Re: why are you a Athiest?
However, I continue to believe in a Creator in no small part due to my detailed knowledge of genetics and molecular biology through which I strongly believe that life absolutely, irrefutably could not have arisen by chance.
But by introducing a creator you only push that back one step. Instead of having a spontaneously created or always existing universe you have a spontaneously or always existing creator of it. Instead of having life form from amino acids which themselves came together I know not how, you've got a super being, often claimed to be magical, that assembled life on this planet and we're left to wonder what assembled it.
But more importantly do you stop at "a creator" or do you then go on to name this creator as a God, attribute specific attributes, demands, etc to him? The former I can see as rational. The latter I can not. Although I am atheist, meaning I lack any belief in God(s), I don't have any real isue with deism.
You call this a belief in a 'god of the gaps', but I see ToE and having much more inadequecy than gaps - it is an illogical hypothesis that is flimsily propped up by loose references to genetics, examples of intra-species changes in response to changes in the environment, and by a few fragments of fossilized bone.
The difference between ToE and the "god of the gaps" kind of theology is that the former is an attempt to bridge the gap with science and research, inquiry and testing and revision, however flawed it may be, and the latter is hand waving and an easy answer to anything we don't know, steeped in dogmatic resitence to revision.
"God of the gaps" shrinks remarkably over the ages as science progresses and we learn more about the world around us. We used to attribute the rain to the Gods. We used to attribute illness to the Gods. Now we know about weather patterns and viruses. "god of the gaps" will probably always be with us, at the limits of our understanding, because we as humans tend to not like admitting when we don't know the answers.
that it is the best available 'scientific' explanation for where we came from if one first presupposes that an unprovable entity, God, did not create us out of nothing.
I'm curious. Do you think it is that? If you assume for a moment that there is no God, would evolution be the best teory to explain life on earth to you? Or do you see other ideas that you think would be better?
Why are you so unswervingly convinced that there is no God and that believers are deluding themselves into believing in a myth?
I'm not unswervingly 100% certain. A deistic God is plausible, were there any evidence for one, but I see none besides "god of the gaps". I am about as certain that there is no God as I am that there is no ESP, ghosts, etc. I have no reason to believe that such things exist.
As for the particular gods claimed by varoius relgions (ie, Allah, Ganesh, Zeus) of those I'm more confident don't exist, as they all tend to conflict with one another, are traceable to isolated origins (people tend to believe the religions of their own cultures), and typically make bold claims (such as global floods, resurrections from the dead, talking snakes, etc) that look no more credible than the native folk story of "how the eagle got its wings".
If you want to know how atheists view Islam and why, you need only consider how you view religions you don't believe in and why. I think the reason I don't believe in Allah is the same reason you don't believe in Zeus.