Non-religious opposition to evolution?

There are, of course, disputes about various minor parts of the theory of evolution within the scientific community... but I'm not aware of any non-theists (at least sane ones) who outright reject the theory.

Evolution simply makes the most sense regarding how modern life forms came to be. This is precisely why this theory has endured 150 years of unrelenting scrutiny.

I have met many 'evolutionists' who are not atheists. (In fact I am one myself.)

But I have never met an atheist who is not an 'evolutionist'. To be one would mean that you have no theory at all about the origins of species.

(P.S. ... I am not that fond of the word 'evolutionist' ... I use it only as a shorthand for someone who generally accepts evolution as the best explanation there is for the origin of modern species from the first life forms.)

com5t ... you have the tell-tale creationist misunderstanding of what the word "evolution" means ... it has nothing to do with the Big Bang, or the origins of the earth, or even the origins of life ... evolution is the explanation of how modern species (including man) arose from more primitive origins, stretching all the way back to the first life forms (but no further).

Evolution claims, random change & natural selection make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent design. Chance and random changes simply do not produce higher levels of organization & complexity.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth.

It's not about 'believing' if you can understand that.

It's more about plausible explanations.

When the police go to a murder scene, they (and everyone else) accept that there has been a murder if they find:

1) a dead body

2) a murder weapon

3) signs of a struggle

With this amount of information, they deduce (not believe) that someone is dead and that someone else did it. This is used as sufficient information to begin a murder investigation and search for a killer. In some cases, a search is undertaken with even less information--for example, no weapon, or no struggle, or even no body.

Belief is a conviction based on no facts, just on what one is told to accept. Belief is synonymous with religion.

Anyone who suspects that evolution may not explain the status of life on earth today is perfectly free to deduce another set of conclusions from the available facts, just as the defense tries to deduce a different reason for the discovery of a dead body when their client is accused of the murder.

However, to simply exclaim that one BELIEVES something different, in defiance of the known facts, is something maybe the defendant's mom might do, or his girlfriend, but certainly no one else.

Are you asking non-believers to 'believe'?

Is there any atheists who don't believe in evolution? I never heard of one. Although a friend of mine goes by the theory of 2001 space oddesy" the monolith"?! :)

yes think about this evolution begins with the theory of the big bang and cells from that evolved in to earth and beings. But if this is true where did the matter for the big bang come from, and how was the so to speak "bang" caused their is just as much faith in this theory as any other theory out there, because in our minds all organism and things have to be created by something but that part of the theory is a mystery still today