slevesque writes:
Exactly. An atheist could believe that evolution as it is understood today is correct as far as it goes, but that it's also insufficient as a complete explanation for the diversity of life. Similarly, a physicist in the the 19th century may have affirmed that Newton's theory of gravitation was correct to a certain extent, but that it was also insufficient to explain the natural phenomena that it addressed. As in fact Einstein did indeed do. We could be awaiting the Einstein of biology.
Or an atheist would be perfectly self-consistent to say that he simply didn't know enough about biology to say whether or not ToE was "true," but that he did know enough about how the world works to be fairly certain that a supernatural explanation was not going to be satisfactory.
I believe that a proper scientific attitude toward ToE is to say that it appears to be correct as far as it goes, but it can always be modified to account for as yet undiscovered facts.
When I say evolution here, I am talking about the fact of evolution, not the mechanism of evolution. (when I want to talk about the mechanism, I usually say Neo-Darwinian evolution)
So when I say a complete atheistic worldview must include evolution, I am meaning that the atheist must believe in the fact of evolution. ''biological complexity evolved from simpler forms with time''.
The distinction is important: some atheists do in fact question the mechanism, but I have not yet seen an atheist question if evolution happened at all. In his worldview, evolution must have happened, it is just a matter of knowing why.
An example of this would be Fred Hoyle. He wasn't an anti-evolutionists, he was an anti Neo-Darwinian (and even that I am unsure. I always thought he was simply against chemical evolution ie abiogenesis)
I am responding to the bolded part.
Except that there are atheists who do believe in supernatural without believing in God, thus, you premise is completely wrong.
Buffy Summers, from Buffy The vampire Slayer is a great example of this kind of belief. Even though she is a fictional character, she is still a great example. because no matter that she sees crosses burning vampires and all kinds of supernatural beings, she still doesn't believe in God.
There are atheists who do believe this way. That, they believe that belief in the supernatural is not dependent upon the belief in the existence of God.
And furthermore, you're generalizing again. There are many different flavors and reasons for atheism as there are sects of Christianity. What you are doing is lumping all atheists into one single category and creating what is called a false dichotomy.
And I've already told you, I am an atheist who doesn't fully understand the mechanisms of evolution, so I question it.
But I have also told you that it is not a requirement to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
I haven't made up my mind yet on the issue, but I do defer to the experts on it rather than those who have an agenda to push to keep it out of schools and such.
And even if I did make up mind where I didn't believe in it, I still would not believe in God.
And that alone shows you to be wrong.
Being an atheist is not dependent upon the belief in evolution. Regardless of how you insist it must as well as you trying to mislead people into thinking it must.