Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
I have three degrees under my belt and I am published in two technical journals, but yes education is endless
Could you offer which journals, or do you only pretend to such a standing?
Computers & Chemical Engineering, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference. Paper submitted to Physical Review (paper received mixed review due to prevailing skepticism on the existence of Quasi-crystals discovered by Dr. Shechtman in 1984. Today he has the Nobel Prize.
Thanks for the title, but what is the date?
A friend of mine worked as a mathematics prof. for a while. He kept getting these papers from folks that had a rudimentry understanding of high end ideas and attempted to forage on new ground.
A few times I was able to look these papers over, and came away with a funny insight. One paper dealed with the idea that chaos theory could have a bearing on number theory. The point being that in a series of numbers, as the values increase, there is a point where knowing where you are in the series becomes problematic. Sadly, even large whole numbers can be identified by an increment of difference between them. If chaos intrudes, it is only in the mind pursueing the matter. The dear fellow wanted so much to establish new ground, but failed to check his work in even a basic way, 'rethinking the problem from a different direction'.
I feel that our dear Michael could be doing something like this, but my fregency to be in error is above zero..;p)
You stopped me dead in my tracks with the word "fregency." What does this word mean? I googled, but a quick reading didn't help me with a meaning. Dictionary.com doesn't know it. Is it a typo? I tried plugging in "frequency." That didn't reslt in a clear meaning for me.
Gold stars on your file are not degrees, and a nurse putting your finger-painting up on the ward does not count as being 'published', ok, Michael?
"Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science."
To get back on topic: NO. An atheist requires no knowledge of evolution or prevailing views of science to adopt an atheistic stance. Atheism simply is a lack of belief in any god(s).
Evolution, natural selection, and scientific phenomena do lend support to an atheistic position as no supernatural force/entity is required for these processes to exist and continue. But if evolution was some how proven to not actually exist the idea of invisible beings would be no more credible. Theists are too inclined to use god as an explanation for that which we don't presently understand. That is fallacious.
The Buddha was not a theist and he had no knowledge of evolution.
Good point, but this may also depend on how you define God. Some may just defined God as the Astronomical luck that science writes off as the Multiverse to put us here or some quality of the Multiverse that make life inevitable.
But why would you call that God?
i remember in the movie, 'Secret beneath the planet of the Apes', the secret was that there was a holdout of deform humans that prayed to the deity that formed them and it was a thermal nuclear devise that they triggered when the evolved apes discovered their sanctuary. To some people God can be anything. This is noted in Philosophy.