[BaBaStooey]

My beef isn't really with biologists. It isn't really even with scientists. It is with those who use evolution as a means to legitimize their belief that no God exists. They believe no God exists, because if He did, and they believed it, then the stuff that they do would make them feel guilty, and feeling guilty sucks. So they spread that around, and try to get everyone to believe what they believe, so there won't be anyone left who does believe in God who might eventually make them feel guilty.

If evolution were proven and not simply a theory, it would even make sense to me if the guiding hand of God was behind it all (if, for example, the mutations were not a result of random acts, but the work of intelligence). However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point.

[MineralMan]

"However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point."

---

You know, evolutionary theory is not the domain of atheists. Most scientists who study evolution aren't atheists, I'm sure. I imagine that most atheists do think that the theory of evolution is the most likely explanation for speciation, but evolutionary theory didn't start with atheists.

I really think you owe it to yourself to learn a little more about the theory and who thinks it's valid. You're operating on some misinformation, there.

[js1138]

Science and biology have nothing to say about the existence of God. They do, however, have something to say about physical history. If that is a problem, I suspect it will go the same way it went with Galileo.

I don't see many people arguing that the movement of the earth destroys religion.

But there is a clue here. It is not science that causes people to lose faith. It is the self-proclaimed religionists denying the findings of science that make religion look stupid. There is a difference between accepting every new conjecture and claim of science, and acception conclusions based on centuries of evidence and argument.

[Oztrich Boy]

They believe no God exists, because if He did, and they believed it, then the stuff that they do would make them feel guilty, and feeling guilty sucks.

However some of the most enthusiastic anti-Darwinians (those who use God as a means to legitimize their belief that no evolution exists) were able to accomodate the guilt of the stuff they do - Aimie Semple MacPherson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Herb and Garner Ted Armstrong.

It seems that rejecting beilef in evolution may be at least as motally hazardous as rejecting beief in God

[LibertarianSchmoe]

However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point.

And creationism is touted by Islamic fundamentalists. Not that the "who's-with-me" method is a good way to pick your beliefs, in my opinion, but you'd rather be on the side of Islamofacists than atheists? Or perhaps you're conveniently ignoring that fact.

[stands2reason]

It is with those who use evolution as a means to legitimize their belief that no God exists.

Those people are being illogical. Evolution is neither proof of a God or no God.

However, since it is a theory touted by the atheists, it doesn't look very attractive to me at all at this point.

This is also a fallacy. How a theory is used does not affect the validity of the theory itself.

God gave you logic. Don't let other's sophisms direct your thinking.