The mistake you're making is equating belief in God with acceptance of evolution. They are two different propositions but creationists have intentionally fudged the lines to further their view of the world.
Agree on two conflicting propositions on the history of life here. Creationists fudging the line, not really. Some Theists may amalgamate the two as a matter of expedience, peer pressure, acceptance, or they may just be convinced modern humans have a common ancestor with apes. An unidentified theoretical nonhuman extinct creature. Like Bigfoot.
It is possible to be an atheist and not accept the idea of evolution.
That would be a real anomaly. The majority does not follow the exception.
It is also possible to be a Christian and be comfortable with evolution.
Depends on the definition. Is it.
‘The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Or.
“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
The latter of which is incompatible with Christian Theism. Actually both.
Many Christians on these boards accept evolution as a scientific fact. Christian biologists accept evolution as a scientific fact. Christian scientists accept evolution as a scientific fact. All major scientific organisations accept evolution as a scientific fact. All major museums accept evolution as a scientific fact.
Again depends on the definition. Let's not use change over time to smuggle in blind watchmaker.
Quote.
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
None of these are really controversial.
Don't be fooled by the noisy minority. No valid scientific argument has ever been raised to "disprove" evolution.
Irreducible complexity and others including chemistry deficiencies in explaining the origin of complex coded information in bio cells.
No papers arguing the case have been presented to a (valid) peer reviewed publication.
They are dead on arrival. Meyer had one and punishments were dished out as a result. Behe was never published but responses to Behe was. So there is an obvious double standard. Books are peer reviewed. Signature in the Cell, peer-reviewed as was Behe.
The creationist who establishes a valid case against evolution will get a Nobel Prize. It won't happen.
OB
Behe already falsified evolution. Besides, bandwagon appeals are used when actual evidence is weak. If they have a strong case then they do not need to appeal to consensus.
