dragon_of_red: Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.
I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.
Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)
Alos(wut), this could turn bad.
How so good chum?
Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.
OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.
ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*
Yeah, you are quite the wanker.
But pretty much, i think that may be reportable.
I assure you fine sir/madam that I am not a wankist and that I will fill your shoes with my urine for such slander! Eh, I figure this thread is just going to turn into shit slinging insults I might as well feed it, for you see, I find this very amusing.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.
FightThePower: You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.
What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.
Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.
Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.
Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:
No, a hypothesis cannot ever be proven. Reason why is because the scientific method is based on Inductive Reasoning, where you collect data from specific examples to make a general statement. You could only prove something if you have data for every single possible outcome, which is just not possible. Take the fact 'Water boils at 100 degress Celsius'. The only way to prove this fact would be to take samples of water at every conceviable point in the entire planet and see if it boils at that temperature. There may be an instance that water in some obscure place in Antartica boils at 78 degrees Celsius; of course that is extremely unlikely to happen because water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius has been replicated countless times, so it can be accepted as fact. Same with Evolution - there is so much evidence for it, you might as well accept it as fact (especially since if you don't, it leaves huge unexplanable gaps in other areas of science), but it is not proven.
Law =/= theory, yes. But I'm saying that some suggest evolution should be re-defined as a law, because a law is one step up from a theory. I was under the impression a law is a theory that has been replicated so many times, it might as well be a fact (same with the water boiling thing). Hence why it's Newton's laws of Physics, because it extremely unlikely I will drop something one day and it will magically fly upwards.
Eicha: Prohibition of murder is a religious concept.
I don't think that's really true.
Non-human primates typically don't kill members of their own species. They don't have religion.
We have religion, but we kill each other by the hundreds.
That's not true, Chimpanzees have been known to kill one another for the sole purpose of just not liking each other, even dolphins which are suppose to be intelligent kill one another for fun. And as for evolution its still happening now, general population is getting taller and it's been proven that in some cases our fingers are beginning to extend and become more slender oh and Darwin got it right that has also been proven.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.
Beliefs held by many atheists require much faith.
For example, some some atheists believe that the universe could theoretically have always existed. Others have provided me with some very strange theories, such as the universe having utilized time travel in order to come into existence.
Now, in my opinion, only an omnipotent being could be capable of such things.
FightThePower: You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.
What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.
Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.
Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.
Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:
No, a hypothesis cannot ever be proven. Reason why is because the scientific method is based on Inductive Reasoning, where you collect data from specific examples to make a general statement. You could only prove something if you have data for every single possible outcome, which is just not possible. Take the fact 'Water boils at 100 degress Celsius'. The only way to prove this fact would be to take samples of water at every conceviable point in the entire planet and see if it boils at that temperature. There may be an instance that water in some obscure place in Antartica boils at 78 degrees Celsius; of course that is extremely unlikely to happen because water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius has been replicated countless times, so it can be accepted as fact. Same with Evolution - there is so much evidence for it, you might as well accept it as fact (especially since if you don't, it leaves huge unexplanable gaps in other areas of science), but it is not proven.
Law =/= theory, yes. But I'm saying that some suggest evolution should be re-defined as a law, because a law is one step up from a theory. I was under the impression a law is a theory that has been replicated so many times, it might as well be a fact (same with the water boiling thing). Hence why it's Newton's laws of Physics, because it extremely unlikely I will drop something one day and it will magically fly upwards.
The reason it is a THEORY is because it explains how a FACT happens. A THEORY in science is a model which makes prediction. The THEORY of Evolution explains the FACT of Evolution, and it just so happens that the THEORY has a whopping great mound of evidence supporting it. No one has ever come close to disproving Evolution, and I doubt they will. For me, Evolution is just so obviously true that I can't understand how people don't believe it is.
Evolution is the change in genetic material of a certain population of organisms, or "group" if you will, from one generation to the next. These changes are generally very small changes, for example, a Polar Bear that has blacker skin and more surface area (than another in it's certain population) will be more adapted to it's environment and be able to survive and thus reproduce more often. The more these beneficial mutations occur and accumulate, the more complex the descendants of that creature will be.
Each change in a generation is eventually accumulated over generations and, over time, causes a substantial change in the population or animals. Science accepts the theory and fact of evolution, it is very well documented and extremely well evidenced. It is now an irrefutable theory, and by irrefutable I mean it has been proven to such an extent that anyone with a proper education in Biology (will not and) can not disprove it or have any alternative. Those who do challenge it are people who do it for either money, popularity, or through sheer ignorance and stupidity.
I expect the trolls to be attacking me on this one...
Cakes: Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.
^ This I don't believe its exactly the way Darwin put it, as far as I'm concerned I don't think humans came from chimps, I think we could, possibly, be related but I don't think its as straight forward as some hard core Darwinian's believe it to be.
Friendly Word of advice. Don't start religious or VS. Threads, they will only spark a flame war and get you precariously close to being banned, or getting someone else banned.
Look, out of all the topics that appear on the escapist these are the sort of questions that can actaully spark an intersting topic, much more so that questions such as what is your favourite in game waepon and so on and so forth. Of course you do need both sides of the arguement, if there is no-one on the escapist who has the view that evolution didn't happen then there would just be speculation etc., but considering the amount of people here I find that very unlikely and as for everyone else who does believe that evolution happens then it's up to us to be civil and act responsibly during a debate; an arguement doesn't have to resort to flames and insults just because views differ.
As for the question, I do believe that evolution happens (and actually I'm against religion in general, though that's an argument for another day) but at the same time I don't berate (sp?) others for having a different opinion to me. Of course there is the science backing the theory of evolution but what we as evolutionists seem to forget all too often is that there is faith behind not believing in evolution. Some people need/want to have faith and with that, as far a strict Christianity & Creationism goes, there is a need/want to believe that evolution didn't/doesn't happen.
Bob the Average: you know i thought about being an atheist once but i just couldn't manage to be enough of a smug prick.
^ and this
The people who harass Christians for their beliefs don't have the strength of their convictions to question other faiths like Islam.
I never really understood why. I guess its because they don't have to make race an issue when they harass other white people, or maybe its because they know that the Christians will just take it while some crazies will burn down foreign embassies just because they had 1 guy in their country make a cartoon.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
I can see where you're going with this, but there is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Though the difference is suttle, it can be very important as people who fall under either category both call themselves atheists. Not believing there is a god takes, nay, demands, a lack of faith.
Beliefs held by many atheists require much faith.
For example, some some atheists believe that the universe could have always existed. Others have provided me with some very strange theories, such as the universe utilizing time travel in order to come into existence.
Now, in my opinion, only an omnipotent being could be capable of such things.
Why couldn't the universe have always existed? We haven't ever seen matter or energy begin to exist, only transferred, so why should we believe there is a beginning to matter or energy in the first place?
Plus, those who believe in a deity may believe their particular deity always existed, so why not say the universe always existed?
There is no faith involved if you are an atheist. It is a rejection of the notion of the existence of any deity. Does it take faith to reject the claim that I have an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage? Does it take faith to reject the existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster or other gods that you don't believe in? Does it take faith to reject the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun near the orbit of Jupiter?
JWAN: The people who harass Christians for their beliefs don't have the strength of their convictions to question other faiths like Islam.
I never really understood why. I guess its because they don't have to make race an issue when they harass other white people, or maybe its because they know that the Christians will just take it while some crazies will burn down foreign embassies just because they had 1 guy in their country make a cartoon.
Nah, it's just that in the Western World, Christianity has the most influence and that's why it's the main target. We dislike all blind faith equally. Don't try painting us like bigots. Thanks.
Does it really matter if anyone believes it? i can't see the point in why people post threads like these, they either die quickly or start a flame war or possibley die because of the flame war.
Abengoshis: Why couldn't the universe have always existed? We haven't ever seen matter or energy begin to exist, only transferred, so why should we believe there is a beginning to matter or energy in the first place?
It's not possible. Without some sort of miraculous power, how could something have always existed?
There is no faith involved if you are an atheist. It is a rejection of the notion of the existence of any deity. Does it take faith to reject the claim that I have an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage? Does it take faith to reject the existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster or other gods that you don't believe in? Does it take faith to reject the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun near the orbit of Jupiter?
No.
You seem to be missing the point. I was trying to convey that it takes faith to believe in certain theories that are popular among some atheists.
Cakes: Buddy, don't do topics like this. Some people don't believe the same things as you do, and that's fine.
^ This I don't believe its exactly the way Darwin put it, as far as I'm concerned I don't think humans came from chimps, I think we could, possibly, be related but I don't think its as straight forward as some hard core Darwinian's believe it to be.
Its a matter of beliefs and ideals.
We don't come straight from Chimps, there is a very slow transition from Chimps. If you look at the evidence is shows that we are more than 98% similar to Chimps, and while they have one more chromosome than us, what we've found is that one of our chromosomes (chromosome No.2 in fact) is the result of the fusing of two chromosomes. Try looking for the evidence, it is rather overwhelming.
Remember, lots of small changes accumulating over a very long period of time make a population look very different to what their ancestors did.
dragon_of_red: Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.
You need it, faith and hope are the only things making us seperate from the bad guys.
Now i dont really belive in the Evolution theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories, and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blow to the religions of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley.
Alos, this could turn bad.
kinda murky definition you have there. look at bush, he had faith in god and look how big of a prick he turned out to be. look at westboro church, they have faith yet they are the biggest dicks in america if not the world. however, i agree if evolution is proven 100% (which isnt far fetched, we have enough evidence supporting it to fill the moon with) then religions might as well roll over in their graves because its over for them. not to offend the religious of course.
I wouldn't say that i don't believe in evolution but i wouldn't say that i consider it a fact (in fact i consider the idea of a fact to be a huge threat to science), but that would be because i'm such a picky skeptic that i consider only a few things to be fact. But i would give it the benefit of the doubt.
Mad World: You seem to be missing the point. I was trying to convey that it takes faith to believe in certain theories that are popular among some atheists.
Yes, it takes the kind of empirical faith that states: "My house has remained in its place up till now, I believe it'll still be here tomorrow and not just get up and walk away." The point is, unless we make some assumptions about the universe (such as the existence of testable and refutable principles that can be tried over and over again and still give us reliable results), we would not make any progress in any field of science.
Abengoshis: Why couldn't the universe have always existed? We haven't ever seen matter or energy begin to exist, only transferred, so why should we believe there is a beginning to matter or energy in the first place?
It's not possible. Without some sort of miraculous power, how could something have always existed?
There is no faith involved if you are an atheist. It is a rejection of the notion of the existence of any deity. Does it take faith to reject the claim that I have an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage? Does it take faith to reject the existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster or other gods that you don't believe in? Does it take faith to reject the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun near the orbit of Jupiter?
No.
You seem to be missing the point. I was trying to convey that it takes faith to believe in certain theories that are popular among some atheists.
Well we've never seen anything begin to exist, so why should we believe everything had a beginning? If energy and matter are never destroyed or created, only transferred, it is possible. Matter and energy are always recycled.
And which theories that are "popular among some atheists" are you referring to?
Mad World: You seem to be missing the point. I was trying to convey that it takes faith to believe in certain theories that are popular among some atheists.
Yes, it takes the kind of empirical faith that states: "My house has remained in its place up till now, I believe it'll still be here tomorrow and not just get up and walk away."
So, you believe the theories I've provided as examples have some merit?
Mad World: So, you believe the theories I've provided as examples have some merit?
Personally, I think they're impossible.
Actually, yes, I think it's distinctly possible that the universe is infinite in both expansion and time.
Another hypothesis I learned of recently is that, as a flat universe with a sum of zero energy, the universe could've come into existence from nothingness as long as the sum of energy remains zero, through quantum fluctuations. There would not be a need for external introduction of power as the sum of energy within the universe remains the same.
The point is, unless we make some assumptions about the universe (such as the existence of testable and refutable principles that can be tried over and over again and still give us reliable results), we would not make any progress in any field of science.
That's what I meant with "belief" in the atheistic sense.
Friendly Word of advice. Don't start religious or VS. Threads, they will only spark a flame war and get you precariously close to being banned, or getting someone else banned.
Have you heard the saying "if you want to start a fight talk about religion or politics"?
I do not `believe` in evolution because it is a scientific theory.
It is like saying `Do you believe in gravity?`
You should only believe in things that cannnot be proved or disproved. Evolution is a topic for scientific debate and experimentation. Not an issue of belief.
Snack Cake: Why do many religious people accept some science that contradicts their religion, but not other parts?
You can't expect consistency from everyone, not everyone values idealistic frameworks like you and I do. They find half-established ideas to be acceptable, they prefer action over observation, they'd rather get it wrong a hundred times and learn from it than spend a lot of time choosing and get it right the first time. They're both equally effective methods, tbh.
sneakypenguin: I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well
Agreed. Why there is a conflict is beyond me.
I second this. Science and religion don't have to be polar from each other, so why people feel the need to do this and cause conflict over it is also beyond me. As science and religion can intergrate well with each other. I'd like to point out many scientists are and were religious and believe in evolution, not every christian inherently believes in creationism and so forth.
The debates on Evolution vs. Creationism have 2 inherent flaws:
1)People mistakenly think evolution explains the origin of life and pull that into the debate. Evolution makes absolutely no claim as to how life started.
2)There are 2 kinds of evolution, and people debate both as if they're talking about the same thing. That leads to exchanges like "(Macro)evolution is still just an unproven theory. " That would be followed by "(Micro)Evolution is a proven fact. Anyone who can't get that through their skull is retarded." Both people are right. Dogs have evolved different traits over hundreds of years of breeding. They can be bred for short hair, long hair, size, even temperment, but it's still a dog. You can't breed(or randomly mutate) a dog such that you end up with a dog with tusks or wings. That's microevolution. Macroevolution is still a theory. That's what says a monkeys can eventually mutate into a human.
Why do people have a trouble believing in macroevolution? If you look into cellular biology, and the nitty-gritty details, a single celled organism randomly mutating to work together with other cells in a colony; an organism mutating such that it gets a new sense, like sight or hearing; a caterpillar randomly mutates so much it spins a cocoon and every organ in its body changes completely and a butterfly comes out; Those are all DRASTIC changes with huge jumps in complexity, and all the changes have to be done happen at once just right or the organism dies. There's no middle ground there. It's either one or the other, especially that butterfly. There are all kinds of irreducibly complex things in nature. They're too complex to happen by chance, and they can't be simplified into a more primitive form. That means they couldn't have slowly gotten more complex over time. That's a big thorn in the side of the "Things just got more & more complex over millions of years" way of thinking. Those are the kinds of things, (along with religion,) that prevent some people from embracing macroevolution whole heartedly.
Oh, those drug resistant bacteria are only drug resistant because they lost a trait, not gained a new ability. When their more normal kin are reintroduced, the drug resistant strains can't compete with their more healthy cousins.
Also, Creationists believe God created all things. The fact we share DNA with other things on this planet doesn't disprove God at all. It's just more evidence we all had a common creator.
Eicha: Prohibition of murder is a religious concept.
I don't think that's really true.
Non-human primates typically don't kill members of their own species. They don't have religion.
We have religion, but we kill each other by the hundreds.
That's not true, Chimpanzees have been known to kill one another for the sole purpose of just not liking each other, even dolphins which are suppose to be intelligent kill one another for fun. And as for evolution its still happening now, general population is getting taller and it's been proven that in some cases our fingers are beginning to extend and become more slender oh and Darwin got it right that has also been proven.
You gave the example of our closest primate cousins killing each other, then went off on a tangent, so I think you didn't understand my point. I'll restate it.
Societies would, and did, develop a prohibition against murder without religion. In fact, some of the most heinous mass murderers in history have been deeply religious. Morality=religiousity is a flawed argument, and doesn't really belong in a discussion about evolution.
PhiMed: Actually, that's the definition of an atheist. If you believe that there is a possibility that there may be a God, then you are an agnostic.
That's just not the case.
An agnostic holds no sway in the belief or disbelief of a god. They are indifferent.
There are two types of atheists - strong and weak. A strong atheist asserts that there is no such thing as a god. A weak atheist does not believe in god because there lacks evidence, however, will believe in a god once evidence is presented.
This is the same as strong and weak theists as well. Strong theists and atheists are similar as they assert with certainty the unknown. Weak theists and atheists believe or disbelieve for various reasons (some find evidence or a lack thereof, some believe because of faith, etc.) but are willing to change their views if evidence is supported to prove them wrong.
It's a distinct difference that is very important when discussing things like this.
Atheism - unbelief in God or deities - disbelief in the existence of God or deities
Agnosticism - view that God's existence is unprovable - the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
"weak" atheists are just agnostics that feel like calling themselves atheists. I think everyone just kinda decided that it's an easier word to say or maybe everyone felt to pompous saying they are agnostic so they just started going with atheist.
bluepilot: I do not `believe` in evolution because it is a scientific theory.
It is like saying `Do you believe in gravity?
I swear Tim Minchin says something along the lines of that.
Spoiler: Click to View
On topic, why not? Evolution is a theory which we assume to be true to base our knowledge of science on, but that theory could easily be disproven if the correct events did occur. We assume these theories to be true in order tto help us understand other aspects of the universe that are related, this eventually leads to the point where people just accept this theory as being true. Whilst this is a good thing to do, only problem then occurs when the original theory gets disproven, at which point we lose lots of understanding of the universe. Of course, theories like creationism follow the same pattern, with people assuming them as being true and accepting them as being true, until we eventually manage to disprove it as well.
In the end, I guess the term "Everyone to their own opinion" will suffice for now.
goldenheart323: Oh, those drug resistant bacteria are only drug resistant because they lost a trait, not gained a new ability. When their more normal kin are reintroduced, the drug resistant strains can't compete with their more healthy cousins.
Sorry, but since I study in that field, it's especially annoying to me to read this.
No, drug resistant cells don't generally lose something (some do, true). As an example of them gaining a trait: Through transduction, transformation, conjugation or whatever, bacteria get a plasmid that allowes them to survive, with a gene for creating Beta-lactamase that can destroy Penicillin. However, creating Beta-lactamase is costly to a cell (you know, it takes aminoacids to build, has to be produced using up stored energy and whatnot) so if you remove Penicillin, then normal cells thrive better than the ones with Beta-lactamase.
Just one last thing: In the scientific community, there is no doubt about either microevolution or macroevolution being true. It's an arbitrary distinction made by ID-proponents and Creationists to confuse and misinform by making them seemingly different. They are the exact same processes over a different timescale. You can't accept one but not the other.
sneakypenguin: but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.
Yeah or that hes a stalker, or the girl stares at people too much, or that the indian bloke isn't really awkward or that its a totally shit movie by any standards.
Personally I have no idea what religious category I fit into. I can't seem to understand how we could just be gone forever after we die but I don't believe in all the (excuse my choice of words) 'hocus-pocus' parts of the bible. I mean I believe in evolution 100% and the big bang theory is plausible but it always falls back into the whole "Then who/what created that" category. There are so many things that we will never know. Why waste your life trying to solve the unsolvable.
*Edit: Thanks to the below post I guess I fit somewhere into the agnostic category...
PhiMed: Actually, that's the definition of an atheist. If you believe that there is a possibility that there may be a God, then you are an agnostic.
That's just not the case.
An agnostic holds no sway in the belief or disbelief of a god. They are indifferent.
There are two types of atheists - strong and weak. A strong atheist asserts that there is no such thing as a god. A weak atheist does not believe in god because there lacks evidence, however, will believe in a god once evidence is presented.
This is the same as strong and weak theists as well. Strong theists and atheists are similar as they assert with certainty the unknown. Weak theists and atheists believe or disbelieve for various reasons (some find evidence or a lack thereof, some believe because of faith, etc.) but are willing to change their views if evidence is supported to prove them wrong.
It's a distinct difference that is very important when discussing things like this.
Indifference as to the existence of god/gods would be atheism. After all, atheism is the lack of belief, and if you don't actually care one way or the other (not that I actually believe there is anyone in that particular state, though I'm sure there are some who claim they are) then you do not believe.
All atheism requries is that lack of belief, and indifference certainly qualifies. The whole idea of strong/weak atheism is pretty ridiculous, considering that there is only one qualification to be an atheist, the lack of belief in a divine force, and one either holds that belief or does not. In your example, the "strong" atheist is simply an atheist, whereas the "weak" atheist you describe is a blend of atheist and agnostic; since many atheists disbelieve due to a lack of evidence or reasons to believe in god, then if some definitive evidence for god's existence appeared they'd probably change their mind.
OT: Evolution is usually debated against by those who hold their holy scriptures to be the literal truth. If your faith is built entirely around certain things being true, and then some smartass scientist comes along and says "Actually, it was more likely to have happened like this", you aren't going to be happy. When one of your core beliefs is shown to not have actually happened the way you think it did, this allows doubt to creep in and undermine the rest of your beliefs. Hence why so many fundamentalist types believe evolution to be evil; it makes people think, even when they don't believe it, and in the case of people who only follow a faith because they've been told to (rather than because they've thought it through and come to the conclusion that they believe it) anything that contradicts or presents a problem to that faith is anathema.
You're doing a great job so far! Your mother an I are very proud of you.
I assure you fine sir/madam that I am not a wankist and that I will fill your shoes with my urine for such slander! Eh, I figure this thread is just going to turn into shit slinging insults I might as well feed it, for you see, I find this very amusing.