Atheism and evolution

One theme which often comes up in the debate over evolution is that the anti-evolution side insists that evolution is anti-religion, while the pro-evolution side insists that evolution and religion have nothing to do with one another, so religious people should leave evolution alone.  Strategically, there may be some merit in this argument.  Certainly it is a fact that most of those who believe in evolution are also religious, so it's not as if believing in evolution requires you to reject religion.

However, I think there is a problem with claiming this total disconnect between the issues of religion and evolution.  The main reason I am an atheist is because, when I look around at the universe, it doesn't particularly look like the sort of thing which has been designed by an intelligence for some purpose.  Now, of course this is not a conclusive argument; intelligences are capable of having all sorts of strange purposes, and an intelligence capable of creating a universe would presumably be capable of having purposes far beyond my understanding.  But, while it's always necessary to remind ourselves that we could be wrong, this shouldn't preclude us from accepting what our best evidence seems to be telling us, and in this case what that evidence seems to be telling us is that there's no God out there.

If this is a reasonable way of thinking, then evolution is not actually irrelevant to the issue of theism vs. atheism; obviously, the pattern of life on this planet is one of the things which appears considerably more comprehensible if one assumes there's no God pulling the strings.  Certainly it's hard to see why the God of any of the major religions wouldn't have done lots of meddling, and yet to all appearances life has developed over time in ways completely explicable by evolution, with no signs of meddling whatsoever.  So, it seems to me that the anti-evolutionists are, kind of, right; evolution provides a reason not to believe in God (though, sadly for their cause, it provides a good reason).

The obvious response to this is to push the faith line, and say that belief in God has nothing to do with the evidence.  I suppose there are some who would take that line, but I fear there are too many who retreat to this position when the going gets tough, while normally insisting that their beliefs about God are as reasonable as can be.

Comments

[GCT]

No no no no no. A thousand times no. Science can no more disprove god than it can prove it. Evolution says nothing about belief in a deity. You can make your own philosophical conclusions based on the evidences that lead to evolution, but that is you talking, not the science. All science uses methodological naturalism, and there is nothing that makes evolution inherently more atheist than any other science. Evolution and science is religion-neutral. Please don't make the same mistake that anti-evolutionists make in mistaking a religious-neutral position for an anti-religious position.

[Robert Madison]

I have to agree with GCT

In fact, I'd argue that evolution can be used as evidence of a magnificent creator. (Theistic Evolution)

I'm an atheist, but when I'm talking to other theists, the argument I put forward is simply this:

1-If we assume that God created the natural world, and everything in it;
2-And because science is the study of the natural world, and everything in it;
3-Then it follows that science is an indirect study of god, and a direct study of his/her/its works.

A key question to ask theists is: Do you believe that God can work through natural processes, to include processes that are completely understood by science?

If "Yes", then why should there be *any* conflict between science and religion?

If "No"...wait a second...I thought God was omnipotent, and could do anything...

Don't know what your reading backlog is like, but if this topic is deeply interesting to you, I HIGHLY recommend you read "Finding Darwin's God", by Ken Miller. Very, very good book!

[Ongoing Indignation]

IMHO, most of the religious leaders who rail against evolution are doing so for political purposes. It is a sideshow for the rubes, like gay marriage. It is all about control. If the people understand, really understand evolution, then it would open their eyes to alot of other processes that are going on around them.

Another strike against evolution is that bigots would have to admit they are probably descended from Africans. The "Out of Africa" theory is a total nonstarter for them.

The whole idea of Intelligent Design is based on those two words, which are modern constructs. They have nothing to do with biology and everything to do about man's perceptions.

And if I hear one more moron try to give the "half-an-eye" argument, I'll scream. Here's your half-an-eye. Take a molecule that reacts to light, now hook it up to you. Stir for 1 billion years and you get an eyeball.

[yon fishman]

I agree with the first post. Evolution is not the kind of method an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and perfect designer would use to create. It is haphazard, wasteful, inefficient, and cruel. Just look up Ebola Hemorrhagic fever. If God exists, he would have to be supremely malevolent to create Ebola (along with many other diseases and natural disasters). Darwinian evolution does not definitively disprove the existence of God, but it does count as strong evidence (e.g., in a court of law) against the existence of a supremely intelligent and benevolent designer. This explains the justifiable opposition to 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Those who argue that there is no conflict between God and evolution probably do not understand the process of Darwinian evolution or fully appreciate what it entails.

Yon

[C Martin]

Thanks for the information, I did'nt know about this.

[3rdoption?]

The evolution taught to me in school is non-extant. The deity taught to me in church is non-extant. What's an atheist to do when he is presented with two tribalistic world views and no science?