Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

I have no idea what "evolutionism" means --- I am not a creationist. However, what you have described --- natural selection acting on random mutation --- is called "the theory of evolution".It has, of course, nothing to do with either atheism or the question of whether, or how, "something came out of nothing"; any more than the theory of gravity has a connection with atheism or answers the vexed question of where I left my spectacles.

The Roman church, hey?"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters." - Martin Luther"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" - John Calvin, Commentary on GenesisWhile we're at it:"Giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible." - John WesleyAnd:"What, there is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this? This means that Christian liberty is turned into liberty of the flesh. Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the Gospel." - Martin LutherSlavery, witchburning, geocentrism ... and, today, fiat creationism. All the word of God, according to Protestant theologians slightly more eminent than you. "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." (Psalms 96:10)

If you're referring to the survey in Nature (1997) then physicists were most likely to be atheists, then biologists, then mathematicians, but there wasn't much in it: belief was about 40% in all groups.I have also read, but cannot find the references, that the scientists least likely to believe in any form of the supernatural are psychologists.Interestingly, a follow up to the original study in Nature shows that the best scientists are more likely to be atheists. HereNote that in this survey of top scientists, the biologists are more atheistic.The creationist claims about atheist scientists are a double-edged sword. If the people who have made the most careful study of Nature conclude that it had no creator ... what does that tell us, eh?

Of course it is. How would anyone do geology without real geology? How could anyone do thermodynamics without the actual laws of thermodynamics? How could anyone do paeleontology while denying the existence of intermediate forms? How would Tiktaalik have been discovered by "Flood Geology". How would archaelogists get by without dendrochronology and radio-carbon dating --- or admitting the existence of the Stone Age? How would astronomers do astronomy if they had to pretend the universe was compatible with YEC fantasies? How would information theory have any use or content if it was replaced with the gibberish of Werner Gitt? How would the study of genetics get on if we denied common descent? How the heck would you do behavioral ecology without the concept of an ESS? And how could anyone study morphology and deny common descent?Have you ever wondered why there's no creationist prospecting company? Why it is that scientists have jobs finding oil and coal and other valuable mineral deposits, and creationists don't? After all, you guys have the word of God to tell you what to think, whereas scientists just have Evil Atheist Lies. And strike oil.

Saying it won't make it so. Then I suggest you brush up on your YEC. That would include the existence of intermediate forms. Saying it won't make it so. Please answer the question. How would Tiktaalik have been discovered by Flood Geology? They would indeed "just have to theorize", 'cos where would they find facts to confirm their theories? There are, and they agree with those methods, so you'd have to throw those out too. You betcha. It should be evident from my remarks that Werner Gitt wishes to replace information theory with some rubbish of his own. This is very popular with YECs. Funny how all those geneticists are wrong about mutation. Or perhaps, Mr "I-don't-know-what-a-microsatelite-is", you are, and adhering to fundie doctrine would mean rejecting much of what they know. You betcha. Linnaeus suffered from paucity of data. This completely fails to answer my question: why are there no creationist prospecting companies?Let's hear from Glenn Morton:For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

​

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood...

​

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.So, tell me, how are people meant to stay YECs when they're exposed to the facts?

And did the answer claim that anything I quoted was not true? Why must I know that? Did you not read the quote?"I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry."And they were unanimous.To these folk we may of course add all the geologists who never were YECs and whose lifetime of experience still persuades them not to be.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then there is no place here for a claim that the daily work of science is compatible with YEC.The only way to answer that is to list all the sciences it would affect, or at least a large representative sample of them.

It's also damn silly, but, as you say, it's off topic. Why don't you post something similar in one of the threads on genetics and see what happens?