A critic of Focus on the Family’s commitment to addressing scientific issues (especially Darwinism) as a prominent part of our defense of the Christian faith has written this:

I really don't understand the need for this. Having been through a science degree at a school with a very liberal reputation, in Canada of all places, I never encountered the mythical Anti-Christian Science Professor, who tries to attack all Christians with evolution. Every time I have seen Christianity attacked, it has been in humanities classes: English, History, International Development, Sociology, Philosophy, even sometimes in Law. The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proved by the scientific method, so objections don't come from science. They come from pointing out the horrible things done in the name of God and the Church, and publicizing the highly offensive things that we as Christians believe. Shouldn't Focus/Boundless be equipping Christians to respond to these questions, rather than the evolution-based ones that are decades old?

What are the religious views of leading scientists who support evolution? Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, is far more representative of the beliefs of evolutionary biologists than the tiny percentage of biologists who are theistic evolutionists. A 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (the NAS is our nation’s most prestigious scientific society) indicated that nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics. This percentage of unbelief in biology is far higher than in any other scientific discipline. See the relevant statistics here.

Dawkins has long argued that Darwinian evolution makes belief in God highly improbable by refuting the idea that nature was intelligently designed.  His recent announcement about being an agnostic rather than an atheist is consistent with his long held view that God's existence is "very, very unlikely" especially in light of Darwin's work, which made it possible to be an "intellectually fufilled atheist."  Perhaps he was trying to get a response from the press that would boost his image as an open-minded person in regard to the God question. In any case, he thinks God’s existence is so highly improbable that his view is the equivalent of atheism.

The connection between Darwinism and atheism is on the rise in popular culture.  The “new atheism” is an expression of this, and more.  It is “new” in the sense that it is an unusual publishing phenomena that is reaching mass audiences.  Although many university biologists may not explicitly attack Christianity, the implication of much of their dogmatic advocacy of Darwinism is that even ethics and religion among humans are products of an unguided evolutionary process. Why make those domains exceptions and exclude them from the grand unified Darwinian story?  Focus on the Family has wisely responded to the new atheism by initiating TrueU, continuing The Truth Project (which predates the “new atheism”), and launching other initiatives that inform the public about this critical domain of the culture wars.

Geologist Steven Schafersman, head of Texas Citizens for Science (a popular activist group that advocates Darwin-only education in biology) responded to Rick Weiss's op-ed on Darwin's agnosticism (Weiss is a prominent science journalist with the Center for American Progress) with this:

Darwin was an agnostic, but also an atheist. True, Darwin "did not know," as Weiss relates, and was therefore an agnostic, but Darwin also did not believe in a god, and most importantly, Darwin rejected the Christian God precisely because of the problem of innocent suffering in the world. Specifically, and contrary to Weiss, Darwin did not believe "there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology."

This “agnostic, but also an atheist [i.e., definitely not believing in any theistic God]” summary of Darwin’s own views also essentially describes Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and most other “new atheists.” Agnostic is the term used when the new atheists want to appear non-dogmatic about God’s existence, but their views are practically equivalent to atheism. Although Darwinism is not the only alleged justification for the new atheism (or agnosticism), it is one of the leading components.  The problem of evil also ranks high in this community as a reason for disbelief in Christianity, but even this is related to biology in that the massive amounts of animal suffering, death, and extinction are often cited as part of this case against God.

Stephen Meyer explains in TrueU that the case for intelligent design (and against Darwinism) does not “prove” that God exists. But this cumulative scientific case does have strong religious implications that make atheism very, very unlikely.

For additional reliable information about today's topic go to Faith and Evolution.