Science and Atheism

 
Science and Atheism

These are often confused in groups and fora where theology and science are discussed. People come on, creationists in particular, demanding that atheists explain this, that or the other and hope to win a 'point' if no explanation is forthcoming. (They also reject perfectly good explanations too, but that's another matter.)

Atheists, in general, are not scientists, and neither are theists. The honest thing to do is to ask _anyone_ if they can explain something. (And not to ask at all if you are not genuinely and honestly interested in any answers.)

If we do not know the answer to a question, then "I don't know" is the honest response. If you don't know youself, "GodDidIt" is no explanation, so someone else not knowing the answer to something is not a "Gotcha". That would just be childish. 

Questions are put regarding the big bang model which is seen as being atheistic or, typically "evolutionist", despite early advocates being men of the cloth, and despite it having nothing to do with God belief or evolution.

This also applies to geology which is incorrectly labelled as an invention required to give time for biological evolution to occur. No. Deep time was discovered well before the publication of Darwin's "Origin", and it was taught in universities by priests.

When it comes to evolution, major religious denominations accept its veracity, so calling it atheistic is also ludicrous. 

When it comes to abiogenesis, the origin of life before evolution could begin, Genesis says that the earth and the waters brought forth life. Bizarrely, literal 'plain reading' creationists do not seem to accept this, failing to give God credit for being able to create a world that could bring forth life.