Lack of belief in evolution considered a problem bothers me. Shouldn’t the same freedom of speech that protects someone working on advancing evolutionary theory protect Joe Smith’s right to say he believes in creation? And if Joe doesn’t want to know about it, shouldn’t he be free to walk away from someone talking about it, just as you’re free to walk away from someone talking about God?

That said, I disagree that the faction of fundamentalists who believe evolution threatens God are a bigger problem than the atheists who believe evolution disproves God. I can find any number of either, and they’re both significant problems to the acceptance and advance of science, and the harmony of society. Saying which caused the problem is really a chicken-and-egg problem, and I think you’d be hard pressed to prove that one caused the other (in either direction).

Anyway, you haven’t offended me, and I hope I haven’t convinced you that I’m an ignorant idiot.

I only sorta get what you’re saying (too much smoke inhalation from the wildfires, perhaps), but I’m strongly inclined to agree. I don’t think evolution disproves God, and I certainly don’t believe it should be used to assert that position. God exists in the realm of philosophy, while evolution exists in the realm of science, and I don’t think the two should be mixed. It’s like those bombs in Die Hard with a Vengeance where the two chemicals get mixed and everyone goes boom. Not cool.

But here’s the thing, there is a faction of the religious right that actively engages in misinformation because, for whatever reason, they see evolution as a threat. As I mentioned, there is the issue of misrepresenting the term “theory” to discredit the theory of evolution. These people, more so than atheists, make the assertion that evolution is being used to challenge the existence of God. It gotten so bad that they’re now even targeting the scientific method to try and make it seem as though science is bullshit. These are the people I refer to as fricktards.

That said, I readily acknowledge that there are atheists who are try to use evolution to disprove God. I’m afraid Richard Dawkins is one such guy, which is a shame because strictly from the standpoint of the science I think he’s brilliant. I don’t recall any particularly obvious anti-God propaganda in The Selfish Gene, but it might be there. I think this hurts attempts to better peoples’ understanding of evolution, and is one of the reasons I think philosophy and science should be kept in their own corners.

Hopefully that clarifies my position on this.

As someone who believes in creation, I don’t mock those who believe in evolution as a creation model nor consider a lack of belief in creation a problem with our society. (I should note that a great number of creationists do this. Still, I am not they nor they me.) Could the same respect be extended to me? The value of the evolutionary model is in the things the model can teach us, rather than as an incomplete attempt to disprove God. If we could learn, use and revise the model on a purely scientific basis, we’d be able to work well together just fine.

This has been largely inspired by the comments rather than the original post. I think your original post (and, in particular, the “Evolution is about making babies” intuitive simplification) is spot on.