Evolution and atheism

[CarlinKnew]

The fact that evolution demonstrates that humans came into existence by the same mindless process as all other organisms destroys the credibility of religions that claim that humans were intelligently designed. Since the above type of religion is by far the most popular, it's understandable that evolution is associated with atheism.

 

[autonomous1one1]

What is the relationship between atheism and the theory of evolution?

Greetings. Would you say that the relationship is one of compatibility and connectedness? Compatible in the sense that the theory of evolution does not require God (as has been posted) and the world view of atheism is without God. Connected in two ways: atheism is a product out of evolution just like everything else ; and as evidenced in this thread, perhaps evolution theory gives atheism and atheists added inner strength in face of what might have been a history of persecution by the prominent creation theories presented as fact.

 

[RedOne77]

The fact that evolution demonstrates that humans came into existence by the same mindless process as all other organisms destroys the credibility of religions that claim that humans were intelligently designed. Since the above type of religion is by far the most popular, it's understandable that evolution is associated with atheism.

Most Christians accept evolution. The creation/ID movement, like many minorities, just makes the most commotion. Evolution, and any scientific theory, doesn't disprove the idea of God, or that humans were divinely made. Main-stream Christianity more or less accepts that the human body evolved from previous animals, and at some time during our evolutionary history God gave us our human soul.

Evolution is associated with atheism because that is what the creationist propaganda puts out. Never mind about half of all natural scientists are religious and essentially all of them accept evolution as well. Not to mention the majority of Christians (both general public and clergy) accept it too.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Most Christians accept evolution.

Hmm, well most Americans don't accept evolution. Every study I've come across demonstrates a correlation between religiosity and disbelief in evolution.

The creation/ID movement, like many minorities, just makes the most commotion. Evolution, and any scientific theory, doesn't disprove the idea of God, or that humans were divinely made. Main-stream Christianity more or less accepts that the human body evolved from previous animals, and at some time during our evolutionary history God gave us our human soul.

I suppose one thing that some creationists and atheists have in common is that they see how silly that idea is.

 

[RedOne77]

Hmm, well most Americans don't accept evolution. Every study I've come across demonstrates a correlation between religiosity and disbelief in evolution.

I think it is about half and half actually. I'm skeptical of the correlation once in the religious category. I know plenty of creationists who don't study the Bible, theology, or even attend church. And I know plenty of TEs who do study the Bible, theology and are active in their church. Also, I think the clergy have spoken with the "clergy letter project" as some of the most religious, and scripturaly educated, people out there who do accept evolution. Also, the Catholic church (which is far larger than all of Protestantism) as a whole is more religious in general while the vast majority of them do accept evolution which has also been accepted by numerous Popes.

American creationism isn't so much about being super religious, rather about ignorance in both theology and science, IMHO.

I suppose one thing that some creationists and atheists have in common is that they see how silly that idea is.

You'd be amazed at what some TEs come up with. It's really not that bad of a solution if you want to accept both evolution and maintain some form of scriptural authority. You have to remember that it isn't a scientific claim or idea, it is a theological idea based on scripture and what we know of our past from scientific inquiry.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope. He was a Christian to death, although arguably tending to agnostic at the close of his life. In fact, it was largely because he was a Christian that he almost failed to revel his discoveries.

Are you sure about that? I really don’t think that is true, that is contrary to what I have read.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you sure about that? I really don’t think that is true, that is contrary to what I have read.

Sure? Not really, but it makes sense. He was never anti-Christian, at least. That is why Lawrence had to spur him into revealing Evolution, involuntarily as it was.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure? Not really, but it makes sense. He was never anti-Christian, at least. That is why Lawrence had to spur him into revealing Evolution, involuntarily as it was.

Everything I have read indicates that although he was a Christian early in his life, even considering becoming a member of the clergy, became an agnostic long before publishing Origin. It seems to me that he did begin to question his faith shortly after his voyage on the Beagle, and then with the death of his daughter his loss of faith had been confirmed.

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God”. Wiki

As to his reluctance to publish I would say that although Darwin was not a Christian, his wife was. And he did live in a Christian society. And I think it is true as you say that he was never “anti-Christian”, and I don’t think he was eager to upset people. But the fact is that he was not Christian. (And the stories of his deathbed conversion and repentance are nonsense).

Of course none of this really matters. Whatever the personal religious views of Charles Darwin were they make no difference to the science.

 

[David M]

Hmm, well most Americans don't accept evolution. Every study I've come across demonstrates a correlation between religiosity and disbelief in evolution.

You need to look outside the US then, because studies there clearly show acceptance of evolution bu christians.

 

[doppelganger]

You need to look outside the US then, because studies there clearly show acceptance of evolution bu christians.

I think what you'll likely find is that religiosity is fairly described as a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for someone to have the imagination captured by "creationist" science.

 

[gnostic]

He is believed to be agnostic, but that's not the point. The point is, how are these two ideas related, if at all?

My answer would still be the same.

They are not related.

Evolution and atheism are in no way related.

Atheism is the skepticism over the existence the god (hence opposite to theism).

Evolution is one of the scientific field in biology, relating to the changes to species at molecular level, like cells and genes, over a period of time and change in environment.

If I was to study gravity, the question of god's existence don't come into the theory, so why should the question of god's existence or non-existence be in the evolution?

The existence (or non-existence) of god also don't involve in other field of science, including mathematics, chemistry, biology, medicine, computer science, the various fields of engineering, etc.

Do university people who study or research in accounting and marketing course have subject in religion or atheism? No. The people may have their own personal belief, but that's outside the curriculums.

Atheism is a totally different subject to evolution.

Yes, many atheists (and agnostics) may accept evolution, but I know of many, personally who don't accept evolution, because they don't understand the science of evolution, or because they have no interested in. Many of atheist relatives are into business and marketing, so they don't know much about evolution whatsoever, just like they don't know anything about religion. They go through their day-to-day (working, social and home) life, without touching evolution, the big bang, string theory...or religion.

 

[Erebus]

What is the relationship between atheism and the theory of evolution?

I don't believe there is one. "New Atheists" on the other hand seem to almost invariably accept it.

 

[Abulafia]

I think I'll go upstairs and check....(going up the stairs)...hey...yeah...what?....no.....

....Well Darwin wants to know why the conservative church is on a bandawagon and the Pope just said that evolution is a go. Just let the congregation dish this one out....

...Meanwhile the apes are pleading no affiliation.

 

[David M]

The relationship between evolution and athiesm is that it resolves an important question about how the diversity of life arose with an answer that is compatible with atheism.

However that same answer can also be taken by people as being compatible with theism, deism, agnosticism etc. So it is false to say that evolution requires atheism.

The answer that evolution gives is not required by atheism either.

 

[Autodidact]

The relationship between evolution and athiesm is that it resolves an important question about how the diversity of life arose with an answer that is compatible with atheism.

However that same answer can also be taken by people as being compatible with theism, deism, agnosticism etc. So it is false to say that evolution requires atheism.

The answer that evolution gives is not required by atheism either.

Exactly and succinctly!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The relationship between evolution and athiesm is that it resolves an important question about how the diversity of life arose with an answer that is compatible with atheism.

However that same answer can also be taken by people as being compatible with theism, deism, agnosticism etc. So it is false to say that evolution requires atheism.

The answer that evolution gives is not required by atheism either.

Exactly and succinctly!

I also agree.

Something to consider: I suspect that the deists of the Enlightenment era would be mostly atheists today, if they knew about the science of biological and cosmological evolution. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Man of Faith]

The OP is an Atheist and promotes evolution, need we say anymore?

 

[Gunfingers]

The OP is a woman, and promotes evolution, need we say more?

The OP is gay (kinda) and promotes evolution, need we say more?

The OP likes the internet and promotes evolution, need we say more?

The OP apparently likes Star Trek (judging by her avatar) and promotes evolution, need we say more?

The OP is a feminist and promotes evolution, need we say more?

The OP is intelligent and promotes evolution, need we say more?

Actually, that last one makes a lot of sense...

 

[Autodidact]

The OP is an Atheist and promotes evolution, need we say anymore?

About what? Only you can give your opinion.

Are you trying to say that for some reason I'm not entitled to mine?

What is your point?

 

[LuisDantas]

The OP is an Atheist and promotes evolution, need we say anymore?

We don't need to say anything else, but it is proper to say that by creating the thread he is inviting everyone to opine on the matter.

If you are suggesting that only atheists could possibly promote evolution, well, I'm afraid that you are simply wrong. Evolutionists may very well be theists, and quite possibly all the more appreaciative of existence for that.