Atheism

No. Why would anyone do that? And then just leave them lying buried in difficult-to-reach places? It didn't happen.

Yes, this is possible. But not likely. It is also possible that they were put there by pixies. Or that cats are really highly intelligent and faked them as part of a complex practical joke on humans that they are still keeping quiet about until it is time for the punchline. It is also possible that the whole world didn't exist yesterday, but a mad alien scientist made it appear this morning at 3am: and we all popped into existence, complete with memories of yesterday (and before) and dinasour fossils in the ground and in museums.

It is also possible that a god pulled a similar trick a few thousand years ago (or even this morning at 3am).

However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these possibilities are true - or even remotely likely. So most people don't give them serious consideration. Because if you gave one of them serious consideration, you'd have to consider all the other possibilities as well, and say that they are equally likely.

But you can never disprove these possibilities, because they are not testable. So as ideas they do not have much value.

It may be possible if you consider that maybe extraterrestrials do exist, and that they may be a form of demon, and that they fabricated dinosaur fossils that appeared prehistoric. If extraterrestrials do exist, we have to take into consideration about how advanced their technology is, and to what extent that they can fabricate specific materials. If the extraterrestrials do exist and they are actually a form of demon, they would do it in order to to fulfill Satan's agenda in deceiving the world. There have been many claimed sightings of dinosaurs all around the world that are still alive today, such as pterodactyls, and even some claimed sightings of tyrannosaurus rex's in some remote places of the world, and the Loch Ness Monster (which is supposedly a plesiosaur), and there's also many other dinosaurs that there's been claimed sightings of all around the world.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Answer 1

Although Gould was often quote-mined by creationists suggesting that Gould thought that the fossil evidence did not support common descent, none of this relates in any way to natural selection, the proposed mechanism for evolution.

Answer 2

No. Stephen Jay Gould said that natural selection was the best explanation for the evolution of species. However, he differed from Charles Darwin in his understanding of the process.

Whereas Darwin appears to have expected that evolution would be a gradual, continuous process, Gould suggested a process of punctuated equilibrium. He said that species were more likely to have remained relatively unchanged for long periods until a period of rapid evolution resulted in the evolution of new species. He felt that this was more consistent with the fossil record.

Answer 3

As a palaeontologist by profession this was Gould's area of expertise. Although revered as a great scientist Gould has received some attention from creationists for parts of his comments on the nature of the fossil record. He is quote-mined as referring to the fossil record in relation to evolution in the following way:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is (here Gould is quoting Darwin) extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. (end of quote)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.

Gould's commitment to Darwinian evolution followed from an understanding and knowledge of the fossil record that belies the literal text of the quotes lifted out of context by creationists. What the evidence shows is clear from the completestatements of Gould and many other palaeontologists in their proper context, no matter what creationists make of them.

It depends on how you count it.

Almost nobody has ever killed someone by being motivated by the premise that there are no gods, full-stop. This is the same way that nobody has ever killed someone by being motivated by the premise that there are gods, full-stop. However, when you talk about a certain religion, that religion will have an ideology in addition to the simple belief in gods, such as what those gods want people to do to demonstrate belief. Since Atheists do not have gods, no beliefs about what gods want are relevant.

However, most Atheists subscribe to a number of other ideologies, which can lead to terrorism and violence. Probably the most notable non-theistic ideology that some Atheists have endorsed is Communism. (This is not to say that being an Atheist makes you a Communist or more inclined to be a Communist, but since Communism has no divine components, it is perfectly compatible with Atheism, just like Democracy is for the same reasons.) Communist Terrorists are quite numerous throughout history, operating on multiple continents. However, there were numerous Theists in the ranks of Communist terrorism as well, making it difficult to parse out the exact number of Atheists who were involved. Another non-theistic ideology that Atheists have endorsed is nationalism. While there are certainly forms of nationalism which are strongly religious, such as Greek Nationalism and Religious Zionism, there have been forms of nationalism that are Atheist-friendly, such as Secular Zionism and or the OAS in the Algerian Civil War. Most of the members of the Irgun and the Lehi (also called the Stern Gang), which were Zionist terror groups, were Atheists with Jewish heritage. (Thankfully, Israel disbanded these organizations once it was clear what kinds of atrocities they were committing, but the point remains that these were mostly Atheist-led terror groups.)

However, the common canard by Atheists that Atheists have not been members of terrorist groups or repressive/violent groups is not borne out by the evidence.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by. Many atheists do not declare their atheism.

To further complicate the matter, some religions like Buddhism are atheistic, denying the existence of any god or gods, but many 'folk Buddhists' do believe in god. Also, Hinduism has many different strains of thought, ranging from polytheism, through to monotheism, panentheism and pantheism, and even a few atheistic schools. Unless we could ask every single person on earth whether they believe in god or not in a private setting so they'd be honest, we can't be sure how much of the worlds population is atheist.

There is no reliable statistic for the number of atheists in the world due to several factors:

• No one is interested in counting that category.
• Many people are confused by that term thinking there are varying degrees of atheism.
• There are several world-wide organized "religious" groups that do not worship a supreme being.
• There is no umbrella organization that can assist in an accurate count of that category.
• Many people do not wish to identify themselves as atheists because of the inherent prejudice against atheists by leaders and members of various Christian amd Muslim sects.