Question:
Evolution: fact, theory, law, or none of the above?
MortalGuardian
11 years ago
Don't accuse me of ignorance. Of course, I will grant you that I am not a scientist. I am not an expert. I am not a biology major. Be that as it may, I am not some idiot who thinks that evolution suggests that we evolved from monkeys.

This is going to be a classic example of an appeal to authority- but I personally know a scientist who works for the CDC in Atlanta. This individual also happened to be my professor in college. I asked a very specific question: "Is evolution a fact, or a theory?" The response was "it is a theory." Don't argue with me, I am just telling you what I was told.

You will also do me the favor of not assuming that I have said that evolution is "just a theory." I am well aware of what distinguishes a scientific theory from an everyday theory, as used in ordinary language. I also know what the steps are in the scientific method. Once again, do not be mistaken- do not accuse me of being ignorant. I know what I am talking about. I have sufficient knowledge of evolution to make a fair and objective assessment of it.

Again, I am in as valid a position as anyone to question evolution if I feel like it.

It is not called the Law of evolution. It is not called the Fact of evolution. It is called the Theory of evolution, and there is a reason for this. It has yet to be proven.

Correct?
38 answers:
skeptik
11 years ago
Evolution is a fact, in that it has been and continues to be observed. In science, facts are simply observational data.



The Theory of Evolution is a theory.



The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory because it provides testable explanations for the observed facts. It is no more nor less "proven" than any other scientific theory. A scientific theory may contain one or more scientific laws, but nothing will ever make it "graduate" to become one. Because it is already a higher level of knowledge.







>> I am well aware of what distinguishes a scientific theory from an everyday theory, as used in ordinary language. I also know what the steps are in the scientific method. Once again, do not be mistaken- do not accuse me of being ignorant. I know what I am talking about.



Well, let's see about that ...



>> It is not called the Law of evolution. It is not called the Fact of evolution. It is called the Theory of evolution, and there is a reason for this. It has yet to be proven.



Ooooh...

Sorry.

If you believe what you wrote in that last paragraph, then you actually DON'T know what you're talking about.
andymanec
11 years ago
So let me get this straight... you're saying "don't accuse me of saying that 'evolution is just a theory'" and then you go on to say that 'evolution is just a theory'. You're still using the wrong definition of the word.



Evolution is all of the above. It's a fact in that it happens. You can argue about how it happens, or what course it followed in the past, or to what extent it happens, but if you say that life does not adapt to its environment, then you're either profoundly ignorant, or living in your own personal reality. It happens. It has been observed in the lab and in nature. It is a fact.



It's also a theory, though. The word "theory" doesn't mean that it's untested or somehow uncertain. The theory is the explanation of *how* it works. It is used to make predictions, and can be tested. It's also far greater in scope than a fact - while a fact can be summed up in a couple sentences, the theory can (and does) fill entire textbooks, and many thousands (if not millions) of pages of peer-reviewed research spanning a century and a half. Since it is dependent on evidence, and our evidence can never be perfect or 100% complete, the theory is always open to revision.



Laws aren't higher than theories, contrary to popular belief. If anything, they're lower since they're *much* narrower in scope. A law describes something that happens consistently under very specific conditions. So, while a theory can never "graduate" into a law, many laws can form the foundation of a theory.



That's why evolution is all of the above. It's a fact, in that it happens. It's a theory in that it explains something with a great deal of complexity. It's not a law in and of itself, but it does encompass multiple laws.
Wundt
11 years ago
No. And, even Creationist websites tell their readers not to use "only a theory" as an argument because it only demonstrates that the person using it does not understand.



Gravity is a theory. Germs (or rather, the idea that viruses and bacteria cause illness) is only a theory. Heliocentric organization of the universe is a theory. Theory in science means that it is a persistent and consistent model of a natural phenomena. Evolution is a fact, the mechanisms through which it works is the theory. Likewise, the existence of Gravity is a fact, but the mechanism of gravity is a theory. Or, the existence of viruses is a fact, the way they cause illness is a theory.



One more thing. In over 100 years of vigorous testing, no observation or experiment has ever disproved evolution. It is one of the most rigorously tested theories in the history of science. And, if you claim it is a conspiracy, consider the rewards for a scientist who finds evidence that disproves evolution, they would be able to write their own ticket for the rest of their careers using grants from the Templeton Foundation and as a guest faculty member at Christian colleges all over the world.
A.Mercer
11 years ago
It is fact and theory. In science the two can be the same.



As for your science professor, what field did he teach? I mean, if he was a physicist then he may not know much about biology and thus not be a reliable person to talk to. Plus, you can find people who will cling onto fringe ideas in any area of science. For instance, there are geologists who hold onto expanding Earth theory although it is not backed by evidence.



The thing is evolution is backed by so much evidence. We are talking actual tons and tons of evidence. You have fossils. You have comparative anatomy. You have genetics. You have DNA mapping. In each of these areas you have millions of hours of research.



Finally, you claim to understand the scientific use of the word theory but then you fall into the old creationist claptrap of "It is not called the Law of evolution". Guess what. It will never be called that. The same way that the gravitational theory will never become gravitational law. The same way that atomic theory will never be atomic law. The same way that molecular orbit theory will never be molecular orbit law. You suggesting it be called the law of evolution or fact of evolution shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
?
11 years ago
"Is evolution a fact, or a theory?" The response was "it is a theory." Don't argue with me, I am just telling you what I was told.



- ABSOLUTELY, a "theory" explains facts. Fundies think the two have nothing to do with one another, but then they have no idea what they are talking about. You cannot have a theory until you have facts that fupport it.



It is not called the Law of evolution.



- Only the facts associated with theories are laws. The speed at which objects fall on this planet is a "law" but it is part of a theory.



It has yet to be proven.

Correct?



- ABSOLUTELY NOT, it has been proven beyond even gravity, but it is a theory explaining the facts/laws that support it.
Santosh
11 years ago
Absolutely right. It's a theory

Theories can be based on facts. but facts are not always true.

Confused??

There was a theory that the earth is flat based on the fact that you can see it flat. The fact was proved wrong. Then we had a theory that is a sphere based on the fact that you keep sailing in one direction and you reach the same point. Again wrong. Then came flattened poles. This hasn't been proven wrong at least until now. But we also have a theory that the earth is hollow based on the fact that Richard Byrd flew an aircraft through a hole in the North Pole and met some people inside the earth.



Theories don't need to be proved. They exist until they will be disproved.
Brigalow Bloke
11 years ago
Not correct. Biological evolution is a fact as far as it has been defined.



Since the time of Newton, mass, weight, velocity, speed and acceleration have been defined as differently quantities. It was the achievement of Newton, and those of the "giants" of whom he claimed he stood on the shoulders to make the distinctions of these clear. By making these distinctions clear, then those studying his work can understand what exactly he was writing about. This removes confusion.



It is clear from virtually every question asked about biological evolution on these pages that the asker does not know what evolution is. The usual idea is that it is some magical transformation from one "kind" of animal to some other "kind". Of course what they mean by "kind" or "evolution" is never defined. This leads to the nonsense too frequently seen of cats giving birth to dogs or some such drivel.



According to genuine biological text books, biological evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms over time. It may not be expressed in precisely those words, but the intent is the same. This definition was formulated in the late 1930s after extensive study of genetics.



In the 1950 to the 1970s, Bernard Kettlewell studied the frequency of the light and dark coloured phases of the peppered moth, Biston betularia. This showed that moths with the allele that led to the dark phase were more common in industrialised areas. In other words, locally there was a shift in allele frequency. That fits the definition of evolution, even though the moths were still of the same species.



Now this work was validly criticised by some scientists and has been extensively lied about by certain people. So several years ago Michael Majerus and others repeated Kettlewell's work, addressing the valid objections. Kettlewell was found to be essentially correct. In reality, the difference in frequency had been noted though not counted as far back as the 1800s.



So evolution is a fact, as defined in the late 1930s. There are multiple other examples, even of new species of insect being formed in the past four hundred years in the wild. Counting dark or light moths is one example, but since the development of rapid automated methods of sequencing genomes there are many examples of exactly what difference there are in alleles.



There is no evidence of the formation of a new genus, as far as I am aware. But genus is an artificial distinctions and is moving all the time as better information comes in. There is nothing in biology as currently understood that prevents this, given enough time. So formation of a new genus is "theory". Claims that this cannot happen because of some imaginary limit are false.
Justin H
11 years ago
The reason evolution is not a law is because it is not a specific process that always holds true under specific conditions.



It is not a fact because it involves many different things, and not all of them are well understood. There are still many gaps in our knowledge of evolution, and we do not know what the specific pressure were that lead to all evolutionary changes.



All that being said, evolution as a process is not in question. There is ample evidence to support the process, and evolution by natural selection remains the best available explanation for the evidence.



The definition of theory from dictionary.com: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
?
11 years ago
A scientific theory is a combination of Laws and Facts(take for example there is the Law of Gravity and also the Theory of Gravity). The current Facts point towards the validity of evolution through natural selection as the source of variety of life. To negate that you need a better theory , that is supported by more facts. And currently there is no viable alternative theory.



The theory of evolution has practical attributes in medicine.
Adnama
11 years ago
Incorrect. A "theory" in science is the highest level an idea can attain. Other theories in science include cell theory, germ theory, gravity theory, and atomic theory. A theory has widespread explanatory and predictive qualities for what is observed in nature. A law does not serve this purpose- it is not "above" a theory. A law is a different type of scientific fact that explains how something occurs usually in a mathematical formula. A theory is much broader and explains and predicts a wide variety of observations. The theory of evolution has just as much evidence to support it as any of the other theories listed above.
11 years ago
Evolution is a fact. Life has changed on this planet over time. The theory comes into play in explaining this change. And you have to understand that scientific theories are never proved but disproved. Until they are disproved they are taken to be true where they explain the phenomena they address and make predictions. If something comes along that they are unable to account for in a falsifiable way then new theories are sought. The theory of evolution has withstood all attempts to falsify it and it is indeed a falsifiable theory.
Steven
11 years ago
I stopped reading at this point



"I am not some idiot who thinks that evolution suggests that we evolved from monkeys. "



Why? Because only religious nuts say "we evolved from monkeys", no evolutionary scientist has ever said this. Failure to understand this basic principals means you'll struggle with any other piece of evidence.



Monkeys, humans and apes have a " common ancestor".



Evolution is a fact ( it predates Darwin and Wallace).

Evolution by natural selection is a theory with the most evidence to prove it.





eys"
?
11 years ago
Evolution is a fact. We see evolution happening all around us. After all, we have to get new flu shots every year because the flu virus keeps evolving.



Evolution is a theory. Darwin's concept of random mutation being the engine powering evolution, and natural selection guiding the journey, fit all the facts of evolution and provide a framework to hold all the jigsaw puzzle pieces together.



Evolution is not a law. A scientific law is what you get when you take part of a scientific theory and express it as a mathematical equation. We're all familiar with the equation e=mc^2. It's part of Einstein's much larger Theory of Relativity; it just happens to be a part that can conveniently be reduced to an equation.



Dunno about you, but I don't think the theory of evolution is going to lend itself to that sort of simplification.
11 years ago
Evolution is an OBSERVED Phenomena...



It is also a SCIENTIFIC THEORY....





A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature—that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.



The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).



Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
?
11 years ago
The scientific theory of evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact, in the same way the germ theory and the theory of gravity are both scientific theories and facts.



For example, when the germ theory was understood to be fact, it still retained the title of a “scientific theory”, and, like evolution, is still commonly referred to as a “theory” (the germ theory), even though we all acknowledge that some illnesses are, in fact, caused by microorganisms. The idea, therefore, that a “theory” in science refers to things that are _not_ facts, can only be asserted when ignorant of what the term “scientific theory” means, and a failure/refusal to acknowledge that science uses the term for things we know to be facts (unless you do not believe germs can cause disease – good luck with that).
Herve
11 years ago
A fact. Natural selection is the theory as to how it works, and has overwhelming evidence to support it.



There is a lot of the 'awe of ignorance' in these answers.
Crocoduck Hunter
11 years ago
Fact and theory. Evolution happens and this is a noticed fact but there is also a "Theory of Evolution" that explains the mechanisms behind it.



There are also laws involved in the process of evolution but I don't think anyone ever calls any of them the "Law of Evolution". They tend to have more descriptive names.
Paul
11 years ago
Your "scientist" friend doesn't know much about science.



Evolution -- that biological organisms change over time -- is an observed fact.



In science, theories explain observed facts. For example, gravity -- that stuff falls to earth -- is an observed fact. The "law" of gravity is a simple mathematical formula that lets us calculate the force of gravity: it varies directly by the product of the masses of the bodies involved, and inversely by the square of the distance between them. The theory of gravity (General Relativity) explains that gravity works by matter bending space-time. It explains the observed fact of gravity whose force can be calculated with the "law" of gravity.



Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains how the observed fact works -- mostly by natural selection. That theory is, itself, built from literally hundreds of millions of other observed facts.



Theories never become "laws."



So no -- not correct.
Mercuri
11 years ago
Theory and fact

>It has yet to be proven.

False. And I thought you said you were "aware of what distinguishes a scientific theory from an everyday theory".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

If it had "yet to be proven" then it would still be a hypothesis.
James
11 years ago
You are confusing the common and scientific meanings of the word "theory". In common English a theory is a postulation. In scientific parlance it is FACT. Simple as that.
?
11 years ago
It's actually all of the above. A theory is an explanation of the facts and evidence that is used to make testable predictions.
?
11 years ago
Theory of evolution is just that, a THEORY. And it has NOT been proven.



When someone comes up with proofs, they can all be found to be just theory when it is all said and done.



Read the book, Did Man Get Here by Evolution or Creation? by Jehovah's witnesses--you can call any Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's witnesses and they will bring you FREE of charge that book or any other such publication.
11 years ago
No, completely, totally WRONG. I don't know where people get the idea something is tentative and thus a theory and then becomes a law. Never happens. Science does not work that way. "Law" is 18th century nomenclature that's not used anymore. A theory is the best explanation of facts. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
11 years ago
Incorrect.



Evolution is theory and fact...ALL theories are composed of millions of facts.



Gravitational Theory is made of facts.

Number Theory is made of facts.

Germ Theory is made of facts.

Atomic Theory is made of facts.

Evolutionary Theory is made of facts.



If you don't have facts, then you can't compose a theory. Simple as that.



One way to think of it is as a puzzle. The facts are all the separate pieces....and the theory is how the pieces (facts) fit together.



When we put a few pieces (facts) together, we begin to see the picture (theory) on the puzzle. So, based on the picture (theory) we go out to find more pieces, and we also know where to look for those pieces and where they should fit (predictions).
logjam600
11 years ago
If I remember correctly, physicist Richard Feynman said, (paraphrase), "There are no facts; there are just probabilities." Meaning indisputable, rock-solid truth is non-existant; there are only probabilities. I'd say evolution has good probabilities going for it, and I tend to favor it on that account.
11 years ago
Evilution is mans way of trying to take credit for what God did by speaking the worlds into existence and those of us who also know the power of the spoken Word declare that God is the only One who created our world and the rest can kiss our grits.
NDMA
11 years ago
If you mean "Darwinian Evolution" None of the above.



Fact: To be a fact, it must be observed... To date nobody has ever observed a organism produce viable offspring that was not just a variation of itself. Additionally nobody has ever observed the formation of a novel family or genus produced by an organism of a different family or genus.



Theory: There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation..



Law: A Natural Law only remains a law so long as it is consistent 100% A single violation of a natural law and it is discredited.. There are literally thousands of living fossils - creatures that did not evolve over literally millions of years discrediting the assertion that Darwinian Evolution is a continuing process that affects all living things.



Darwinian Evolution fails to meet the minimum criteria for Fact, Theory or Law and so is none of the above.



EDIT: Natural selection is one mechanism claimed by Darwinian Evolution that is true.. But it is extremely limited and cannot produce variation above the level of genus no matter how much time you give it. Those saying evolution is a fact point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
?
11 years ago
A theory that is little better than a hypothesis; in which case it is just a theory.
LES
11 years ago
Yes. I agree with you. However, there are many people for whom evolution has become a religion. A religion in which chance replaces God. Although these people will not admit it, they have replaced the scientific requirement for proof with faith, faith that the theory of evolution has to be true. Therefore, for them the need for demonstrated scientific fact is not required. They have faith that it true, so therefore for them it is true, even though the theory has many serious problems. Evolutionists are people of great faith. See below.



P.S. The only evolution we see happening around us is species adaptation. No one has ever witnessed one species giving rise to a new species. Dogs are still dods, cats are cats, and Silene Stenophylla is still Silene Stenophylla.
11 years ago
The first two of the above
?
11 years ago
"Evolution" as defined by Darwin himself, is "hypothetical"...he had so many questions on his own "theory". These doubts were conveyed to many of his friends & public. (I personally think he'd be turning in his grave to know what he started!)

(I find it interesting that there's never been a "change of kind" in the "evolution" theory of man...just adaptations.
11 years ago
It is none of the above.. it cannot be proven or naturally observed.. you can only view historical data and and interpret with what we can observe in nature.. which is to say that no animal has increased in intelligence or changed a species... so evolution is a lie.. and the theory is bogus.
11 years ago
Theory.
11 years ago
Both fact and theory.
?
11 years ago
theory
?
11 years ago
Nope. A scientific theory isn't a random guess.
?
11 years ago
It's an unproven theory. It's also a stupid theory.



*** rs p. 121-p. 126 Evolution ***

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?

There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.

Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,” meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day” to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
Baptized Disciple
11 years ago
It's a theory, a false one at that.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...