If non-scholars can accept Archbishop Ussher's biblical chronology, why must atheists be experts on evolution?

Question

James Ussher's biblical chronology of 1650, indicating that the creation took place in 4004 BC, was a staggering feat of scholarship that took in not only the Bible itself and all the begats and whatnot, but also Roman and Jewish chronicles and Persian histories (in the original languages) to corroborate what was known at the time. He succeeded where many had failed before him and not many believers today could begin to match his research, dedication and scholarship.

If it's sufficient for you to accept that someone calculated this though you couldn't, why should all atheists be post-doctoral evolutionary biologists with an involved scientific explanation for every feeble criticism that can be raised against evolution?

Answer 1

We don't. It's the creationists that think that they can prove to non-creationists that creationism is true by challenging a non-creationists knowledge of evolution. They are fully aware that the people they are challenging aren't evolutionary scientists, but they'll try to score points wherever they can to bolster their own feelings of inadequacy in the proof of their belief. Their lack of respect for science shows throughout their argument in these ways:

1. They challenge people who are not experts in the field, as opposed to asking these questions to people that ARE experts.

2. They assume that evolution is "just a theory," as if someone just imagined that this is the way it happened and told someone else (the way they get their information about the accuracy of the bible). They take the stance that it doesn't have facts to support directly.

3. They assume that the only other alternative is their particular god. Nevermind that there are more than one creation myth within the bible itself, and totally disregard the other creation myths of other cultures and religions.

4. They critically mistake and misrepresent a persons ignorance of certain facts as proof of their theological hypothesis.

In short, them asking such questions in this section is intellectual dishonesty and proof that morals DO NOT COME FROM THEIR RELIGION. Otherwise, they wouldn't attempt such shameful acts of dishonesty.

Answer 2

While I slightly agree with you Makotto. I would have to say that not everyone needs to be a science genius and be able to explain every little bit of Evolution. I can not at all claim to know maybe even half of the intricacies of evolution but I do know it to be truth. I do know that it is more logical to believe in evolution because there is evidence to support it. but I could not truly explain it well enough for someone who was not introduced to the theory to understand fully. I am not a scholar or scientist but I do like to hope that I am an intelligent person. And I do my best to seek knowledge. I guess the biggest reason that I do not seek to fully understand evolution is because I have grown up knowing that it is the most logical truth to our origins. therefore I have not the need to know the exact details but I get the gist of it. I really don't think you need to be an evolutionary scholar to believe in evolution.

Answer 3

Well, people that believe in a religion usually believe because they can not explain. When you say something is true without having proof or a comprehensive explanation, then you believe.
On the opposite end, people who accpet evolution as true, must be familiar to a degree with the theory (and its weak points). Science is knowledge, and knowledge is beyond believe, its real and verifiable.
If people who defend evolution (and I must count myself as one that do) are not familiar with the theory or its workings, then they believe in evolution with the same faith that a cristian believes in god; with a lot of faith but little reason.

Answer 4

To your point, why do they ask evolution questions here instaed of in the Science section?

Luckily a lot of us do know the answers to some tough questions, because we *have* done some degree of research on it.