator, the First Cause, the Source of all that was, is and ever will be. I also have no problem with the idea of God having initiated some form of evolutionary process within the scope of the creative process.

 

[T-Dawg]

I think this only held by biblical literalists.

I consider myself a "biblical literalist," and I find no problem with evolution, that is, the idea that species will change (or "evolve") and develop new traits over time. I don't see how that contradicts with the creation story at all. As for humans originating from monkeys, I'm not sure about that (seeing that it originated from a false accusation from the church - a group of people wanted to stamp out evolutionism, and they thought the best way to make them look bad was to say that they believed people came from monkeys. Or at least that's what biology class told me.), but I do have a theory of how it can fit in the creation story: Adam and Eve were monkeys (or whatever it turns out that humans came from). The "fruit" probably contained some sort of parasite, disease, or whatever that somehow altered Adam and Eve's genetics, which is why God didn't want them to eat the fruit. When they ate the fruit, the parasite made it's way into Eve's womb, and infected the first cell of their children, which then multiplied just as any normal zygote would, and the entire child ended up with the new trait (which presumably had something to do with increased brain mass, as the tree was called "The Tree of Knowledge"). And naturally, since the Garden of Eden was the mideast (and Adam and Eve presumably stayed in the mideast after leaving the garden), the body hair that monkeys have was an unfavorable gene and was eliminated through natural selection. (And before someone asks, the monkeys we have today were probably children Adam and Eve had before they ate the fruit)
It's bizarre, but it goes in line with the creation story and my current knowledge of evolution =).

However, I do NOT believe that we all originated from single celled creatures. It would take too much time, to put it simply. The sun would have become a red giant and incinerated earth before enough mutations came along to make a single cell prokaryote into a multicellular human being.

 

[monta]

How many scientific theories do you know that have been ‘proven’? To my knowledge there are a total of 0.

And why is that people who actually know a bit about science don’t buy into this idea?

The fact that I have to open each answer by defending my belief in evolution is partly what I am talking about. The Theory of evolution is the most logical answer, yes, but it also is not completely understood, it is in the process of being so. My issue isn't with evolution but rather with the idea that evolution is atheism and vice versa. It is a very christian centric notion.

You will have to define what knowing 'a bit about science' is for me to be able to even come close to properly answering the second question.

 

[themadhair]

You will have to define what knowing 'a bit about science' is for me to be able to even come close to properly answering the second question.

To be perfectly blunt, if you don’t even know what the word ‘theory’ means in a scientific concept then you probably need to learn a bit more about science. Does that help?

 

[Nepenthe]

I consider myself a "biblical literalist," and I find no problem with evolution, that is, the idea that species will change (or "evolve") and develop new traits over time. I don't see how that contradicts with the creation story at all. As for humans originating from monkeys, I'm not sure about that (seeing that it originated from a false accusation from the church - a group of people wanted to stamp out evolutionism, and they thought the best way to make them look bad was to say that they believed people came from monkeys. Or at least that's what biology class told me.)

Your biology teacher either lied or is sorely misinformed about history and biology.

but I do have a theory of how it can fit in the creation story: Adam and Eve were monkeys (or whatever it turns out that humans came from). The "fruit" probably contained some sort of parasite, disease, or whatever ...but it goes in line with the creation story and my current knowledge of evolution =).

I know this can only sound incredibly condescending and I truly don't mean to be, but your current knowledge of evolution is just plain wrong. There's some solid threads here at RF on the subject, some great books for intros to evolutionary biology, and I'd also suggest sites like TalkOrigins that have tons of great essays written by those who actually work in the field.

However, I do NOT believe that we all originated from single celled creatures. It would take too much time, to put it simply. The sun would have become a red giant and incinerated earth before enough mutations came along to make a single cell prokaryote into a multicellular human being.

And therein lies one of many problems: your understanding of natural selection is just false.

The fact that I have to open each answer by defending my belief in evolution is partly what I am talking about. The Theory of evolution is the most logical answer, yes, but it also is not completely understood, it is in the process of being so. [emphasis mine]...

This comes up a lot in evolutionary discussions: issues of "proof" (which science does not deal with at all- science deals with evidence, mathematics with proof). It causes a lot of confusion from all sides of the issue.

Evolution is an indisputable fact, it is more substantiated and understood than gravity (as was mentioned). Changes in alleles over time is concrete, has been repeatedly demonstrated and not controversial whatsoever. The questions about the mechanism, that is natural selection, are where any subtle differences may reside. But evolution has been well understood since Darwin published, and the details of natural selection have been trickling into the equation like some perfect beautifully made puzzle.

Themadhair brought it up, but I won;t even elaborate on the whole distinction between how scientists use the word "theory" as opposed to the lay public. That's been beaten into the ground so many times I bore myself... Well, unless it continues here then I will harp on it.

Oh yeah! The OP!!! I agree- it's ridiculous to assume evolution means atheism. I'd be hard pressed to point out any atheists I've known who didn't have a good grasp of evolution, much less any who denied it, but the two certainly aren't synonymous.