" One who is an atheist or agnostic must by necessity believe in evolution."
In the absence of an invisible man in the sky, the atheist falls back on observation and reason to try and untangle reality. If the theory of evolution fits the facts, it isn't surprising he will go with it, as opposed to 'believing' something in the absence of observation but rather swallowing whole the superstition of others.
Your subsuming reason under belief does you a disservice, but since people aren't reasoned into religious beliefs, it's a waste of time to trying reasoning them out of it.
see my 65.
By excluding one possibility that currently falls outside of study of science (the man in the sky), his reason *may* be taking him down the incorrect path.
If the theory of evolution fits the facts, it isn't surprising he will go with it, as opposed to 'believing' something in the absence of observation but rather swallowing whole the superstition of others.
ToE "fits the facts" for philosophical reasons... the possibility of all "supernatural" explanations have to be excluded, as they fall outside of the realm of all "real" science. The study of science has fallen into a circular argument, favoring one philosophy over all others.
Two judging bodies are sitting in a room. One side is open to the possibility of a supernatural & the other side knows there is no such thing.
A piece of the puzzle is brought into the room to be evaluated by the judging bodies, to see which pile the evidence gets thrown on. A portion of those on the side of a supernatural possibility will claim that the evidence clearly belongs in their pile. A portion will vote that it belongs in a middle pile. One hundred percent of those in the other governing body will vote that it belongs in their pile.
I believe that all of the evidence belongs in the middle pile & anyone that claims it must be put on either of the other piles is doing so for purely philosophical reasons. Least I know my position is based on my beliefs...