Do You Believe in Evolution?

What does it mean when someone asks, "Do you believe in evolution", or even, "do you believe in the theory of evolution"?

That depends on who is doing the asking. If it were you or me we would mean "Do you think the Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation of how life diversified on this planet". Some theists seem to mean "Are you denying the existence of God?"

This is an interesting ink-blot question. It allows us to project our presuppositions onto the answer. For example, some atheists do indeed use their embrace in evolution as a short-cut explanation for their atheism, as in "I'm an atheist because evolution is true." Some theists do indeed use this kind of question as a proof of their theism, as in "I believe God is the Creator and thus evolution must be false."

Both of the claims that I'm putting into the mouths of the atheists and theists are nonsense. First, evolution is a broad scientific construct embracing many sub-disciplines, such as palentology, biology, geology, and genetics. It isn't meaningful to ask if such a broad category of science is true or false. Secondly, there is no inherent contradiction between evolution or theism. Theism neither promotes nor erodes the principles behind natural selection.

For the atheist, evolution sheds no light on the question whether or not gods exist. This is also true for the theist, who could accept that God created and used those forces and mechanisms that made evolution possible, including time, chance, and the explosion of a singularity. Furthermore, "the theory of evolution" has no relevancy to the core message of the Bible-- the redemption of man through God's incarnation of Jesus. This principle of faith is outside what science can tell us.

You have not shown that Dawkins has made the claim that he is an atheist because evolution is true. You have only shown that Dawkins has indicated that evolution shows that God does not exist. He may well have other reasons for why he is not a theist.

You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion here.

Of course, I don't know what is in Dawkin's head. He may have ten reasons or he may have no reasons as to why he is an atheist. So I agree with you. Having said that, Dawkins I think has failed in his efforts to demonstrate from evolution that God does not exist. Even if hypothetically all the facts that embrace and support evolution were true beyond all dispute, it doesn't therefore follow that God does not exist. What Dawkins seems to be saying is that a particular conception of God (perhaps as seen in the movie our family saw yesterday "Evan Almighty") doesn't exist-- an immanent supreme being responsible for crafting the swirl of atoms and the swirl of stars out of nothing. After all, evolution is an explanation of nature-- the natural world. If you start from the presumption that the natural world is all that is, than naturally you will reject the supernatural-- God. You don't need evolution to tell you that.