Do you believe the theory of evolution automatically denies the existance of God?

Question

I don't think so, but I just wondered what other people thought and why. Thanks.

Answer 1

No in fact I think the evolutionary theory only confirms the exsistance of God. It shows that too many things had to happen for life to have begun to say it all happened by chance. You only have to go outside and see the beauty of the Earth and sky to know that God exists.

Answer 2

No, I don't think evolution denies the existence of God either.
What people don't seem to realize is that atheists and theists both have access to the same information and evidence. It just so happens that the religious believe that the evidence comes to a different conclusion.
If one observes the evidence with the mindset that there is no God, that is the conclusion they will come to.
On the other hand, if one operates under the assumption that science instead explains the HOW of the miracle of life that God created, they will see more evidence of God.

This is my take on it, anyway. What I've found with what I've studied of science is that it STRENGTHENS my faith rather than weakens it.

Answer 3

The theory of evolution or for that matter any scientific theory has specific boundaries and objectives. None of them involve the existence of god. We are not looking for god. It is the religious community that feels threatened by the findings. We are under attack and asked against all evidence to deny our findings. It is their problem. We will stand by our results and we will even do something the religious community is incapable of doing. If a theory is no good any more we throw it out an go for something new. we do it all the time.

Answer 4

Nothing does, really.

The concept of "god" isn't really defined well enough to weigh evidence for or against it. The most you can show is that religions are man-made, which you can do through study of each religion's history. And you can show how human nature tends to bias us towards making up such things.

Evolution does provide evidence against the existance of gods for those religions that make specific cliams about the god that are testible and which evolution contradicts.

However, even if evolution provides evidence that God doesn't exist, humans seem to have a near infinity capability to rationalize away any real evidence in favor of their pet beliefs. That's why many religious people still believe evolution to be true. Humans have the unique ability to hold, as true, two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Answer 5

Sometimes atheist assert that there is no proof that God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim.


In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.


At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one.


Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted

Answer 6

Evolution doesn't deny a gods existance. Its only religious people that can't understand that. Evolution only talks about the change in living things over long periods of time to sometimes result in new species.

However, it does deny Genesis in the bible.

Answer 7

I'm not looking at anyone else's answer first, because that tends to distract me here (in R &S). My personal answer is no, not at all. Certainly many people who believe in god believe in evolution. In fact, I'd like to think that most of them do. Although I've been told that's wishful thinking on my part, I don't see why that would be the case. All you'd have to accept is that certain religious texts used metaphor and/or some compression, summary, and abridging in their stories. And most stories (in human history, throughout time) have a lot of that anyway. So it's not at all outlandish to think it would happen in the telling of a religious story, even if that story is one of a prophet or holy person.

Anyway, if you don't take everything in specific religious texts as word-for-word literal play-by-plays of history, you can easily fit evolution into your beliefs.

Answer 8

The Catholic Church accepted evolution. All THIS does is prove they are sorely misled. They follow a false doctrine which relies on works for salvation(among NUMEROUS others) so why should anyone believe them when they say evolution is true?

For believers in the lie of EVILution, here's some food for thought:
How do gifts evolve?These are attributes like laughing, singing, dancing, reading, playing, understanding, complex thinking, offering sympathy, and simply smiling. Experts on evolution rarely tackle these qualities because they can’t explain them. Is Albert Einstein a product of natural selection, or is he merely a product of many genetic mutations? Or Mark Twain? Or Gandhi? Or Shakespeare? Or Mother Teresa? What about “idiot savants” who can play thousands of songs on the piano without a lesson? Evolutionary theories do not explain these special skills.
The Problem of Intermediates : Thousands of animal species suddenly exploded on the scene in the Cambrian period, and many more “sudden-species” have shown up since. Some experts have argued that there was an atmospheric problem, like low oxygen tension, that prevented fossil formation in certain areas—yet there are much older, unrelated fossils in the same areas. Note that the whale, the largest animal on the planet, lacks significant fossil evidence. (Darwin said whales came from bears, but there are no part-bear, part-whale fossilized bones.)

If humans truly had monkeys as prehistoric intermediates, shouldn’t there still be, somewhere in the world, a remote family of humans that still walk on all fours, or a few folks with very long arms, or people who hang from and procreate in trees, or groups who still eat ticks found on their spouses? Shouldn’t some humans have retained a hairy coat? Desmond Morris wrote that there are 193 living species of monkeys and apes and that 192 are covered with hair. It seems odd that only one line requires parkas, gloves, and electric heating for chilly nights. Survival of the fittest should have enhanced those who had natural protection from the cold. And where did that tail go? The entire appendage just dropped off.

Listen to Mr. Darwin’s worries on the subject:

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the Earth must be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Ape babies pass through the birth canal with their faces looking up, whereas most human babies face downward. How did the birth of a child swing around 180 degrees without any intermediate stages? It seems as though the entire human race would have perished if that change had evolved slowly—a baby would die quickly if its head passed through the pelvis sideways and got stuck; it would probably kill the mother as well. If this flip-over had happened suddenly, the change would have required an immeasurable number of simultaneous, purposeful, genetic mutations in both mother and baby. It couldn’t have just happened. So if it could not have happened slowly and it could not have come about quickly, where’s the answer? That depends on one’s belief system, not known facts. It’s also odd that the gorilla, which is double human-size, delivers an infant that is 50-percent smaller than the average human baby. Maybe we humans should have smaller babies, which favors survival—not ones whose heads are so large they can damage and sometimes kill their mothers. Perhaps the original primates delivered their babies face down, and apes (not us) are the changed ones. If so, one would then have to explain how the intermediate monkeys survived childbirth.

To Cal below:
A day is like a thousand years to God (and vice versa) to bring forth a very important prophetic truth.
God created in 6 days and the earth has been around for 6000 years ( 6days = 6000 years) . After Jesus returns very soon, He will set up His 1000 year reign on earth (hence, the 7th day)

Answer 9

In the Bible, it says that a day in the eyes of God is like a 1,000 years. It doesn't say is, but like. Why not a million or billion years? In the beginning there was darkness on the face of the deep. No way to judge what a 24 hr. day was. How we came to be, was done by God, no matter how much time it took.

Answer 10

It doesn't totally put God out of the picture, but it does somewhat force a person to be "picky" about the different aspects of each that they either believe in or do not believe in.