Why do atheists get so upset when one questions their belief in evolution?

Question

Have you ever noticed how much we theists get harassed for our belief but that when you question Darwin, or evolution the atheists get extremely defensive? Why do you think that is? Can't they handle a little honest information and questions?

For those of you who say it is a fact, look up the definition of "theory"

I learned years ago in Biology that there is no such thing as Scientific Fact.

Dear Mr. L I have not "attacked" you or anyone in any way that I know of. I have only stated my beliefs and the reason for my questions. I have actually tried not to insult anyone. Have I called anyone a name?

You can challenge our Christian beliefs but I am not allowed to kindly challenge your beliefs? Why sir is that?

Just a note many also feel the need to insult your intelligence just because they disagree. I am not questioning all theories I am just asking why they get angry. I have every right to disagree.

Answer 1

Well I can't speak for all atheists but personally I love to have my belief in evolution challenged. Challenges are for taking up. I've yet to meet a theist who has taken the trouble even to learn the basics about evolution, and I'm always ready with a raft of evidence to demolish most ignorant anti-evolution challenges. So question away, I promise I won't get upset (I'm more likely to enjoy it).

By the way, you might want to think about describing yourself in your profile as a Catholic mother of two who respects everyone else's beliefs, and then makes a point to attack others' beliefs like you do in your questions. I think that's what some of us call hypocrisy, I might be wrong.

Just thought I'd point it out, as an act of kindness, you know.

Answer 2

The two most formidable weapons of atheism are logic and science. We have been brainwashed since childhood to believe that both, somehow, are infallible.

Today even scientists are beginning to realize that all scientific progress resulted from questioning established wisdom. That is a difficult process for many because it means that established wisdom may be mistaken. Indeed, to advance, we must assume that it is mistaken.

Little of science directly refutes religion. In fact the current Big Bang theory more closely resembles Genesis than has any previously held theory of the beginning.

Darwin is the major exception. It not only refutes creation, it's basic concept runs contrary to the concepts of the other sciences which hold that nature decays, becoming less complex with time, while Darwin argues for greater complexity.

But, in it's denial of creation, Darwin has become the rallying point for all of those who want nothing more than to be able to say to theists, "See, we told you so".

So Darwin has become the atheist's god. And, like most of us, they find it uncomfortable to see their god come under attack, or even questioned.

Many who are not Creationists have begun to question Darwin on scientific grounds. Most atheists are aware of that. And, I'm sure you can understand why many atheists feel that they are entering the atheist equivalent of Armagedon and must resist any incursion against Darwin with their lives, if need be.

All religion brings zealotry. The religion of the great god Science is no different.

Answer 3

Well, I think anyone with a religion of some sort will get defensive when you ask questions about it. One reason is because they might be preparing themselves for an argument. Atheists might be particularly defensive because, lets face it. " Spiritual " believers out number the Atheists by a large number. They might feel bullied or be cast as an outsider because of their beliefs. Is it right? Not at all. People should be able to believe in whatever the want without being ridiculed by someone of a different perspective. But unfortunately, that's the way our society is. It's always been that way and I don't think it'll ever change.

Answer 4

For the same reason believers get so upset when atheists question our belief in creation. Very few people can discuss the foundation of their world view dispassionately.
Personally, I see no great conflict between creation and evolution. Evolution is a human attempt to understand the mechanics. Creationism deals more with who and why, not how. I don't happen to believe that man evolved from apes, but it wouldn't bother me much if that WAS the mechanism God used.
'How' is an interesting question, but it doesn't resolve ultimate issues. Unfortunately, only the 'how' question can be investigated by empirical methods. 'Who' and 'why' are matters for philosophy and religion, and therefore subjective.
In this, the atheists are partially correct. I believe in the God of the Bible because I choose to believe. It makes 'philosophical' and moral sense to me. But, while I can advance a teleological argument for God's existence, I cannot prove it empirically. I can only feel sorry for those who believe that all existence is governed by random chance.

Answer 5

The truth is that there is much more evidence supporting evolution than creationism. Scientists recently discovered a prehistoric fish with lungs who walked on dry land. This is one of the "transitional species" that theists always claim don't exist.

On the other hand, there is really nothing at all to support the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I don't mind you questioning evolution, but if you do I feel that it is incumbent upon you to provide a reasonable explanation in its place.

Answer 6

It is because creationists keep raising the same invalid arguments over and over, even after they have been answered. This is often innocent, because different people enter the debate at different times, but the leaders in the debate certainly know better by now. What they are doing is not innocent.

Invalid argument #1: The eye (or whatever) is too complex to have evolved by "sheer random chance." This seems to be the flavor of the month.

Answer: Mutation could be random, but natural selection is *not* random. The odds of being dealt a royal flush are one in sixty-five thousand, but deal me the cards one at a time from a well shuffled deck and let me pick and choose. Now what are the odds? For a good explanation of natural selection, see Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable." It's a pretty good read, too.

By the way, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not a theory that evolution happens. That evolution happens is a fact, literally carved in stone--the fossil record. Darwin's theory is an explanation of *how* it happens--by natural selection. In the same way, Newton's Theory of Gravity is not a theory that there is such a thing as gravity, but a precise description of it's operation. If Newton's equations were all wrong, apples would still fall out of trees, and if natural selection could somehow be disproved, the fossil record would still weigh tons. So creationist attacks on natural selection--especially natural selection poorly understood--are pointless.

As to the fossil record, creationists offer two answers: The Deceitful God Hypothesis: God created the fossil record as a "test of faith." I simply don't know how that can be taken seriously by anyone, *especially* Christians. Then there's the gaps objection: that any gap in the fossil record proves evolution didn't happen. This argument is the same as Zeno's paradoxes of motion, according to which it is impossible to cross a room, among other things. (see Roy Sorensen, "A Brief History of the Paradox." It's another good read.)

What you perceive as defensiveness may be exasperation inappropriately directed at you, an innocent (or so I take you to be). When it is directed at shepherds who are knowingly misleading their flocks, both barrels is entirely appropriate.

It isn't just "atheists" who are open to being convinced by fact and reasoned argument that evolution happens and Darwin's theory of how is correct. Evolution is fact, not faith. Believing it is entirely compatible with belief in God--which is faith, not fact. What it is not compatible with is the rigid, fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis that is demanded by shepherds of bad faith.

I've practically gone on at book-length myself, but can't quit without recommending Steven Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages" on the separation of religion and science and, gee, Darwin himself ain't too bad, though he does get a little tedious about piling up the evidence.

I hope this was helpful.

PS --

Invalid argument #2: I see you've added the old chestnut that evolution is "just a theory," with the gentle suggestion that those of us who deem evolution a fact should look up the definition. You're on:

(From Webster's unabridged dictionary, 1994)

the·o·ry ... n., pl. -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact...

In science, when a theory is well established, the usage of "theory" is Webster #1. Your usage is Webster #2. When we send the space shuttle into orbit, we use Newton's equations, even though Newton's "theory" of gravity is "only" a theory.

When a theory is new it then has the sense of Webster #2 and is generally hotly disputed. It comes under heavy fire from all sides. If it survives the test, and if experiment and observation keep piling on the evidence, it becomes as solid as fact. The scientist's continuing use of "theory" in such cases is a formalism and corresponds to Webster #1.Common usage would deem it a fact.

The entire "it's only a theory" argument is therefore a fallacy of ambiguity. Per my opening statement, it is a perfect example of the sort of creationist argument that will not die no matter how many times or how thoroughly it is debunked.

There are theories and there are theories. Some have more credibility than others. As to explaining the fossil record we have, on the one hand, evolution, disputed only by the "gaps" argument, and on the other the ad hoc absurdity that it's a test from God.

Don't mistake me. I don't think it's at all absurd to believe in God. I think it's absurd to claim that God would behave that way, especially in order to explain away a fact inconvenient only to the most narrow interpretation of the Bible. I don't know who's attacking your faith, but it isn't me and it isn't evolution. Evolution is simply a datum in the world. It is no more an attack on faith than the Down Jones Industrial Average. Less, in fact.

Answer 7

Who's getting upset?

Athiests find it very perplexing that people choose to believe in mythological fantasy instead of sound science.

Here's an analogy.

Say you have a kid brother who swears there's a monster under the bed that's going to eat him.

You show him there's no monster. You put up a video camera and keep it focused under the bed. You sweep under the bed to see if there's any mysterious fur, scales, and so forth.

You find nothing that shows any sign that there was any monster under the bed.

No matter what you say or how you show your kid brother, he still swears there's a monster under the bed.

That's what it's like when dealing with creationists. They're like your kid brother swearing there's a monster under the bed, when there is no evidence to prove it whatsoever.

If athiests get upset it's because some people are very adamant that their fantastical beliefs are true.

Hope that sheds a little light for you.

Cheers.

Answer 8

I think that it's a combination of intellectual pride and a deep seated desire to justify themselves in their own minds. Think about it. If evolution isn't true that has great ramifications for how a person chooses to live their life. If there is a creator God whom we will have to give an account to when we die then they would have to do some serious soul searching. They would have to decide whether or not they could still sit on the throne of their lives knowing that in the end they will be judged for it.

So atheists have a myopic but vested interest in supporting the "god of evolution" with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength.

Answer 9

Most people either get offended because they are close minded on the subject...or because they have no clue as to what is really going on. Most of the time these two mesh together. But it isn't only athiests who get offended. Some Christians become offended when questioned about their beliefs. But there is no reason to become offended unless someone is just putting you down. I am a Christian and I don't really get mad about these issues...I just say "hey, that's my story and I'm stickin to it u know what I'm saying?"

Answer 10

i did read your original question, i even answered it quit nicely, without taking any offense or being upset.

I also did read the other answers, and i truly see nobody being upset. I only see people giving their own opinion, and a lot of them disagree with you. If you can't handle that, then don't ask a question.

When i ask an opposite question about God or creationism, i get at least 60% of the answers telling me how stupid i am, how i need to get more educated and that i better keep my mouth shut.

I never even take offense by that. It's kinda funny actually.

This attempt of yours, even if maybe started with good intentions, is now merely your case of showing how smart you are. Which is actually kinda cute, but also silly, don't you agree?

I saw no offended or angry answers, i saw a few answers with very good arguments, even documented with links to valid websites.

Debate is argueing about pro's and contra's, if you only wanna discuss your own pro's, then it's useless to discuss.

(And i truly liked your original question, even if i disagree with it)