Even better question, how many theists believe evolution is an alternative atheist theology?
361147
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
127020
Popular opinion on these matters tend to be cyclical.  It's on a conservative swing right now, but it'll go back.  I don't see it as a threat to the scientific community as the people who don't believe in evolution wouldn't be scientists anyway.  However, I don't think it bodes well for the general poplation that they are more inclined to accept religious dogma than actually consider the evidence in front of them.\n\nI'm a little suspicious of the statistics you quoted.  While I don't doubt that more people believe in the virgin brith than evolution, the numbers seem a bit extreme.  I think further inquiry into the methodology of the study may be warrented...\n_____________\nBowser, while evolution has not been conclusively proven, there is a proponderance of evidence to support it, and none to suggest it does not occur.  There is, however, no reliable evidence to support "intelligent design."
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
1085146
When are you going to announce you are an atheist?\n\nIn your previous question, you stated that you would stick with Einstein's beliefs.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmEid02KXWXaJ9y_JITPQ_vsy6IX?qid=20060611144516AAdKeqJ\n\nEinstein was an atheist.\n\nEven if evolution was totally incorrect, creationism would still be nonsense.
956969
I believe that God created evolution.  Therefore, I believe in creationism.  Things evolve, but as far as man coming from beast, no way!
775633
yes\n\nThe Doctor of the Atheist Revolution has Spoken!
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
980588
Seems as though there are more atheists on the Internet than any where else.....
292474
I think it makes plenty of sense.  I think evolution and creationism work side by side rather well...after all, how long is a day for God?  \n\nSort of the same way with the big bang when the universe was formed...\n...and God said, Let There Be Light....
563468
I am an atheist.\n\nEvolution is actually happening. For only one example, I will point to anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. They have adapted and evolved, and we can watch it happen.
649432
Catholics don't think Christianity is at odds with the theory of evolution. They don't try strange concordances to line up Genesis with the fossil record. Instead they accept Genesis for what it is - origin mythology telling us more about WHY God made the world, then HOW, and why it is we fell into a sinful state.'\n\nThe second law of thermodynamics does not represent a problem for either evolution or Christianity. Chaos math predicts that going both past and forward, there will be more entropy in the system than there is now. But it also posits that, since order is one of the rare but possible outcomes of any event, every once in a while, order enters the system dramatically. A theist (or atheist) who accepts the Big Bang will see it primarily in that system. A theist who is a literal creationist will see it in a six day event. Either way, chaos theory is not really at issue.\n\n"Truth cannot contradict truth," the last Pope said. I've never understood why so many Christians make problems for themselves when there doesn't need to be. Personally, I've always suspected this has more to do with human vanity (people in their heart of hearts just don't want to be descended from apes) than any particular religiosity.
782828
No -- a "theist" is someone who *believes* in god.  If there were proof of god (and just showing up wouldn't do it, he'd have to demonstrate why he's "god" and provide proof that he created the universe), there would be no need for belief, it would be fact.
1072242
I don't believe in Darwin's theory because that would be against my religion, Catholic. I believe God created all in one way and each individual is different, not a copy of another that has been changed by "Evolution".
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
842898
Theists. Most people are theists, so a theist nation would have more people to advance technology. \n\nTheists. Most scientists are theists.\n\nTheists.\n\n(Theist isn't necessarily Christian!)\n\nEDIT: 3.8% of the population is atheist--You'd have to be a fool to think this minority makes up 71% of scientists. And your "survey" of the NAS is no indication of reality (most scientists aren't in the NAS and 500 members of the more populated NAS indicates a non-random sampling). Most scientists believe in theism, only because the majority of the world does. Scientists being doctors, engineers, linguists, psychologists, etc. And what gave you the idea even a slight majority of hoplogists are atheists? I'd think that's a theistic vitriol.
1137300
And babies prove evolution is a fact since they evolve out of plants, water, animals and rocks.\n\nGiven all the evidence proving God does not exist (and if he does, he's useless), it's a wonder any intelligent person makes the claim that he does exist.\n\nThe opium of the masses, Marx said, and is apparently true.
59055
There is a wonderful book published by the Vatican Observatory called "Physics, Philosophy, and Theology:  A Common Quest for Understanding."  It is edited by Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J.\n\nThis book is a collection of articles on Science and Religion by Christian scholars, most of them I think Catholic.  Some of its contributors are:\nIan G. Barbour\nErnan McMullin\nMichael J. Buckley, S.J.\nRichard J. Clifford\nFrank J. Tipler,\nand more.\n\nAlso, there is a good book called "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" edited by Keith B. Miller, which contains articles by Christian scholars and scientists.  I think most of the contributors in this book are Protestant, but there may be some Catholics as well.  It includes:\n\nDeborah Haarsma\nConrad Hyers\nEdward B. Davis\nMark A. Noll\nDavid Livingstone\nLoren Haarsma\nJeffrey Greenberg\nHoward J. Van Till\nRobert John Russell\nand others\n\nWilliam Dembski is a prominent advocate of the "Intelligent Design" theory.  \nMichael Behe is also an advocate of Intelligent Design and has written "Darwin's Black Box" in which he argues that evolutionary theory does not account for "irreducible complexities."  He means by this systems which seem to need all the parts in order to function, such as the eye, or even a cell.\n\nOf course, Behe and Dembski are highly criticized, and you can see their views as well as their opponents' views in a book called, "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" edited by Robert T. Pennock.\n\nAlvin Plantinga has written extensively on science and theology, and he is anti-evolution.\n\nThe writers in the Perspectives on an Evolving Creationism book are mostly (I think all) pro-evolution, and yet they are Christians.\n\nMichael Ruse, while I don't think he is actually a Christian, has a book called "Can A Darwinian Be A Christian" in which the answer is yes.  \n\nI hope this helps!