[b_sharp]

The study of evolution and the ToE does not create 'non-believers', it is just the examination of observed phenomena, but the interpretation that accompanies the very existence of evolution leads some to believe it creates non-believers.

Evolution shows common descent -> man is an ape -> man is not a special creation -> the Bible is in error - the Bible is not the word of God.

Geology shows great age in the Earth -> Bible dates are incorrect -> the Bible is in error -> the Bible is not inerrant -> the Bible is not the word of God.

Astronomy shows great age to the universe (great distance + light speed = age) -> see Geology

Cosmology shows the universe to be self created (in a sense) -> God did not create the universe -> there is no need of God -> there is no God.



Seems like Cosmology potentially does more to create non-believers in God. Evolution potentially creates non-believers in the Bible. Now the question is - is the Bible necessary for the belief in God?

[Lexinom]

The study of evolution and the ToE does not create 'non-believers', it is just the examination of observed phenomena, but the interpretation that accompanies the very existence of evolution leads some to believe it creates non-believers.

It's the causal priority that's under challenge. Is it really evidence -> conclusion? Or is it conclusion -> evidence? I submit it is the overarching theory which provides the epistomological slant on the evidence - both in its interpretation and its selection.

I don't have time to get into this any more this evening because of other obligations. Feel free to rebut, I'll respond as able.