The theory of evolution, in many people’s eyes, seems to be evidence against a designer God. But why?

Some may point out to the fact that random mutations and natural selection help explain the diversity of organisms. However, why should this reduce our belief in a designer, even traditionally? It is not as if historically, religious people were able to explain how God diversified life. This could just be one of the mechanisms.

Others may point out that many designs seem flawed and many things we see in the world are uncharacteristic of a designer god, such as babies being killed, or us having vestigial organs of no use. But this merely assumes God’s intentions. It seems to build a particular conception of God and then argues against it. I fail to see how this is anything but a strawman. There is nowhere, even in the traditional concepts of God, where it is believed that He will not let people suffer (there are literally multiple instances of God torturing certain kinds of people within the Bible itself for example) or not design people with certain organs that may not be needed.

The only thing evolution seems to do is better explain complexity through simplicity. But to count it as evidence would first require that god, if he exists, is more likely to create complexity spontaneously (if even possible) than to create it through simplicity. But what reason do we have to believe this?

  • 15
    I don't think you will find someone to seriously claim that evolution is definitive evidence against the existence of God (seriously as in "after careful research on the topic and in good faith"). At best it makes it redundant as an explanation and somewhat points at non existance in the basence of proof. After all, if someone claimed there was an elephant in the room just 10 minutes ago, but there was no sign of it (no smell, no tracks, no broken furniture) you'd suspect there was no elephant to begin with rather than suppose it was a smell-less, shoes wearing, extremely careful elephant.
    – armand
    Jul 7, 2023 at 0:43
  • 13
    Like so much else here, you talk of religion (God) but suggest Christianity, particularly the fundamentalist version. Here is a mapping between traditional Hindu mythology and evolution. So simultaneously religiously and scientifically grounded is not so impossible unless you insist on a fundamentalist/literalist reading of scriptures.
    – Rushi
    Jul 7, 2023 at 7:15
  • 4
    Like every scientific theory, evolution explains many things... and leave un-explained many others. More specifically, it does not deal with God hypothesis and thus, a fortiori it does not deal with specific "interpretations" of God intentions: the Christian one vs e.g. the super-engineer one. Jul 7, 2023 at 9:50
  • 2
    If nothing motivates your belief, then nothing demotivates it. If I believe cars are driven by magic because there's no horses in sight, then learning how an engine works should obviously convince me otherwise. If the apparent design of nature is what led you to believe in a designer, then explaining nature by evolution should obviously convince you otherwise.
    – Passer By
    Jul 8, 2023 at 9:41
  • 7
    "The theory of evolution, in many people’s eyes, seems to be evidence against a designer God." Which people are these? The only people I ever hear making this claim are those denouncing evolution because it argues against God. But it doesn't, and those making these claims generally have a political and financial agenda for doing so.
    – barbecue
    Jul 9, 2023 at 1:01

11 Answers 11


When Laplace wrote his Newtonian, materialist explanation of the universe, Napoleon asked him where God fit into the scheme. "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire," was Laplace's famous reply.

Your question is fair enough, but employs a common misrepresentation of science. You can take any scientific theory and then add on God, as if inviting a "plus one." Many scientists do, but only on their own time, so to speak.

To jettison redundant hypotheses is simply a critical working scientific convention, wielding Ockham's razor. You can always add God back in, but not into the published, peer-reviewed science.

If you want to use God as part of your causal explanation of physical events, you must offer some experimental way to falsify that hypothesis. And this is where believers usually have a problem.

Exactly what repeatable experiment would falsify the God hypothesis? A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers? It is not so much that evolution "disproves" God. It is simply that it offers a compelling, verifiable explanation of observations that does not require God.

If some scientists do indeed seem hostile to the idea of God, it is more properly a hostility towards undecidable claims that muddy the waters, subvert the scientific method, and then tend to backload a lot of moral implications and assertions.

  • 4
    Evolution is more than just any old science. It's such a big part of how humans and the world we have today ended up here, that it renders most god claims unnecessary, demonstrably false or irrelevant to us.
    – NotThatGuy
    Jul 8, 2023 at 14:23
  • 4
    @NotThatGuy Is that how you see it? There is what, 2 chapters about the creation in the Bible? And they don't even try to explain the how of creation (in my opinion). What is this "most claims" you are talking about?
    – kutschkem
    Jul 10, 2023 at 10:27
  • 2
    @NotThatGuy - I actually don't think it does, in the same way that I don't think the big bang theory really significantly alters any god claims. Yes, there's less general influence that believers can use to hang their faith on, but they, at least in Christian theology, were already inserting an infinitely powerful, and therefore infinitely improbable prior into their calculations. There's no evidence that could prove or disprove an infinitely powerful being, as they are capable of fabricating any of it.
    – lupe
    Jul 10, 2023 at 12:29
  • @kutschkem A big part of god claims is trying to explain (without really explaining) how humans and the world we have today ended up here. But that's also what evolution does. So people add a god on top of evolution (which is unnecessary), their god claim contradicts evolution (demonstrably false), or they claim that a god did something billions of years ago, without having done much in the interim (which seems irrelevant to us). Souls / the afterlife vs evolution is similar, as per my answer. Evolution doesn't say much about a god that generates feel-good emotions or finds car keys, though.
    – NotThatGuy
    Jul 10, 2023 at 13:29
  • "A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers?" I work in cardiac outcomes. We must track patient religion and exclude it from analysis because if we didn't we would get random nonsense variables as outcome variations in practices. The outcome variance on religion exceeds background noise, and it does so enough that just saying Bhuddist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Hindu doesn't cut it.
    – Joshua
    Mar 12 at 1:53

It's not a strawman, it's arguing against specific god claims, or rebutting specific arguments for a god.

As such, it applies to some god beliefs, but may not apply to others.

You could make a few general arguments that could apply to pretty much any and every conceivable idea of a god / supernatural deity (like making a general case about standards of evidence and the burden of proof). But most arguments against theism apply only to gods with specific sets of properties, as they are commonly claimed within specific religions.

As a side note, the purpose of arguing against religion tends to be to oppose specific religions, because those religious beliefs are believed to cause harm and are considered to be unjustified. People holding beliefs with poor justification increases the likelihood that they'd also believe other (untrue and potentially harmful) things with poor justification. In that sense, it makes perfect sense to argue against specific beliefs that people hold, rather than limiting yourself exclusively to arguments that apply to all possible god beliefs.

In any case, evolution brings the following specific claims and arguments into question:

  • The creation of humans was a significant part of God's plan and he wants a personal relationship with us.

    There's significant evidence indicating common ancestry between us and other animals (such as genetic similarity and a chain of fossils, especially for humans versus other apes). The Earth has been around for billions of years before humans got here, and the universe has been around for billions of years before that, and is immensely vast. Given this, it seems doubtful that all of this was created for us, or that anything that created the universe (if anything created the universe) would even be particularly aware of our existence.

    One could say that God started the evolution process, or triggered the Big Bang (as some theists do), but aside from us having no good evidence to support that claim, that only really makes sense if you presuppose God. To say that of all the countless species that originated from the same place, one of them (which is a bit more intelligent than the others, and which emerged after billions of years) are uniquely special and predestined to have a relationship with God, doesn't really make sense at face value.

  • A literal interpretation of the creation story from Genesis 1, which includes the fall of mankind, which is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice (what all of Christianity is built on).

    Some people interpret it literally, which would contradict all the evidence we have for evolution and the history of Earth and the universe. Such people don't claim that these things are compatible, but instead reject evolution (with a lot of unscientific and poorly justified arguments).

    Many interpret it figuratively, which avoids this problem, while creating a few others, but that's beyond the scope of this answer.

    The flood is on a similar note.

  • God directly interacts with material reality.

    We've traced our past back billions of years, and there aren't really any glaring gaps to fit God into within that timeframe, of things that don't seem to have a natural explanation (there's certainly still a lot we don't know, but we also know and understand a lot).

    So it's not really compelling to say that God actually does anything whatsoever in material reality (absent direct strong evidence of such interactions, which we don't have).

    That said, not everyone believes in a god that interacts with material reality (putting aside the fact that at that point the god claim becomes pretty much entirely unnecessary and would lack any explanatory or predictive power).

  • Complexity of life, how every part of an organism has a function (except when it doesn't) and works in perfect harmony (except in the many cases where it fails), how our environment is perfectly suited for us (except the parts of it that's actively hostile to us), (human perception of) beauty and human morality and emotion and experiences is evidence or proof of God.

    Those things are all sufficiently explained by evolution.

  • The existence of a (human) "soul" and an afterlife.

    The accepted consensus around evolution is that we evolved from other apes, with slow incremental changes. This is a problem for believing that other apes don't have souls, but we do, because at what point along this continuous line from ape to human did souls come along? It seems either you're going to have to have a bunch of soulless apes give birth to humans with souls, or you're going to have some sort of divine event to add a bunch of souls to the world.

    If all animals have souls, maybe that allows you to avoid the problem, but that certainly doesn't seem to be all that compatible with Christianity, at least.

    Although neuroscience and psychology also do a good job of challenging the idea of a soul.


Evolution is not evidence against God.

Evolution is evidence that complex forms of matter and energy don't require a supernatural explanation. The Catholic Church, the largest Christian Church in the world embraces by doctrine both God and evolution. It is tendency of the human mind to anthropomorphize explanations, so it is natural to point to a tree with wonder and claim that an intelligence is responsible for its complexity in the same way a skyscraper is complex. Evolution merely provides a rational explanation why that isn't so.

Now, if one accepts a scientific mindset, then perhaps evolution diminishes evidence FOR God by taking away one argument, that of intelligent design of some sort. Science is beholden to methodological naturalism. From WP:

Methodological naturalism, this second sense of the term "naturalism", seeks to provide a framework of acquiring knowledge that requires scientists to seek explanations of how the world around us functions based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. It is a self-imposed convention of science that attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events.

Yet, God needn't be bound by the natural order. In fact, it is a primary tenet of faith that God is much greater than the natural order. Thus, one can still subscribe to natural theology. From WP:

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology and deism that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics (such as the existence of a deity) based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed so-called natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or Will of God, which includes nature itself.

  • 1
    +1 for juxtaposing natural theology & methodological naturalism
    – Rushi
    Jul 8, 2023 at 2:59
  • "Evolution is not evidence against God." Could anything ever be evidence against God?
    – JonathanZ
    Jul 9, 2023 at 2:52
  • @JonathanZonstrike I think there is a caae to be made that belief in God has a psychological antecedent much like pareidolia. If there were NCCs that stricklycorrelated, I would call that evidence against the existence of God.
    – J D
    Jul 9, 2023 at 7:31
  • 1
    @JD - I'm afraid I don't know what NCCs are, but replying to the rest of your comment, remember that pareidolia is not evidence against the existence of faces, but just something to keep in mind when assessing any particular claim to have seen a face. Additionally, wouldn't most people say that pareidolia arises evolutionarily out of our ability to perceive faces that actually do exist, and a similar argument could be deployed for God?
    – JonathanZ
    Jul 9, 2023 at 14:00
  • 1
    Most people's beliefs in the existence of any God(s) are impervious to evidence. So not only is your first sentence correct in this case, it is also correct because of the general nature of most people's concepts of God(s).
    – JonathanZ
    Jul 9, 2023 at 14:04

If you consider the Judeo-Christian God described in the Bible, it's a clear refutation of the story in Genesis of God creating all the creatures and plants on earth.

More generally, if God is supernatural, their existence is not really something that can be proved or disproved by normal scientific and logical means. They established all the rules, so they exist outside them -- we're like characters in a computer game, we can't detect the computer on which we're being simulated, or the world outside the computer (unless the program provides such a link).

The atheist position is generally that God is a concept that people came up with as an explanation for nature because they couldn't conceive of how things actually happened. This is the "God of the gaps" concept -- if we can't explain how something happened naturally, we assume God did it supernaturally. The progress of science has over time been filling in most of the gaps. While this doesn't directly disprove that God exists, it weakens the arguments for their existence, since there are fewer phenomena we can point to and say "if God doesn't exist, how can you explain that?" And the overall success of science suggests that everything is potentially explainable -- gaps are just things we haven't gotten to yet, not strong evidence for God.

So the theory of evolution by natural selection (aka Darwinism) is simply one of those gaps being filled in, weakening the arguments for the existence of God. If you consider the likelihood of something being correlated with the strength of arguments for it, this reduces the probability of God's existence.


The problem is rather the other way around. Religions usually draw their authority from "god", who is characterized as all powerful. And the most popular display of it's powers is his ability to create everything or respectively the fact that he created everything (as for religions that is a truth).

And for god to be a meaningful entity in the sense that many religions claim him to be, this ought to have been a deliberate act. Compare a gardener who cultivated a garden of living things, to someone who forgot his yogurt in the fridge (and thus also cultivated living things: fungus).

Sure you can reduce god to the starting point of evolution, but that isn't going to do it for the legitimating narrative of a lot of religions. And pre-evolution you could make the argument that complexity needs deliberation and as such a design and a designer.

Now the idea that complexity could be reduced to simplicity and that large structures are build from small building blocks already makes it look less like "magical" but nonetheless impressive. The designer moved from mage/god -> genius engineer. But with the theory of evolution there's an alternative explanation where complexity can emerge naturally and without a designer.

Now you could still put a god at the start of it and if the evolution has a direction, it would be nonetheless impressive, but that prompts the question what that plan is and so far it often seems to be rather random.

Though while not necessarily a conclusive proof that a god doesn't exist or even that his not designing, religions have nonetheless a big problem. Because if you're in the business of truth, than possible alternatives pose a problem. Especially if these theories are easier to handle and more applicable. So that they end up being favored by Occam's razor.

Now the crucial problem is religions usually need a god and not just any but one with powers that justify it's authority. While evolution doesn't need one to explain the world. So it's less that it makes "god", as a root cause, less likely, but it makes it less likely that particular religions relying on a particular god are correct with their assumptions.


How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?

It's not an issue of probabilities. Evolution explains a mechanism for adaptation and change that does not require a "design". It's 13 billion years of "trial and error". But God could have designed evolution as mechanism for change that can proceed independent of direct God intervention. Maybe quantum mechanics and evolution provide God with surprises for entertainment. Who knows?

Evolution also produces some behavior that is baffling. The kildeer is a bird that uses deception to protect its young. It pretends to have a broken wing to lure predators away from a nest. Even a jaded scientist like me, can't help but wonder if there is some sort of intelligent design at work when observing kildeers.

Evolution does not make intelligent design less likely but evolution explains behavior that was previously thought to be proof of intelligent design. So the argument for intelligent design is weaker as a result.


It's a statistical argument.

An omnipotent creator, if there is one, could have created the entire universe, along with evidence of evolution and our memories of the evolution of that theory itself, five seconds ago and we wouldn't be any the wiser.

It just seems less likely. And there are those who will argue that point. But those who respect Occam's Razor prefer the theory with the fewest arbitrary elements.

  • As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Jul 8, 2023 at 8:55
  • 2
    A similar argument has been used by creationists to explain the appearance of ancient fossils even though the world is only 6000 years old. The explanation is that Satan deliberately created fake fossils that look millions of years old, just to trick us humans into believing the earth is much older. Apparently the earth being older somehow makes God weaker, though I've never really understood that viewpoint.
    – barbecue
    Jul 9, 2023 at 1:09
  • 1
    @RLWatkins, I think you should make your explanation a bit longer and add a reference or two. I agree with your answer but it could be more explicitly worded.
    – barbecue
    Jul 9, 2023 at 1:12
  • 1
    At the least, a citation to Last Thursday would help.
    – Corbin
    Jul 9, 2023 at 16:50

Consider a list of things that used to have or need a religious explanation. (Probably nearly everything)

Add another list for things that have a scientific explanation but large numbers of people like to have a religious explanation for still. Evolution versus Intelligent Design to use your question example.

Now consider a list of things that are on the list of things that have a scientific explanation that basically no one thinks is worth having a religious explanation for anymore.

A reasonable expectation given that there are things that need no religious explanation is that eventually everything will need no religious explanation because that first list is vastly smaller than it used to be. In fact for some religions it may be the entire foundation is gone. For example in Christianity the wide spectrum between taking Genesis literally to metaphorically..

This is related to a "God of Gaps" argument or fallacy (depending on one's perspective) that gaps in science are considered religious evidence.


A final example that once it was considered the Bible once had information on astronomy. Then there was a retreat on that topic. Once it was considered Genesis explained the origin of life. Now it's more complicated to be generous. With some branches of Christian theology focusing on the literal Genesis and some focusing on the metaphor.

For the professional intelligent design movement even a mere designer that uses mutations is a switch from the original religious explanation.

A full switch in the context of your question would be to also abandon the designer because it is just a leftover from the explanation prior to the mutations.

From the first science vs. religion fight...

To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Psalm 136:4-5

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”

Galileo Galilei


I have great admiration for scientists and their work, and I understand the philosophy of their methods. I start with that preface since I will do a little bit of scientist bashing here, which is not the same as science bashing. Scientists, just like theologians, often need some correction. To help anyone reading this anticipate my biases (we all have them) I consider myself a believer in progressive creationism.

Theology often takes the easy way out by saying, “God does things in ways that we can’t understand, therefore we don’t need to explain x, y and z.” Atheism on the other hand often takes the easy way out by saying, “We don’t fully understand x and z, but we have mostly figured out y, so it is rational to assume that x and z will have a similar explanation.”

X in this case is the creation of life, which is so far not understood by scientists. They believe (I use that term intentionally) that if the chemical and other conditions are right, and that if enough time has passed, then life will usually or at least often begin after the correct random sequence of events has occurred. But what the required sequence of events are is not understood (“yet” is usually inserted here). So scientifically there is no way to make predictions on how often life is created, or if it even happened anywhere else in the Universe.

However while this fact is usually somewhat acknowledged, at least whenever the topic is publicly discussed, clearly a large number of scientists believe that life has been created elsewhere and extremely often. Evidenced by what seems to be the very surprised reaction within the scientific community to the fact that SETI attempts have been (insert “so far”) unsuccessful. Leading to the now predominant theories of reasons for this, such as they don’t want us to know about them, or they have evolved beyond using radio waves, etc. But less credence seems to be given to the idea that perhaps life, and especially intelligent life, is extremely rare, possibly occurring only in a small percentage of galaxies, or perhaps it doesn’t exist anywhere else at all. And yes many religious people believe this also, using the standard argument that God would not create this massive Universe, but then only put people on one tiny planet. Implying that creating the Universe caused God to break a sweat. And also calling into question the value of people, which I assume was not their intention.

Y is the evolution of life, which is partially explained by Darwin’s theory, although things like how DNA software began and developed to its current level, or how ants with microscopic brains developed the ability to work together in complex ways for the common good, are not (“yet”) understood. And yes I know that there is a semantics argument whether DNA is software, or can be considered computer code in the strictest definition. What I am referring to is the complexity of DNA and its dynamic ability to manage the creation and maintenance of complex biological mechanisms.

Z is the development of human intelligence, emotion, and self-awareness.

Of course x and y are often debated between the two sides, generally falling into the differing opinions on explaining the gaps. The answer to your question is that in the atheistic viewpoint each gap that is explained is further proof of the non-existence of God, or at least the non-existence of supernatural creation of any type. And as you suggested the idea that God is only allowed to use methods that cannot be scientifically explained.

However while they are less discussed, it is the explanation for those last two items of z, emotion and self-awareness, that is in my opinion at the heart (that word intentionally used also) of the difference between at least Judeo-Christian theology and atheism. Yes animals seem to have emotions also, and apparently apes have demonstrated some level of self-awareness. But it seems that humans have these attributes at a much higher level. Love, compassion, and morality are much harder to explain as being just another so far unexplained gap in the atheistic explanation, which is that we are just biological computers running human intelligence and emotion software version 3.21063E+12. In other words the view that our level of love, compassion, and morality, to the extent that it exists, simply comes from being licensed to use a premium version of the cooperation software suite that ants are running.

A straw man argument that is typically tossed up at this point is refuting the idea that only people who believe in God can have real morality. It is certainly true that many Christians, Jews, and I think I can include many Muslims feel this way. As exemplified by the late Jerry Falwell and his “Moral Majority” political organization. A type of thinking that clearly still exists today. But finding fault with Christians is taking the easy way out in the discussion. As is finding fault with atheists. And it leads to a separate topic that all Christians should think about, which is the fact that in the gospels Jesus was the hardest on the religious leaders who felt that they had the moral upper hand. In fact they were the only group that he exhibited what appeared to be no compassion for.

  • 1
    As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Jul 9, 2023 at 10:33
  • 2
    "...in the atheistic viewpoint each gap that is explained is further proof of the non-existence of God..." The most you can really say is that it's evidence for the non-necessity of God.
    – barbecue
    Jul 10, 2023 at 13:52
  • This seems to take a very long time to actually say nothing. btw, refutation is not straw man, by anyone's definition. I do feel sorry for the Muslims, who you almost graciously allowed into the argument in the last paragraph. Note, the three Abrahamics were the same thing until 2,000 years ago. Bronze age explanations abound.
    – Tetsujin
    Jul 10, 2023 at 16:12
  • You misrepresent theism (positively) and atheism (negatively). Atheism takes no position on the origin of life, except in not accepting the claim that a god did it. You're equating atheism with those who accept or do science (even if many of those are atheists). Atheists are fine with saying we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know, and it's theists who are inserting God into the unknown. Also, you're understating the direct evidence we have for the origin of life and the evolution of human traits, and the link between that and evolution.
    – NotThatGuy
    Jul 12, 2023 at 11:40
  • We've demonstrated the building blocks of life coming from non-life in a lab. And we see intelligence, emotion, and self-awareness in other animals, at varying level of complexity. We've seen what seems like love, compassion, and morality in animals, and that's fairly easy to explain with evolution. The only clear difference I see with humans is intelligence. Also, you keep using "the creation of life", which is 100% a theist position. Atheists generally don't accept that life was "created", because that implies a creator. They only believe it "formed" or "originated".
    – NotThatGuy
    Jul 12, 2023 at 11:41

I would say that you need to remember that Darwin's theory of evolution came to prominence in Victorian Britain at a time when the Christian religion still maintained that God made the world in seven days, so it was in that context that Darwin's explanation of the world directly contradicted the prevailing religious view. I would say that nowadays a belief in God is so obviously just a matter of faith that it transcends any sort of logical rationale. You could argue until the cows come home about how nonsensical it all is and not shake the beliefs of a deeply religious person, precisely because those beliefs are not founded in logic in the first place.

  • 2
    I think your first sentence could be made into something, but the rest of your answer is basically just dismissing faith. This is not a science forum, there is room for faith and reason both in philosophy.
    – barbecue
    Jul 9, 2023 at 1:18
  • @barbecue I agree with all your points, except, perhaps, your use of the word 'just'. Jul 9, 2023 at 6:48
  • I'd say the same about your use of "just" in "just a matter of faith". I would also suggest removing the word "nonsensical." That seems to imply that faith-based beliefs lack any meaning, which is definitely not true for those who hold them.
    – barbecue
    Jul 10, 2023 at 13:42
  • 2
    @barbecue I agree. My answer was too cynical. I will change it when I get a chance. Thanks. Jul 10, 2023 at 19:00
  • @barbecue There is room to discuss the merits of faith in philosophy, but I would argue (there aren't merits to it, therefore) faith is the exact antithesis of philosophy. It's about sticking to a belief no matter what evidence or arguments you find, as opposed to using critical analysis to further your understanding (assuming the definition of faith that is belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, although this applies to some degree to the definition of complete trust too).
    – NotThatGuy
    Jul 12, 2023 at 8:25

Some people want to see contradiction between creationism and evolution.

However if we assume for a second, that there is allmighty being somewhere there, who created entire universe, he could design an evolution too, so...

And the last thing - evolutionist likes to speculate about what written in Bible, first day of Genesis: God’s light of creation, E=mc2, perhaps person who written Bible for the first time, never met Einstein to write that way, so atheistic believer be happy.

Evolutionism or Creationism it just another flame topic for two different types of believers.

  • As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Feb 29 at 7:02
  • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
    – Ludwig V
    Feb 29 at 7:04
  • @LudwigV you did two exactly same comments, to two my different answer trying to attack my personality rather my idea. It’s virtual stalking. You need to calm down. Feb 29 at 14:40
  • @DmytroBrazhnyk The two comments were the same, because I thought that both answers could best be improved in similar ways. Believe me, neither was intended as a personal attack. As for stalking, I shall make a point, in future, not to comment on (or even read) anything else you post here for the foreseeable future. I hope that will reassure you.
    – Ludwig V
    Mar 1 at 8:36

You must log in to answer this question.