[Lurking Libertarian]

In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of the particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids which later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.

Total strawman. This is not the theory of evolution. Some evolutionists are atheists, but many are believers. Evolution may be inconsistent with a hyperliteral reading of Genesis 1-2, but is in no other way inconsistent with a belief in God or creation.

[Stultis]

Total strawman. This [Johnson's formulation] is not the theory of evolution. Some evolutionists are atheists, but many are believers.

Exactly, however something further is worthy of notice: Both the formulation of "evolution," and the framing of the issues concerning it, are shared by the jingoistic "scientific" atheist Dini, and creationists the like of Philip Johnson and the authors of this article. They are in full and nearly exact agreement as to the philosophical signficance of evolution and creation, the relationship between the two, and the consequences of the truth or falsity of each.

IOW, creationists (of the virulently anti-evolutionary variety) think like the most naive and extreme sort of athiest, and vice-versa. They agree on nearly every important matter of principle and philosophy, and only disagree as to a mere matter of fact (whether or not evolution is true).

The majority of Americans, whatever they may think about the truth status of evolution, recognize that the shared thinking and assumptions of both "scientific" atheists and anti-evolutionary creationists are laced with false dilemmas, false dichotomies and false logic.