In the discussion about evolution there is definitely an atheistic tone among evolutionists. When dealing with the question of whether or not evolution itself is inherently atheistic you have to specify what you mean by evolution. Evolutionists frequently use the word evolution to refer to both adaptation and universal common descent despite the fact that they are not the same thing. Their thinking is that over the long-haul adaptation leads to universal common descent.
However, when you research the idea of universal common descent, including its history and philosophy, you learn very quickly that it is inherently atheistic. This is because when you exclude a common designer as a possibility, common descent is the only possible way of explaining genetic and chemical data. Furthermore, the reaction to ideas such as intelligent design demonstrates the atheistic connection better than anything else can.
Adaptation
Adaptation is the observed process of a population of organisms changing to adapt to changes in their environment. Not only can this be observed, but it does not require any new complex specific information. It can actually work using otherwise degenerative mutations as long as they provide an advantage under particular environmental circumstances. A good example of this would be polar bears losing the ability to produce pigment in their fur, giving them white here under arctic conditions.
There is nothing in adaptation that requires producing radically different body plans and structures. The resulting organisms remain the same basic kind of creature just adapted to a different environment. It does not require the production of new complex specific information or anything that is unobserved.
There is nothing inherently atheistic about adaptation, it is simply an observable phenomenon. It could easily be an ability programmed by God into living things to help ensure their continued survival under a variety of conditions.
A common claim by evolutionists is that over time the changes that occur in adaptation will eventually build up to the changes that are required for universal common descent. This is not really true because universal common descent requires the construction of new body plans and structures along with large amounts of complex specific information. The problem is that natural selection is way too broad of a process to filter out mutations that caused the deterioration of the genome let alone produce the new complex specific information necessary to produce new body plants and structures.
Universal common descent.
Universal common descent is the idea that all life on earth is descended from a single common ancestor that lived over a billion years ago. By its very nature it is unobservable because even if correct it would take place over such a long period of time that observation would be impossible.
The idea of universal common descent is assumed in the interpretation of data such as fossils. It is also assumed when analyzing biochemistry and genetic similarities and differences within organisms. This is often even worse in reporting than in actual research. What they are comparing this data too is the fact that under absolute naturalism one would expect multiple origins of life to produce totally different DNA and biochemistry. In other words, universal common descent is the conclusion that you come to when you analyze data on living things from a completely atheistic naturalistic perspective.
The history of universal common descent.
Contrary to what most people probably think, the idea of universal common descent was not invented by Charles Darwin, in fact some form of it goes back to ancient Greece. However, the modern version of the idea has its origins with atheists who were discussing it in the early 1800s before Charles Darwin was even born. He got the idea by reading the works of his atheistic grandfather Erasmus Darwin and connected it with the idea of natural selection which he also did not invent but can be attributed to several other people.
The point is that historically the modern idea of universal common descent evolution has its roots in atheistic thinking of the late 1700s and early 1800s. This fact is a strong indication of universal common descent being intrinsically atheistic.
The philosophy of universal common descent.
Universal common descent is based on philosophical naturalism which itself is inherently atheistic. In fact, you only come to universal common descent as the only way of explaining data if you are looking at the data from an absolute naturalistic perspective. This is because the only alternative would produce radically different results if organisms came from separate ancestral groups with different origins of life. Consequently, if you interpret the data from a inherently atheistic perspective the only possible conclusion you can come to is universal common descent. This is because you have already excluded as a possibility the other alternative which is a common designer.
The fact that universal common descent is based fundamentally on absolute naturalism makes it inherently atheistic because absolute naturalism is itself inherently atheistic. As a result, universal common descent inherits its intrinsic atheistic nature from its philosophical faces in absolute naturalism,
Believing in God and universal common descent.
One of the common responses by evolutionists to pointing out that universal common descent is inherently atheistic is that they will claim that there are plenty of people who believe in God including Christians who also accept universal common descent.
This is actually a textbook case of the Genetic Fallacy. The Genetic Fallacy happens when someone judges a claim’s truth, falsehood, or nature solely based on its origin or who believes it, rather than its actual substance. In this case, the nature of universal common descent, usually being referred to as simply evolution, is being judged based on who accepts it not its inherent nature.
Despite the inherently atheistic nature of universal common descent there are lots of reasons why you would have Christians who would accept it. The first is that they have been taught in school that it is proven fact and have never even considered its inherently atheistic nature and inconsistency with Christianity. This problem is made even worse when they have a pastor who refuses to confront the issue.
The simple fact of the matter is that the fact that some Christians accept universal common descent because they have been taught that it is proven fact has nothing to do with the inherent atheistic nature of universal common descent. All it proves, is that these Christians are inconsistent in what they believe, and more likely than not do not know it.
Artificially inserting God into universal common descent.
Now it is true that you can artificially insert God into universal common descent by claiming him has a guiding force. However, this is an artificial insertion that is completely contrary to the actual idea. The entire idea is that of a completely unguided process resulting solely from natural forces.
If you take this approach because you think it makes you look scholarly or whatever. Really pay attention to what atheists have to say about any attempt to include God into the picture. The simple fact of the matter is that the entire idea of universal common descent is to explain how we got here apart from God. Trying to include him is nothing more than trying to have it both ways, that is believing in God while sounding scholarly at the same time. Or so you think, it's a safe bet that the atheists who you are trying to appease are laughing at you behind your back.
The reaction to intelligent design.
One very strong piece of evidence that universal common descent is inherently atheistic is the reaction by the scientific establishment to intelligent design. The reaction was more than just a negative reaction, but on the two occasions where intelligent design did make it into mainstream scientific journals the result was effectively a burn the heretics type of reaction.
The editor of one journal got fired for publishing an intelligent design paper that had passed peer review. In another case the journal PLOS ONE published a paper translated from Chinese containing the phrase, “proper design by the Creator.” The only thing that saved the editor in this case was the fact that the phrase turned out to be a translation error. These two examples show the inherently atheistic thinking within the scientific establishment.
While not proof of the atheistic nature of universal common descent, it strongly indicates the inherently atheistic belief system behind the development and propagation of it. In either case it demonstrates the inherently atheistic nature of universal common descent.
Conclusion
in conclusion. The question of whether or not evolution is inherently atheistic depends upon what you mean by evolution. If all you are referring to are the relatively small changes that allow organisms to adapt to changes in their environment, then no it is not.
However, if you are referring to universal common descent, that is the idea that all life on earth is a single common ancestor, then yes that is inherently atheistic. It is atheistic in its origins, it is atheistic in its fundamental philosophy, and it is atheistic in practice.
The only way in which it departs from atheism is by tricking theists to accept it who think that they are being scholarly by doing so. This, however, does not change the inherent the atheistic nature of it and to claim otherwise is a genetic fallacy.
---------------------------
References
Richard Sternberg (https://richardsternberg.com/)
proper design by the Creator PLOS ONE
