Question:
Do you believe in EVOLUTION and, if so, have you ever looked at both sides from an objective view point?
2011-09-10 18:56:57 UTC
I have viewed how both sides look at the evidence for evolution and the fact is Evolutionists make more assumptions than scientific Creationists. Micro-evolution is acknowledged as a scientific fact by creationists but, macro-evolution (a species evolving into another new species) has NEVER been observed and Requires making assumptions. Finally, most evolutionists never even look at the scientific creationists view, while the creationists have looked into and been educated about evolution.

One example of how the two interpret data pertains to anatomical similarities. The forelimb of a man can be compared bone for bone to the flipper of a whale or the wing of a bird. An Evolutionists looks at the evidence and interprets it as, Common ancestor. A scientific Creationist looks at the same evidence and says, Common design. Now, who is making the assumption? There is no assumption in saying Common design because it is a statement of fact. However, to say Common ancestor is a huge assumption that cannot be validated.
37 answers:
2011-09-10 18:58:53 UTC
"scientific Creationists"



ROTFLMAO!!!



What every creationist must deny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies



Why people laugh at creationists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0&feature=related



ADDENDUM



"you better tow the party lines"



Yeah. They are so heavy with evidence, we need all the help we can get.
?
2011-09-10 19:18:23 UTC
Fact is there IS no "both sides". Evolution is fact and strongly supported by all available evidence. Creationism is theology, supported by zero scientific evidence. "Scientific Creationists" aren't using science to promote their belief, they're casting doubt on existing theories then claiming the only alternative is to accept Goddidit. In so doing they are relying heavily on personal incredulity and ignorance, not science.



The simple fact is that there is no credible evidence that refutes Evolution as a clear fact. There are dozens of ways Evolution could be proven false. As a scientific theory, it is falsifiable in many ways. These falsifications have never been observed, in over a hundred and fifty years of diligent experimentation, observation, and scientific research.



There IS no both sides, as creationism simply doesn't have any evidence that stands up to scientific rigor. I've spent hours at a time looking at the "evidence" creationists and IDers come up with, and none of it is scientific. Some of it gets close, but in the end it's all debunked as either baseless assumptions leading to false conclusions, or outright falsifications.



And btw, the scientist looks at the forelimb of a man and the flipper of a whale, and considers the possibility of common ancestor. He then goes out and searches for MORE evidence, transitional forms, the whole philogenetic tree of life. This evidence is then found. He makes assertions that say IF common ancestry is false, then x would be found. And x has not been found despite looking.The "scientific" Creationist claims common design and stops looking. Which is the assumption?
Vincent G
2011-09-10 19:16:49 UTC
If you agree that "micro-evolution" exists, and does change a creature slightly, then you have to accept that that change can be cumulative.

The same way that you can add 1 a million times and get one million, then a whole bunch of "micro-evolution" changes will amount to a microscopically detectable alteration. And you have this 'macro-evolution'. It will take thousands of years, but it will happen.

Or do you have an issue with the concept that pennies can amount to dollars when you have enough of them?



As for the similarity in bone structure between a human and a dolphin, that similarity can also be seen in the DNA. But then again, what about the lack of similitude between the structure of the fin of a shark and that of a dolphin? Where is your common designer then? What does the eye of squid have a different structure (and actually a *superior* design) from the eye of humans?

Evolution answer to this is that the common ancestor between human and squid goes back so long ago, over half a billion years, that said common ancestor had nothing but the most primitive version of eyes back then. Squids managed to evolve their along different, and in some respect superior, ways than that of vertebrates.



For the record, when the theory of evolution was first proposed, essentially everyone was a creationist. The fact that evolution is considered now to be the rational explanation is because lots of people, infinitely better qualified than you are, did look at both sides from the 'objective' point of view you claim.



As far as being objective, you are evidently speaking through your hat. You state that common designer is a 'statement of fact'. What is your freaking evidence to show this to be factual?

You got none.

Period.

Check mate.
custosnox
2011-09-10 19:06:55 UTC
When you say "most evolutionists never even look at the scientific creationists view, while the creationists have looked into and been educated about evolution" your making a pretty big assumption yourself. I know of plenty of Evolutionists that have researched the Creationist viewpoint on this (which really doesn't have much to research) and very few Creationists that have really looked into the evidence of Evolution. In fact, your straw man argument is indication of that. And to call it a design, that indicates a designer. To say that it's fact is to say that there is a grand designer, yet you have no real proof of that. I think you might want to go back to language class and learn the meaning of fact. Or, try learning something called the scientific method, to which your "fact" will never stand up to. As far as evidence of evolution, evidence supports the theory of how it happens. You know, the remains of this species that can be dated to this time period, in this area, where as a similar, but slightly changed, and more suited version of this species for the same area, are found and can be dated to a time period following it, with no, or very little overlap.
?
2011-09-10 19:22:42 UTC
Evolution is not a belief in the same way creationism is a belief. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. A huge part of modern science exists now because evolution is so good at explaining the way living organisms are.



I have read many books on creationism, and frankly I am disgusted by them. They are obviously written by people that know a reasonable amount about the science, but then they distort it to fit their religious agenda. That people can be so insincere in their behaviour and what they say is a disgrace to the religion.



The problem with creationism is that no matter what the evidence, it still has to fit the bible. Science is evidence based and, although some assumptions are made, these are always open to criticism by other scientists.



Although I agree that sometimes specific aspects of evolutionary theory are suggested without evidence, there is huge evidence for the main modern theory of evolution. To say that we have never seen species evolve into other species is not entirely true. The galapagos islands (where darwin did his original work) has had bird populations studied for many decades, and there have directly observed the evolution of birds into sub-species (diversifying) when resources changed due to climate effects.



The reason we don't see alot now, is that much of evolution occurs directly after large extinctions.. and we haven't had one in human existence. We can see microbes (which have a high reproductive rate) evolving to adapt to e.g. toxins (for example, many fungicides inhibit biochemical pathways in fungus, but after several years of application, the genetic variability in the funghi mean that those that are not killed by the funghicide survive and start to dominate the population i.e. resistance occurs).



Scientists don't just look at anatomical similarities. DNA profiling is hugely important now. We can see molecular links between animals and plants which suggest common molecular ancestors. Many things that appear similar in evolution, actually have very little relationship (known as convergent evolution... this occurs because animals that are from very different evolutionary lines often produce similar adaptations to the same environment).



Also, the reason a scientist (there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist') says common ancestor, is because of lots of testing (and often as a result of huge disputes between scientists). Indeed, many ideas about evolution (inc. human evolution) are still being disputed because we have insufficient evidence. However, the basis for belief of a creationist is the bible, and any evidence has to be manipulated to fit the bible.



An average evolutionary biologist, at the start of their career, will have spent about 7-9 years reading scientific research on evolution. The average creationist, has read 3-4 books that distort science. For me, God has created everything.. including evolution, and I feel very happy doing research and still believing in God.



I get incredibly tired of creationist arguments, because fundamentally, they do not want to change their mind because it would affect their belief in God. It's pointless trying to convince someone that is not willing to change their mind. To say this about science is just not true, because if a scientist could show that creationism was real (I've never in my life seen a scientific publication that has been accepted on creationism) it would make them a super-star in science. Scientists are disputing with each other on a daily basis, and only through weight of evidence does an opinion get formed (at least.. this occurs with time).
a6kl2
2011-09-10 19:07:31 UTC
You made a few assumptions while stating your case. 1) we have witnessed the evolution of one species into an entirely different one. In the 70's there were two STDs, there are now at least 25 which we have watched mutate from the original two. This may not have happened in your lifetime, but it has in others'. Furthermore, mankind regularly breeds new species of dogs which have traits that did not exist before at all- selective breeding only decides which traits remain in the species, but the mutations have to occur naturally. A Chihuahua is an excellent example of a dog with many traits not inherited from wolves. Finally while you compared a human forelimb to a whales flipper, you ignored the important similarity of our skeletal structures - The bones in our feet(yes, feet not their tails). Bones in a whales non-existent foot, which serves no practical purpose, supports the idea that over millions of years they evolved from a mammal which did have 4 legs. The human colon which serves no practical purpose is thought to exist for a similar reason.



Belief in evolution does not mean you cannot believe in god. The process of creation which began with advanced physics and unknown organisms such as bacteria was probably too complicated for god to explain to humble shepherds, especially when using a metaphor did not detract from the overall message.
?
2011-09-10 19:09:45 UTC
No, I do not believe evolution is truth.

Yes, I have looked at both sides of the issue. I was forced to examine the debate in more depth when I became a Christian as an adult. I found that the confidence placed in evolution is primarily based upon the presupposition.



Evolution is a valid scientific explanation of the evidence - but it is not the only scientifically valid explanation. Both creationists and evolutionists rely heavily on scientifically unverifiable assumptions. In my opinion, creationists seem to acknowledge their assumptions more readily then evolutionists (some evolutionists don't even recognize that there are assumptions involved).



There is substantial assumption involved in both explanations (common ancestry and common design). Common design assumes that there is an intelligent force behind the morphological similarities (the Designer). Neither assumptions can be scientifically verified.
?
2011-09-10 19:09:18 UTC
Evolution has systems that explain and predict. Many of those predictions have resulted in direct results (such as, for instance, the entire field of genetics).



There are also many many different evidences for the theory of common descent. Retro viruses are a common example of pretty much undeniable evidence for common descent. Ring species are also a typical example to show how species evolve.



Other evidences are for instance botanists who create new species of planets and flowers on a daily basis.



I would really advice to pick up a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. If you have any questions regarding evidence of evolution after reading that I'd suggest to try the biology section.
Immune to Indoctrination
2011-09-10 19:02:29 UTC
Assumptions?



Like inventing an entire immaterial 'spiritual' realm (with zero evidence mind you) and an incomprehensible, eternal, being with omnipotent magical powers which they don't even attempt to explain? Thats far beyond any assumption made by science.



By the way speciation (one species turning into another) has been observed. A common ancestor isn't an assumption. You wouldn't doubt a DNA test that tells us that a man is the father of a child would you? Same thing, larger scale.



As for design I don't see what you're whining about. Scientists agree that there is a common designer. It's called natural selection.
Brigalow Bloke
2011-09-10 20:33:55 UTC
You say a common ancestry is a huge assumption that cannot be validated.



Retroviruses reproduce by inserting their genetic material into a cell at random, which gives the cell a code for reproducing the virus. In some infected cells the virus ends up in a stretch of DNA that is ignored by the inner workings of a cell. So the virus has no effect and if the cell happens to be a germ line cell, the retrovirus sequence is inherited as "junk DNA", basically forever. There are called inactivated endogenous retroviruses and they are very common in all genomes, There are thousands of different retroviruses. Some cause AIDS, others give you a cold.



About ten years ago the entire human DNA sequence was published. There are about 3 billion base pairs of DNA in the human genome. The chimpanzee genome was published in 2005. It has 3 billion base pairs too. It was reported that there were seven different retrovirus sequences in exactly corresponding positions in the chimpanzee and human genomes.



Either these seven different retroviruses just happened to infect humans and chimps in exactly the same places in strings of 3 billion base pairs, in a germ cell, and were inactivated because they had landed in the wrong spots. The probability of this has been calculated as one in 10 to the 80th power. The alternative explanation is that they infected germ line cells of common ancestors.



You say formation of a new species has never been observed. A biological species may be distinguished from another very similar one by the fact that they usually refuse to mate, or that if they mate they do not produce fertile offspring. Thus horses and donkeys are different species since their progeny is almost always sterile.



In North America, the European apple was introduced about 1605. A related tree called the North American hawthorn was infested by an insect called the maggot fly. This lays its eggs on the hawthorn at a time related to the tree flowering and setting fruit. The apple flowers and sets fruit at a different time, so if the fly laid eggs on an apple the larvae would be expected to starve.



About 1860 a new pest of apples appeared in north American orchards. This looked the same as the hawthorn maggot fly but it laid eggs at a different time. These insects have been studied for obvious reasons. Attempts to cross breed the apple and hawthorn varieties fail about 19 times out of 20, showing that the two varieties have almost formed different species since 1605. In another few hundred years they will be different species and will not crossbreed at all.

.

Until about 1995 I imagined that anti-evolutionists were innocently wrong but made a few good points.



Then I was handed a book published by a religious organisation which claimed to disprove evolution. By the time I had read the first two pages I was beginning to think something was wrong. Using a common dictionary and a one-volume encyclopedia I checked some of the claims in the book. Nearly all of them were wrong and some of them looked like direct lies, because they directly contradicted the very simple stuff in the encyclopedia.



A year or so later I read a book on the matter, written by a geologist in 1994 and with a foreword by a very senior churchman, the top of his sect in this country. This book went through many of the claims of anti-evolutionists and refuted them. It also exposed a well known American creationist as a deliberate liar, showed that many of these creationist leaders had faked or very low grade academic or scientific qualifications and that some had been investigated by police for financial fraud. That was not all. It showed how at least two of these organisation had been hoaxed by simple stuff that if they had investigated, they would not have published in magazines and a TV show about Noah's Ark. Yet they claimed to be "scientists".



The patent office where I worked was reorganised about 1996 and our section was landed with a lot of material we had not handled before, so we had to read it pretty deeply. It mostly concerned medicine directly, but indirectly the evidence in it showed exactly how biological evolution happened on a molecular scale. There were long lists of protein and DNA sequences, detailing slight changes from one to the other in humans and also in animals. It was our job to confirm these changes were actually there. These are the famous mutations and they are real.



There are thousands of documents like that. Most of them were prepared by organisations with big research laboratories, mostly drug companies.These companies would not be spending millions on research and getting patents in a dozen countries if the material in the applications was not genuine.



I have looked at the web sites of some creationist organisations. I find the same material on them that was refuted in 1994.
Joe N
2011-09-10 19:01:22 UTC
"In short, evolution is as close to being a scientific fact as is possible for any theory, given that science is open-ended and no one can predict with certainty what may change in the future. The prospect that evolution by natural selection, at least as a broad mechanism, will be overthrown in the future is about as likely as the prospect of finding out some day that the Earth is really flat. Unfortunately, those who regard these scientific facts as a threat to faith have chosen to distort and misrepresent them to the public."

- Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), ch. 2



"In the United States, the new creationist movement has convinced many people and their political servants that scientists are being unfair in not supporting the teaching of alternatives to evolution in science classes. They say it is censorship to exclude intelligent design from those classes. The usual argument raised against teaching intelligent design is that it unconstitutionally promotes religion. Design promoters, however, insist that they have no particular designer in mind. No one believes them, but skilled lawyers arguing for the cause of impartiality on their behalf could probably prevail in court. In any case, a better argument exists: Intelligent design theory, as currently formulated by its leading proponents, should not be taught in science classes because it is provably wrong."

- Victor Stenger

Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado

Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii (retired in 2000)



Read "God: The Failed Hypothesis (How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist)" and "The New Atheism" both by Victor J. Stenger
RWLake
2011-09-10 19:04:22 UTC
My question for you is how did God create the universe, earth, and man? Do you know anyone who has ever existed that can answer that question? Is it possible God may have used the big bang, evolution, or created as most believe? Since we will never have this answer during our life time, why do you waste your time trying to determine which it was? I have no doubt he has provided it all for us to enjoy, each and every day. Don't waste a single day looking for anyone to give you an answer which can't be validated by anyone on earth.
Ruthanne
2011-09-10 19:01:10 UTC
I honestly don't feel super strongly about evolution. To me it makes sense and that's why I believe it could be true. I can't argue it like some can, but I understand that the universe is expanding and that it would be a rational conclusion that at one point it was very very small.



It doesn't make sense to me that there is a magical invisible all powerful person/god living in a magical invisible sphere that just sort of "willed" it into existence.



And I was once a very strong Christian, so I have seen it from both sides. I believe in science more than I believe in magic.
imacatholic2
2011-09-11 22:06:20 UTC
I accept evolution. I think belief is not the right word.



I accept the findings of responsible Science. I have not looked at the "Creationist" viewpoint objectively and have no desire to do so.



Do not let the small groups of Atheists and Creationists make you believe that you have to choose between God and humanity's ongoing discovery of God's Creation through Science. This is not true.



Truth cannot contradict Truth. -- Pope Leo XIII



Most Jews and Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. We believe the stories included in first 11 chapters of Genesis tell religious truth but not necessarily historical fact.



One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.



Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither.



On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:



The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.



Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html



And here is the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 speaking of the Theory of Evolution: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm



Here is an interesting article about Pope John Paul II's opinion in the matter: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4627



The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations.



As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.



Here is a nice list of Christian thinkers in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science



The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 12,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm



I suggest you read "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Robert J. Spitzer http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833



http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/



With love in Christ.
2011-09-10 19:00:45 UTC
Yes and yes.



The biggest problem with the creationist POV is that cannot state their theory in scientific terms.



Probably, because it isn't science.



But, whatever the reason, objecting to the limits of a particular branch of science is not the same thing as building evidence of your own position on the matter.



Creationism isn't science until science accepts it as science. So far, it hasn't.
Dreamstuff Entity
2011-09-10 18:59:14 UTC
Evolution is a fact; it does not require belief.



> Evolutionists make more assumptions than scientific Creationists.



"scientific Creationists" do not exist.



> macro-evolution (a species evolving into another new species) has NEVER been observed



This is what we call lying for Jesus. And it's still lying.
Anonnie Mouse
2011-09-10 19:10:33 UTC
There is no other side against evolution, but if you want to believe there is, feel free to discontinue all usage of modern medicine, the basis of which is germ theory which was predicated upon evolutionary biology.
?
2011-09-10 19:00:32 UTC
I've looked at both and found evolution to be more believable. Besides the fact that evolution has evidence whereas religion does not, the description of millions of years of natural selection and adaptation makes more sense to me than six days of miracles done by a magic man in the sky.



Not being hateful, just honest.
?
2011-09-10 19:08:54 UTC
Can you say that you've looked objectively at all of the world's creation stories (not just that from certain tribes in the Middle East) and say that yours is the best?
?
2011-09-10 18:59:28 UTC
Absolutely.



I grew up around Christians and just ID advocates, and after many years I looked into evolution. So now I believe in evolution. Isn't that funny?



Perhaps you have attempted to hear both sides equally, but your attempt might have failed. If the websites, books, or documentaries that you have been looking into are biased, then anything you've heard is absolutely useless. You can't hear the side for evolution from a creationist, just like you can't hear the side for creationism from someone who believes in evolution.
2011-09-10 18:59:50 UTC
There isn't a single paper against the big idea in any scientific journal. Who they heck are you trying to kid, there ain't another side.



If you look at the creationists sites, they don't even get what they are objecting to. Let alone present any positive evidence for their side at all.



And just one example of what you lied and said was never observed: http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html



There are several dozen others.
Bastion 「A」
2011-09-12 06:19:05 UTC
One side being "Evolution happened and continues to happen - here is the evidence that explains that it occurs and how and why it occurs", and the other side being "No it doesn't! LALALALALALLALALALALALALAL!!".



Yeah, I think I'd rather go with the one that has evidence.
JAMIE R
2011-09-10 19:03:53 UTC
A little bias aren't we...



Common design is a statement of fact? Where's the blueprint then?
2011-09-10 19:03:11 UTC
Right, now tell that to all those biologists out there! Why do Creationists even bother?
?
2011-09-10 18:59:32 UTC
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with macroevolution. That's the first thing. Microevolution alone is enough to account for the evolution of species. (Source: My F'ing Biology Professor).



There is nothing scientific about creationism. "Common design" only makes sense when one proves that a designer actually exists. You're still appealing to the supernatural, and are thus not practicing sound, ethical science.
2011-09-10 19:00:33 UTC
Ya, creationists only make one assumption: A supernatural being created the universe.



But it's a pretty big assumption.



I for one find it impossible to believe, and since it is SUPERNATURAL no arguments exist for it.
?
2011-09-10 19:03:00 UTC
.

Evolution is not a science, but is a religion.



Science, of course, involves observation, using on or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and being able to repeat the observation.

No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea.

No living scientist was there to observe the “big bang” some billions of years ago.

No living scientist was there to observe the supposed formation of the earth.

No scientist was there, no human witness was there to see these events occurring.

And they certainly cannot be repeated today.

All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. The average person (including students) are not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past.

Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is fossils, animals, plants etc.) originated.



Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.” Surely this is an apt description of evolution.



Evolution is a belief system – A RELIGION !



.
2011-09-10 19:00:54 UTC
What are youn talking about?! Go to a museum and physically take a look at our ancestors!!!!!!!
2011-09-10 19:02:29 UTC
because creationists don't make assumption they just make up bullshit
2011-09-10 19:00:30 UTC
Yes,



And you wrong on the micro-macro thing.



I would explain why but personally Ive explained this so many times that I just dont have it in me anymore.
2011-09-10 18:59:09 UTC
Have you looked at both sides of the debate between those who believe the earth is a sphere and those who believe it is flat objectively?



No, because one side's position is proven and the other side's position is patently absurd.
2011-09-10 19:02:31 UTC
All five theories of evolution are wrong!
gertystorrud
2011-09-10 19:00:32 UTC
No. "Evilution" is just a lame excuse/license to live and act like animals and to live their own lies fed to them since they were very young! Period. One under minds God's Holy Sovereignty! (Until one comes to grip with the 'sins' they don't believe they have and recognize 'they' are 'spiritually bankrupt' without Him will continue to spiral downward in their lies. <')))><
?
2011-09-10 18:58:37 UTC
U mad bro?
?
2011-09-10 18:58:29 UTC
Human evolution, no. other evolution, yes



"Then turned He to the sky (space) when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient."[Qur'an 41:11]
2011-09-10 18:59:23 UTC
Atheists only have one POV with regards to theories. and you better tow the party lines.
?
2011-09-10 18:59:44 UTC
.





You are right - - -





.


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