Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Creation Versus Evolution: Can One Believe In Atheism without First Being A Darwinian Evolutionist

with 14 comments

Creation versus Evolution Debate: Can One belive in Atheism without being first convinced of Evolution?

I have yet to meet an Atheist who is not a supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution, If you are an atheist and do not believe in the proof of Evolution, I would like to hear from you.

Image from DesignsDelight

If Atheism is relying on the validity of Evolution for its own existence, it raises a number of interesting questions.

1) What if there is no proof of Evolution? Then Atheist have to become fanatical in their insistence that Evolution is true. Is this not what is taking place today?

2) Where there any Atheists before The Theory of Evolution was thought of?

3) If Science proves that Evolution is incorrect what will happen to Atheist?

I like to hear from you.


Written by dawkinswatch

April 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Posted in evolution

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Atheism is the non-belief in God. One can be a non-believer without knowing squat about evolution. Ergo belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for, nor a cause of, atheism.
    1) There is substantial evidence for evolution, better “proof” than would be required in a court of law to convict someone of murder, so the point is moot. However, if the scientific evidence suddenly pointed to some other explanation for the fossil record, homology, and the commonality of the genetic code, that still does not prove the existence of a god. So Atheists would remain so.

    2) If by “The Theory of Evolution” you mean Darwinian Natural Selection, then a 30 second search should turn up the following:
    Auguste Comte (1798–1857)
    Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794)
    Henry Louis Vivian Derozio (1809–1831)
    Diagoras of Melos (5th century BCE)
    Denis Diderot (1713–84)
    Friedrich Karl Forberg (1770–1848)
    Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715–71)
    Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789)
    Kazimierz Lyszczynski (1634–1689)
    Jean Meslier (1678–1733)
    Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709–51)
    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
    Sir James Hall (1761–1832)
    Sir John Leslie (1766–1832)

    So yes, there were.

    3) See 1).

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    April 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  2. I’m understanding more about human behavior and evolution from author M.A. Curtis from his latest book, “Dominance & Delusion.”
    I didn’t think I would like this book, but I actually enjoyed it and learned a lot about how we got to where we are today.


    April 30, 2009 at 5:19 am

  3. In which way do you mean “Darwinian Evolutionist”? Which of Darwin’s five principle revolutionary ideas are you referring to?

    I ask, because not all of Darwin’s principle theses have been borne out by discoveries in the subsequent 150 years.


    April 30, 2009 at 7:33 am

  4. Bipedal Tetrapod

    Where these people mystic or Rosicrucians?

    I mean the Natural selection of Species and Superior Races.


    April 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  5. @DW
    Where these people mystic or Rosicrucians?
    Say what? They were atheists. Most atheists are atheists because they don’t believe in the supernatural.
    Individuals undergo selection, populations evolve. “Natural selection of species” is basically meaningless. As for “superior races”, that doesn’t fit in to evolution anywhere.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    April 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  6. Okay – two thinks DW. First, natural selection is really so patently obvious that no explanation is needed. It’s the biological equivalent of trying to convince someone that gravity is a fact. Second, Darwin never suggested that any race of any species was inherently superior in any objective way.


    April 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm

  7. dan tell me the full title of his book.

    In the Descent of Man he says that Black people are inferior.


    May 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  8. DW,
    Do you have to give it away that you haven’t actually read Darwin’s The Descent of Man?


    May 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  9. dan we have dealt with the eugenics movement and daarwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton Galton



    May 2, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  10. Okay, so you concede that others (not Darwin – in this case, Galton) said that Blacks were inherently inferior. Great, that was my point.


    May 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  11. @DW – I think what you were trying to get at is the subtitle of Origin of Species, which is “or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
    Please note that it does not say SUPERIOR race. Natural selection implies no inherent superiority, only that those better able to cope with present conditions are more likely to have more offspring. End of story.

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    May 3, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  12. dan I challenge you to tell me the full title of Darwin’s book

    Who then are the superior races?


    May 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  13. plese let us not argue about what is obvious

    read the original title yourself


    May 5, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  14. DW,
    Thank you for once again revealing your ignorance of both the English language and biology. If you’d read the book, you’d see that races are favored by local environmental conditions, NOT by any intrinsic ideal.

    If he’d meant superior, he would have said superior, but no, he said “favored” (by the conditions).


    May 6, 2009 at 8:56 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: