Books By Creationists?

No, not quite. To paraphrase what Dr Dawkins actually said, evolution allows one to be an atheist without being intellectually dishonest. Before Darwin, there was simply no plausible mechanism to explain the complexity of life. There was no way to account for it other than to believe that some sort of supernatural agency was responsible. Afterwards, that particular argument for the existence of God no longer held water. You can put forth others, but that one is dead. So understanding evolution doesn't exactly require one to be an atheist, but it does make it possible.I also want to point out that you might not be understanding the term "debunk" in the same way that most of the others on this forum do. To debunk is to show by reason and evidence that a particular idea is wrong. It's the same thing as reading critically. Now if you were to read a book and simply refuse to accept what you were reading, for no other reason than that you didn't want to believe it, then that would be intellectually dishonest. You'd be lying to yourself. What would be truly dishonest would be if you dismissed a book without knowing anything about credibility of either the author or his or her position, and yet presented yourself as if you had in fact given it a fair analysis.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset rather lengthy "signature" to smaller (1) font size.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

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.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

I'll happily agree with this. I think that the physical evidence for the fact that evolution has happened and continues to happen is so overwhelming that it seems intellectually perverse to deny it. But that's just me.By the way, slev, of all the people on this forum, you're still my candidate for Theist Most Likely to Finally Accept Evolution. Please take that as a compliment.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill