How does atheism play a key role in evolutionary biology?

Atheism doesn't play a key role in anything.

It's not like evolutionary biology is particularly complicated for people to understand.

If anything I'd think it suggests that something about atheism makes biologists more likely to choose evolutionary biology as a field.

Any biologist should know enough about evolution to know that it didn't go down like Genisis.

1) How so?  If one could prove that reality has always existed would that not go about disproving god?

Also... actually, there is some thought that it can't be disproven. 

2) Never said it did.  Simply illustrating the fact that your being hypocritcal

3) What does literal interpretation of the bible or young earth creationism have to do with anything i've said?

As for the evidence... i already have.  It's been observed that the brain is too hot for quantum effects to work.  Something everyone agrees with execept for a few people who believe in Quantum Mind theory... who have come up with wild specultiive theories on what may be the case... ones that would generally match anything a religious person has done... with the exception that there are plenty of other theories of consiousness that prove promising.

Additionally nuerons are just too big for quantum noise to effect it anyway.  Electrons jumping this way and that isn't going to effect the rock it is a part of afterall.

I'm going to nip this in the bud straight away before you turn the argument into something else.

Atheism means 'without god', when you are are an evolutionary biologist it would be preferable that you don't believe in intelligent design as it would work against the field of biology you work in. Complication has nothing to do with anything either. And yes it does suggest that atheists are more likely to work in evolutionary biology, that was the sodding point, because evolutionary biology is not something that would be appealing to a hardcore Christian who believes the world was created 6000 years ago because it would directly conflict with their beliefs when they study an evolutionary branch dating back millions of years.

And evolution isn't so essential to other areas of biology, again I refer to Slimebeast who is a medical doctor so he has studied biology extensively, he does not have to accept the theory of evolution in its' current form and he doesn't.

Look, our stats that we both provided prove my point. 59% of biologists believe in a god, but only 21% of evolutionary biologists believe in a god. At some point between biology and evolutionary biology there comes a point where believing in a 'creator' is counter productive to working in the field, that is pretty much what I'm on about.

1) Not being a "hardcore christian" doesn't make you an atheist. 

It makes you someone who has a basic understanding of the scientific method.

2) Actually slimebeast does believe in evolution.  He just thinks it's macro only. 

Which while I disagree with him.  It's not like he doesn't believe it at all. 

Afterall all the current evolutionary proof we have is on a "same level" basis.

He's just unwilling to believe in evolution in full until they find proof of a change in stuff like gene complication.  For example a known single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism... (Or as the case would be more likely, a colony of single celled organisms evolving into a more "together" form.)

It seems counter to the way science usually works... find one law and apply it to everything until proven otherwise... but it's not like he's denying all evolution.

3)  I disagree that it's counterproductive to working in the field.  That suggests evolutionary biologists who believe in god are worse at their job.  I would counterargue that people who don't believe in god find it more important to be an evolutionary biologist.  In general that would have to do with what i like to call "Scientific ego".

Basically if you talk to a scientist about something.... they think everything can be explained by their scientific field... they tend to see their field as the be all end all of science.

As a Psychology graduate I saw it all the time.  Actually consiousness argument is the PERFECT example... as is your poll.

Evolutionary Biologists generally believe in the Evolutionary Biologist theory of Consiousness.  Which would be that consiousness is a biproduct of evolution... and that people constantly make their descisions based on what makes the most sense to them evolutionary wise.

This implies that people don't have "free will."

The authors are surprised and you could even say disgusted that more evolutionary biologists believe in "free will" then god... because they see free will as "people make decisions."

Despite the fact that most if not all will tell you that if you had a perfect scientific model you could predict everybodies choices.

That everything is predestined is generally seen as "anti-religious" since religion is all about choice... (despite the fac that god is supposed to be all knowing and know what  choice you are going to make....)

I'm not being hypocritical. I complained that listing scientists that believed in God as proof of God was an appeal to authority and not emperical evidence, the fact that I think that something with no evidence is possibly true is not the same scenario. If I said 'XXX' believes in quantum mind so it must be true then yes I would be a hypocrite.

Really I don't know why you brought that old conversation up when it was wildly off-topic. I'm not going to get back into a debate about whether quantum mind is possible or anything else about consciousness which is what you seem to be angling for here.

No.  You are being hypocritical.  You are argueing from the point of an empiracist when other beleifs show you to not be one.

They mention Eisnstien, even though he was quoted as saying that "religion is a childish superstition".

Oh dear, my faith in humanity has been destroyed. The only way it can be restored is if he dies a hilarious death and wins a Darwin award.