[Dimensio]

However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.

Those atheists are stupid. I'm an equal-opportunity mouth-shooter :)

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way."

I'm an atheist. When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities. I do not appeal to any physical properties of the universe, I do not appeal to any biological facts and I do not appeal to 'why did bad thing X happen' because doing so would assume specific properties of a deity, but that only works if it can be demonstrated that a deity must have those properties. To my knowledge, no such limitations have ever been demonstrated, thus the structure of the retina is not a proof that no gods exist.

Just because some people erroneously equate evolution and atheism does not mean that they are really linked. Demonstrating the existence of a deity (and Thomas doesn't even do that, he simply asserts that some 'intelligent' people believed in one) would not invalidate evolution.

I've other problems with Cal Thomas as well. Not too long ago he wrote a lovely diatribe against atheists and in doing so he employed at least six logical fallacies in three paragraphs. To date he has never addressed any criticism of his work, even though atheists and theists alike trashed it for the tripe that it was. He has no credibility with me.

[r9etb]

Those atheists are stupid.

Be that as it may, those atheists are the ones to whom Thomas, et al, are responding. And they notably include such influential evolutionists as Messrs. Dawkins and Gould.

When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities.

To my knowledge, no such limitations have ever been demonstrated, thus the structure of the retina is not a proof that no gods exist.

And yet it is offered as just that sort of proof -- by Dawkins himself, I believe.

When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would suffice for you to conclude otherwise?

[cookcounty]

"Just because some people erroneously equate evolution and atheism does not mean that they are really linked. Demonstrating the existence of a deity ..... would not invalidate evolution."

But I think you're missing the fact that the whole Darwinian enterprise assumes a priori that all things have a natural explanation, in other words, that the supernatural does not exist.

I understand fully that science has to be about seeking natural explanations for phenomena, but what bothers me is the lack of willingness to admit that at some point, it could be that natural explanations may possibly be insufficient. What's wrong with saying "we don't know how cells could have formed from inanimate matter"? What's wrong with saying, "We're not sure how humans appeared on the earth"? Instead, your typical high school bio text is written with a "we know almost everything" attitude.