isn't it odd that essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists?
If you want to understand evolution, you need to listen to evolutionists. This example reveals their logic at work. Consider the facts. Atheists typically believe the world arose on its own. They believe in evolution, in one form or another. Theists, on the other hand, have a diversity of views. Christians in particular have the freedom to engage the broad spectrum of explanations, ranging from natural processes to miracles. Ever since Basil, Christians have considered origins narratives ranging from mostly secondary to mostly primary causation.
Given these facts, how could it be odd that "essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists"? How could this suggest religious belief drives evolution skepticism? Quite the opposite, it is what one would expect. There are few atheists who aren't evolutionists. So what?
Only evolutionary logic could force-fit the fact that skeptics are mostly theists, into support for evolution.
Next, note the evolutionist's use of the word "denier." This is a strong word, but why apply it to skeptics of the dogma that the world spontaneously arose? Evolutionists insist their idea is a scientific fact, and they fail to support this claim. In fact there are monumental scientific problems with this claim. Cannot people be skeptical without being labeled as a "denier"? If one wants to use the D word here, it would seem that those insisting evolution is a scientific fact are the ones who are in denial.
But on the other hand, those who accept evolution come from all sorts of religious backgrounds; over 40% of scientists are professing believers of some sort or another. If religious/anti-religious sentiment were driving acceptance of evolution what are we to make of the religious diversity in the evolution crowd, and the very distinct lack of religious diversity in the anti-evolution crowd? Another coincidence?
Again, the evolutionary logic misses the mark. Where it counts there is little religious diversity in evolutionary thought. Yes there are atheists and various types of theists, but there is a conserved metaphysical view. Christians such as Francis Collins and atheists such as PZ Myers agree that god would not have created what we find in this world.
Skeptics, on the other hand, have tremendous diversity. Their religious views range from young earth creationism to the very theological naturalism that drives evolution. In the latter case, many skeptics of evolution agree with evolutionists that natural processes must have played a significant role in creating the species because god would not have created what we see in biology. But they also realize that those natural processes are, alone, not up to the task.
And of the Christians who do accept evolution, do you think they are on average more, or less educated than their brothers and sisters who don't accept evolution? Care to take a guess? Is that a coincidence as well?
So what does that tell us about the state of our educational system?
Isn't the high correlation between education and acceptance of evolution a little odd? It's almost as if the more people learn about the subject, the more likely the are to accept it.
The correlation between education and acceptance of evolution is not necessarily a plus for evolution, as though good science is up for a vote. In fact, our education system does not teach critical teaching regarding evolution. Instead, it dogmatically instructs students that evolution is a fact using the usual combination of faulty science and metaphysical reasoning. You can read more about this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
It is hardly surprising that there might be a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution.
I guess education is a bad thing, a temptation from the devil, perhaps. Maybe they're just being brainwashed in institutions of higher learning, and it's a happy accident that they are able to so effectively add to mankind's body of knowledge.
Here we have both a straw man argument and circular reasoning that are all too common amongst evolutionists. Clearly the education system is badly failing and we ought not try to cover that over with hyperbole.
Secondly, there is no happy accident with evolution. It has not added to "mankind's body of knowledge." Only the evolutionist's erroneous claim that evolution is good science can lead to this conclusion.
did you ever stop and think how odd it is that you're smarter than 99.9 percent of all professional biologists? (and around 98 percent of all other scientists?) ... Supernatural explanations are ruled out, as a matter of practicality. Science is about testing claims. Call us when you can test supernatural causes. A design claim that had either a testable agent, or a testable mechanism would be considered.
Finally the serendipity of evolutionary thought is clear. Naturalism is mandated and luckily enough, it also turned out to be a fact. Naturalism is mandated and isn't it strange that all those scientists just happen to be evolutionists? Naturalism is mandated and incredibly enough, all those journal articles support evolution. Naturalism is mandated in our schools and amazingly there is a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution. Evolutionists aren't fooling anyone but themselves.