Does evolution rest on errors in observations?

Question

Does evolution rest on errors in observations?

Answer 1

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.

Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.

What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit. Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=688111496234161611#

That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense. It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.

The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.

What is theistic evolution?

http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/theistic-evolution



How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology?

http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-theology-beliefs.html



Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this



Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo



Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8xtXRI6OE



Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaveDbWrQuQ&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD4C1C956669F0FFA



Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFIe2zk1fw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD4C1C956669F0FFA



Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/



More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 2

No.





We have 150 years worth of hard evidence in every discipline of biology, from fossils to genetics to direct observation. The peer review process and need for repeatability also eliminates the possibility of observer error or bias.





@The Beat-

No you aren't. Most of us who have any education in the sciences at all have read Darwin.



@NDMA-

You don't understand the scientific method AT ALL. Scientists don't interpret the evidence with ANY assumptions- that's the point. Creationists, on the other hand, start with an assumption (evolution is a lie/creationism is correct), then interpret the evidence only in a way that supports that assumption- if the evidence doesn't fit, they claim the EVIDENCE is to blame and not their ridiculous assumption.

Answer 3

The observations are the observations. The question is how is that evidence interpreted. Much of the evidence works equally well with the predictions one could logically make if thing were created.



DNA:

Interpret the evidence with the assumption of evolution it works.

Interpret the same evidence with the assumption of creation works equally well.



Comparative anatomy:

Interpret the evidence with the assumption of evolution it works.

Interpret the same evidence with the assumption of creation works equally well.



Vestigal structures:

Interpret the evidence with the assumption of evolution it works. - Assumes no function left over from junk from previous species. The fact that at one time the entire endocrine system was classified as vestigal only later to be proven to have a definite function suggests this is an argument from ignorance as much as anything else.

Interpret the same evidence with the assumption of creation works better well. Assumes structure either has a function that is not yet known or is a function that was lost due to mutation (Something actually observed)



Molecular biology

Interpret the evidence with the assumption of evolution it works, but with some problems. Depending on what is being examined, some things line up prefectly, other things not so perfectly.

Interpret the same evidence with the assumption of creation works better.



Fossil Record: Both SJ Gould and Dick Dawkins outlined what type of observation in the fossil record would disprove evolution - Fauna from a later geological period appearing in fossil containing strata from an earlier geological period. This however has been observed several times and they back-peddled that this would not disprove evolution but discredit the fossil record as evidence for evolution, then they switched views again and argued - based on no actual evidence - the layer containing the errant fossils was contaminated. End of the day, no intelligent evolutionist points to the fossil record as evidence for evolution, too many issues have been found.



Because none of the issues involved in the fossil record creates no problem for the creation model, the fossil record is more supportive of creation than evolution other than the question of age. There is growing evidence that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable. This is based on inaccurate dates being ascribed to specimens of known age. The argument goes, if the dating technique cannot get it right for rocks of known age, how can it be trusted to give accurate date for rocks of unknown age? That is a valid question!



ERV's -- The underlying assumptions originally applied when interpreting the evidence as proof of descent have been refuted by subsequent observations so ERV's do not stand as evidence for evolution or creation.



Most of the evidence does not speak directly to evolution, but when interpreted based on the assumption of evolution it does not refute evolution. (or creation for that matter) To say the evidence does not refute evolution is not the same thing as arguing the evidence supports evolution. Because the interpretation is based on the assumption of evolution, and most observations can be explained without the added assumption of evolution, this evidence rightfully should be classified as anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence, even tons of it, is not nearly the level needed to assert something is a fact.



What is missing is evidence validating the hypothesis that an accumulation of mutations can produce novel alleles that are both useful for survival and selectable. This has never been observed in nature or validated experimentally, and is the minimum needed to assert evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. Until this hypothesis is validated by objective evidence the Evolutionary model is incomplete and cannot be rightly asserted to be fact.



A common logical fallacy employed by those supporting evolution is the no sequitur. They asset that natural selection (which has been observed) proves those hypotheses that have not been observed. A, B, C are correct so D an E are also correct despite no objective evidence validating D and E. The plain and simple fact is Natural Selection alone does not explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere because it has no mechanism for introducing new alleles needed to form novel body types. Therefore pointing to millions of examples of natural selection proves nothing unless or until a hypothesis explaining the mechanism whereby novel alleles are produced for selection to use is validated with objective evidence.

Answer 4

No, careful observations that have been confirmed by many researchers have accumulated much evidence that evolution is a fact.

Answer 5

No.



Take a look in the mirror. Do you look *exactly* like your parents? No, you don't.

There you go -- you've just confirmed descent with modification...which is what evolution is.



Peace.

Answer 6

No, it rests on a mountain of evidence, starting with the fossil record and culminating in our knowledge of genetics.

Answer 7

No, it rests on sound conclusions based on the evidence found in reality.

Answer 8

You mean the unifying theory of biology that much of modern medicine relies on?

Answer 9

the evolution will not be televised?

Answer 10

No. I'm pretty certain that I'm the only person here that has actually read Darwin. His observations are spot-on.



"No you aren't. Most of us who have any education in the sciences at all have read Darwin."



Alright, no one asked for your life story.

Answer 11

If you define "error" as "all the time" - yes.