Mark I. Vuletic

Last updated 21 March 2008

Analysis

(i) If the contention is that evolution poses a difficulty for traditional religious assumptions, and thus tends to make people better disposed towards atheism than they otherwise would be, then I must agree. However, precisely the same thing can be said about the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or, for that matter, the fact that billions of people throughout history have been afflicted with horrible suffering for no apparent reason. Should one therefore assert that heliocentrism is a demonic lie propagated by biased philosophical naturalists? Should one assert that anyone who believes that there is such a thing as a children's cancer ward has been deceived by Satan? No more so should one deny the evolutionary history of life just because it raises questions which may require certain religious presuppositions to be rethought, adapted, or abandoned.

(ii) If the contention is that acceptance of evolution places one on a slippery slope that inevitably leads to atheism, then the contention is demonstrably false, as most evolutionists go to their graves believing there is a god. The creationist strategy appears to be to focus on outspoken atheistic evolutionists (such as Richard Dawkins and William Provine) as exemplars of evolutionism proper, and to dismiss believing evolutionists (such as Kenneth Miller and Robert Pennock) as aberrations; but believing evolutionists, in fact, constitute the decisive majority.