Theory of Evolution and Belief in God

[rogue06]

Are there atheists who DON'T accept the theory of evolution? Can you name some?

David Berlinski, though probably more of an agnostic than atheist, who supports ID and opposes evolution

Bradley Monton, an atheist and another supporter of ID (wrote "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design")

[OtherCheek]

There are some and they are somewhat fringe, David Berlinski is an example.

How does he explain the existence of things? Or does he not even acknowledge his own existence?

[rogue06]

How does he explain the existence of things? Or does he not even acknowledge his own existence?

Berlinski steadfastly refuses to comment on things like the origin of life

[OtherCheek]

David Berlinski, though probably more of an agnostic than atheist, who supports ID and opposes evolution

Bradley Monton, an atheist and another supporter of ID (wrote "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design")

He probably believes that NATURE is intelligent. You many not know this, but would then then think that the intelligence of nature came about by accident?

[OtherCheek]

Neither. This is a false dichotomy. I would hold to the Theory of Evolution regardless of whether I learned that God existed or not, simple on the basis of the overwhelming evidential support for it. Not from the fact that I don't believe in God. And while certain anachronistic arguments for God have been knocked down by the Theory of Evolution, the rest I believe are wrong from evaluating them on a case by case basis. And that's the basis I have for believing that there's no good reason to believe in God.

Let me try to spell this out better. Here are my assumptions precipitating my question.

1. Existence is. Existence of life is.
2. Life is intelligent by nature of the fact that it tends toward survival and if possible, propagation. (unless genetically altered or defective in some way)
3. There are only two competing notions (that I know of), as to the cause of the existence of life--by accident or by non-accident.
4. If by accident, then not by involvement of Intelligent Designer/Causer and conversely, if not by involvement of I.D./Causer, then by accident.
5. If by non accident, then by involvement of Intelligent Designer/Causer and conversely, if by involvement of I.D./Causer, then by non accident.

So assumption 4 pertains to you. But which precipitates which in your mind? Does your adherence to "existence of life by accident" precipitate your rejection an Intelligent CausER? Or does your rejection of the notion of an Intelligent CausER precipitate your acceptance of "existence of life by accident"?

[Leonhard]

Does your adherence to "existence of life by accident" precipitate your rejection an Intelligent CausER?

No, I carefully told you that while certain old arguments for God were shown to be unsound because of The Theory of Evolution, that doesn't mean that all arguments (by far) have been shown to be unsound. And I don't see any incompatibility per say with evolution and the existence of a God.

Or does your rejection of the notion of an Intelligent CausER precipitate your acceptance of "existence of life by accident"?

No. You seem to think that I believe that evolution is true because God doesn't exist and that's simple false. I believe that evolution is true based upon the evidence supplied for it.

[rogue06]

He probably believes that NATURE is intelligent. You many not know this, but would then then think that the intelligence of nature came about by accident?

[shunyadragon]

But don't atheists see the two things as incompatible belief systems. Incompatible for atheists to embrace both the acceptance of TOE and God at the same time?

Generally no. They most often do not believe in God, because of the lack of evidence. They believe in evolution because of the abundant overwhelming evidence with no competing theory nor explanation that fits the evidence.

I am personally a Theistic Evolutionist.

[shunyadragon]

Let me try to spell this out better. Here are my assumptions precipitating my question.

1. Existence is. Existence of life is.
2. Life is intelligent by nature of the fact that it tends toward survival and if possible, propagation. (unless genetically altered or defective in some way)
3. There are only two competing notions (that I know of), as to the cause of the existence of life--by accident or by non-accident.
4. If by accident, then not by involvement of Intelligent Designer/Causer and conversely, if not by involvement of I.D./Causer, then by accident.
5. If by non accident, then by involvement of Intelligent Designer/Causer and conversely, if by involvement of I.D./Causer, then by non accident.

So assumption 4 pertains to you. But which precipitates which in your mind? Does your adherence to "existence of life by accident" precipitate your rejection an Intelligent CausER? Or does your rejection of the notion of an Intelligent CausER precipitate your acceptance of "existence of life by accident"?

The existence of life by accident has never been a factor in science, nor the theory of evolution. Evolution does not necessarily occur in nature under any given conditions, but as far as we know 'Evolution' is product of the environment of our world, and Natural Law, not accident.

[shunyadragon]

David Berlinski, though probably more of an agnostic than atheist, who supports ID and opposes evolution

Bradley Monton, an atheist and another supporter of ID (wrote "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design")

Both of these sources have odd contradictions in their writings.

[headheart]

For atheists:

Is it your acceptance of the Theory of Evolution that leads to your disbelief in God (Intelligent DisignER), or is it your disbelief in God that leads to your acceptance of the Theory of Evolution?

Atheism didn't do it for me; what did it for me were gradual changes over a long period of time.

[OtherCheek]

No, I carefully told you that while certain old arguments for God were shown to be unsound because of The Theory of Evolution, that doesn't mean that all arguments (by far) have been shown to be unsound. And I don't see any incompatibility per say with evolution and the existence of a God.

I've since refined the question somewhat. Which is ok to do, I think. I'm talking about existence of life by accident, or by non-accident. Which do you believe is more accurate? I think most atheists might say that the existence of life came about by natural law when random conditions became "just right". And so it is a combination of both. The conditions became just right by accident, then life sprang forth and evolved according to natural law.

Is that accurate?

[OtherCheek]

The existence of life by accident has never been a factor in science, nor the theory of evolution. Evolution does not necessarily occur in nature under any given conditions, but as far as we know 'Evolution' is product of the environment of our world, and Natural Law, not accident.

So then environment conditions and Natural Law caused life to generate and then according to Natural Law and environment, life naturally evolved and naturally designed. Is that an accurate representation of your belief?

[Whag]

I can't speak for atheists but I think the latter is true. This is the only thing that explains to me why atheists are so (religious-like) defensive and apologetic about it. Of course, that view can get countered when trying to explain why there is TE.

Disbelief in God is not religion, so how does that make sense? So some atheists accept evolution after concluding from their experience and study that God, as religion perceives him, doesn't exist. That's not "religious-like" but a completely rational conclusion to make.

You probably confuse some of their passionate defense of evolution as religion because you're projecting your religious behavior onto them? They're actually passionate because evolution is a jaw-dropping truth, not because it involves dogmas and creeds. I think Dawkins has hammered this point home well. To the shame of evangelicals who still lie and sneer about it after reading Strobel et al, I might add.

[Psychic Missile]

David Berlinski, though probably more of an agnostic than atheist, who supports ID and opposes evolution

Bradley Monton, an atheist and another supporter of ID (wrote "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design")

Also every atheist who lived before the theory of evolution.