Evolution is not part of atheism.

I have been asked to disprove the resolution that Evolution is not part of atheism. I take that to mean that "The belief in evolution and advocation thereof is not part of atheism". Let us begin. For my opponent to say that "atheism is simply the lack of belief in God" is, with respect, a gross oversimplification. Firstly, by capitalising the word "god" he is obviously referring to a particular diety, most likely the one otherwise known as Yahwe. Atheism is a philosophy that goes way beyond that. It concerns ANY god. It therefore, even on my opponent's narrow interpretation would be "the lack of belief in a god". Secondly and more importantly, however, my opponent is doing this broad philosophical concept (atheism) great injustice by bringing it down to a single 6 word sentence. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines atheism as "in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings" (. http://www.britannica.com...). "Critique and denial" are more than a mere "lack of belief". "Critique" involves the concept of arguing against, of criticising. There are many sub-species of the broad philosophy called atheism. One of these is Practical Atheism. This concept indeed entails the lack of belief in a god. Theoretical atheism (aka contemplative atheism), on the other hand, "posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). While other forms exist, it is Theoretical Atheism that is relevant to this debate. A person practising Theoretical Atheism engages in a process of arguing against "common theistic arguments". These common theistic arguments necessarily involve the agument for the theory of intelligent design. In fact, I would suggest that if there is a single dogma that religions of the world have in common more than all other dogmas it is indeed Intelligent Design (Creation). Does arguing against this concept involve relying on the theory of evolution? Not necessarily, not always. But I do contend that in the vast majority of cases (UFO believers excepted) they do. I will provide evidence of this if challenged to. However I would be suprised if my opponent (with his knowledge and fairness) were to in fact challenge me to that. Therefore, two points need to be kept in mind. Firstly, atheism is a broad concept that involves (amongst other things) the active thought process of negating the existence of a god. Secondly, the theory of evolution is a major (if not the main) alternative used by the theoretical atheist when confronting the concept of intelligent design. It follows therefore that evolution is very much part of atheism. My opponent has argued that atheists existed before Darwin's Theory was developed. I say that contention does not support his argument. By analogy, theists existed before Christ was born. Does it follow that a belief in Christ's diety is not part of theism (religion)? Bicycles existed before the automobile was ever invented. Does it follow that the automobile is not part of transportation? Transportation COULD exist without automobiles. Equally, there are many many automobiles that are not ever used for transportation (desplay items, collectors' items). The reason I post these analogies is that my opponent is of the view that A can be part of B if and only if B could not exist BUT FOR A. I clearly oppose that point. However, that is not how I present my argument. My argument is that we must look at atheism as the broad general philosophy. Negating creation (done largely by proposing evolution) is part of that philosophy (more specifically it's part of its sub-set called Theoretical Atheism). In conclusion, evolution is part of atheism. I will make some additional notes, given that I have some space left. The following might sound somewhat strange but let us consider this for a minute: My opponent has proposed that Raelinas are an example of atheists who do not believe in evolution. As I stated above, this does not defeat my argument that evolution is part of atheism. However, let us just think about his proposition. Are Raelians really atheists? My opponent's proposition that they are because they do not believe in "God" would be correct, had he applied the correct definition of atheism. However, he did not. Polytheists (people believing in MANY gods) are not atheists. They are a species of theist. Could it be argued that Raelinas are in fact theists? They believe in some very very very very advanced beings from outer space who came to Earth and used their vastly superior technology and knowledge to engineer DNA and create all life on Earth. Could we say that to the Raelians they were gods? Some will say "no, they were not omnipotent". Well, gods do not have to be omnipotent. Just consider Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Ancient Egyptian gods. Gods that could kill one another, hurt one another, imprison one another. Were they omnipotent beings? Clearly not. Gods are usually defined as "supernatural". But what does that mean? ". .. pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they lack a clear scientific explanation. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). "LACK OF CLEAR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION". Do we have clear scientific explanation for a being that can genetically engineer DNA to the point of creating every single living thing on Earth? I suggest we do not. We will not for a long time to come. Bear in mind that a number of new species are discovered EVERY DAY. What about the Bible? What about God parting the Red Sea so that Moses could ride through it? Is that supernatural? Surely, if we could have a large enough hairdryer it would not be. The Flood? A very very large pump and showerhead would, in my submission, do the trick. Just where does natural end and supernatural begin? Are those aliens really not gods? Are the Raelinas really atheists? Ladies and Gentlemen, I do realise that I have written a number of things without citing references. I consider them to be matters of common knowledge. If my opponent challenges me to do so, I will come back with references for those matters. Quite simply, given his level of knowledge, his intelligence and his inherent ability to focus on the real issues, I believe he will not challenge me in relation to matters that he knows could be referenced with ease.