Why do creationists say "There's no evidence for evolution" even though that's not true?

Question

I ask this question because I don't understand why creationists are so dishonest. Are they not worried about their reputation which is already bad enough? I'm asking for an explanation for why they would say the strongest fact of science (evolution) has no evidence. Many thanks for your answers because I just don't understand why they say this.

To help you understand why they are wrong I'm going to copy and paste the Table of Contents from the wikipedia website that is about "Evidence of Common Descent" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Contents
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
1.1.2 DNA sequencing
1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
1.1.4 Proteins
1.1.5 Pseudogenes
1.1.6 Other mechanisms
1.2 Specific examples
1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
1.2.3 Cytochrome c
1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans
2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Evolutionary trees
2.6 Vestigial structures
2.7 Specific examples
2.7.1 Hind structures in whales
2.7.2 Insect mouthparts
2.7.3 Other arthropod appendages
2.7.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
2.7.5 Pentadactyl limb
2.7.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
2.7.7 Route of the vas deferens
3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples
3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
3.3.2 Transition from fish to amphibians
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
4.2.2 Endemism
4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
4.3 Ring Species
4.4 Specific examples
4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel
5 Evidence from observed natural selection
5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
5.1.2 DNA sequence differences
5.1.3 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
5.1.4 Humans
5.1.5 Lactose intolerance in humans
5.1.6 Nylon-eating bacteria
5.1.7 PCB tolerance
5.1.8 Peppered moth
5.1.9 Radiotrophic fungus
5.1.10 Urban wildlife
6 Evidence from observed speciation
6.1 Specific examples
6.1.1 Blackcap
6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
6.1.5 Madeira House Mouse
6.1.6 Mollies
6.1.7 Thale cress
6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
6.2.1 Polar bear
6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
6.2.3 Salsify
6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
6.2.5 York groundsel
7 Evidence from artificial selection
8 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
8.1 Specific examples
8.1.1 Avida simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

Answer 1

They're not interested in truth or they wouldn't be Creationists.

Answer 2

They say there's no evidence for "Macro evolution" because there really isn't evidence. All the so-called evidence is speculation and belief. Evolution is a fraud and is scientifically impossible. Evolution even in the school books has some hoaxes such as "Haekel's Embryo drawings" they put those drawings in the science textbooks even knowing for 100 years they are a hoax. The "evolution" tree is also a belief, they did not witness it happening they looked at the animals now and came to the assumption they evolved through their evolution belief system. Evolution has no evidence what so ever and is a complete lie. It's built on assumptions and speculations from an evolutionist mind set. I hope they take the lie of evolution out of schools.

Answer 3

What we would prefer to say is that we read the Bible thoroughly and do not put any other books or traditions before it. We aim to be as close as possible in understanding in the Scriptures as Jesus and his Apostles taught. The reason being that as the Apostles Paul was sad to see in his day there were already errors and fables being believed instead of the truth. Others may hold the same beliefs as ourselves, though at this time there are probably few, each of the other churches seeming to have swallowed the triune God idea. Few seek for the coming Kingdom which is prophesied and the return of Jesus to rule. Now this latter is strange as Jesus spent, we are told, forty days with his Apostles teaching them about the Kingdom, as we are told in the first chapter of the book of Acts. As the kingdom is shown to be on earth, as Daniel 2 and Zechariah 14 etc why would we be going to heaven. There will be a time when those who are faithful will be taken away from the terrible troubles to come and maybe judged at that time. The details are not precise enough for us to say categorically. The prophecies written thousands of years age concerning the return of the Jews to their land are something which these days churches mostly are not tuned into. Yet before the Balfour Declaration there had been little idea that thousands and thousands of Jews would have returned, especially after the Holocaust. The land had previously been left desolate after one empire and another had trampled over it and only mostly nomadic Arabs occupied it as they moved around for a long time. But God's prophecies spoke of the regathering of the Jews from the lands where God had scattered them. Many are still absent by when serious antisemitic horrors occur in countries there is an outpouring back to the land or elsewhere. Jerusalem is no longer held by the Gentiles, non Jews, since the Jews took it back. It is all fascinating and little known information to those who don't read and understand their Bibles.

Answer 4

'Im a Bible believing Christian. That said I dont go to church or believe musch being taught there.



What many people fail to understand is that there is no evidence for evolution or creation. There is only evidence which can sometimes and sometimes not be confirmed by available science. There is only interpretation of evidence. Over a period of time these interpretations build up our belief system whether evolutionary or creationary or religious or athiest or....... whatever.



What irks me is that misguided creationist and evolutionists alike want to force their point onto the other. Read and listen to the evolutionary ideas. Test and investigate them. I did. I was an athiest believing in evolution. I wanted to get better at arguiing with the creationists so I did test, observe and invesigate. The conclusion drawn from the evidence investigation was overwhelmingly simple. Evolution is unproved and inconcludable. Are the there many things that creation cannot explain? Yes. There are more things evolution "theory" cannot explain either.



With current scientific evidence available to us we can only conclude that we were created less than 10 000 years ago. Like the one person asked. Did you investigate any of the list you posted? I challenge you to investigate 5 subjects (from both sides) and see which one rings truer than the other.



Your friend - the creationist

Answer 5

I agree with evolution and think most of these lines of evidence are good. But, the tree-like structure is likely wrong and has theory of horizontal gene transfers that are directly opposed to a tree-like structure. Given some of the lines of evidence are for a tree-like structure, they should probably be revised or at least not consider lines of evidence for common descent, when truly they are lines of evidence for a version of common descent that is no longer accepted as true.



HOWEVER, I have far more conclusive evidence that Boyle's law is true. In fact, I can show it at work rather easily. Nonetheless, most people do not even know what Boyle's law is, while even Creationists know what evolution is.



So why do you concern yourself with what creationists say about evolution? Does it affect you?



In fact, when have you ever used the theory of common descent in either your personal or professional life? If you don't use it in your personal or professional life, why would you think it important that creationists accept it?



Tao man,

Truth? Says the Taoist who supports preachers committing suicide. Tell me about how much you care about truth.



@Eclipse,

Human are not exceptional? We are great apes that can swim, persistance hunt, have opposable thumbs, extremely large brains and have been able to do things like hunt whales nearly to extinction in the whales environment? And great apes are quite exceptional themselves.



This is why you all annoy me more than the creationists. Sure they believe something that is untrue. So what? You believe something untrue as well. In fact, you accept and argue absurdity, not to defend your own beliefs, but to attack the beliefs of others.



Not only are you no better in your views, but your motivation is worse.



I have actually seen an atheist argue that any first year engineer could design something better than the human body. WHAT????? We have yet to make anything that is self-repairing. Yet this fool states that any first-year engineer can do what no one has ever been able to do.

Answer 6

Yes, yes, that is a long list. Good for you, finding such a long list. And on Wikipedia no less, oh your parents must be proud of how smart you are!



Now, have you actually read any of those references? DO you actually understand how evolution is supposed to work, I mean REALLY understand it? Can you explain how sexual reproduction came to be when it makes zero evolutionary sense? Can you explain how a cell was formed from free-floating DNA in the primordial ooze without the necessary proteins and organelles to allow for reproduction? Guess what? NO ONE CAN! There are suggestions, theories and stories, but just like "religious" creation stories, these are produced from the imaginations of respected, intelligent men. The speculation of someone with the title of "scientist" is, according to reason and the scientific method, no more valid than the speculation of an educated priest. The only difference between the two is who signs their paychecks.



Science is a process where an event is observed, hypothesis are made as to why/how that event took place, and then controlled, documented, and repeatable experimentation is used to prove or disprove the hypothesis. That IS science. Filling in blanks with assumptions is not science.



Evidence of evolution is based on the ASSUMPTION that evolution is true. When a fossil record shows a similar (but slightly different) creature, then evolution is slapped on as the answer. That really isn't the scientific method. It is arrogance. That isn't even all that rational. For example, A lab and a poodle can breed, as they are both Canines (dogs). They are both products of selective breeding. They have both come to exist over the most recent few centuries. They were both created, intentionally, by humans, for specific purposes. Imagine you are a "scientist" in the distant future. If you were to see a poodle skeleton and then in a deeper layer of earth find a labrador skeleton, would you assume that it must have been evolution? Would you assume that one led to the other, or that humans crossbred canines to produce custom varieties? Would it occur to you that someone buried their pet and that the difference in earthen layers were not evidence of age? No, you'd probably say, "Dog" and then, "Different dog, much deeper, must be evolution!" That is what most "scientists" have been doing. That is filling in gaps in our knowledge with unproven theories.



So I am not going to try to convince anyone of creation or of evolution. I believe in REASON. I believe in SCIENCE. I am offended that so many arrogant people push one or the other for the sake of FEELING that they're right without actually searching for the truth.

Answer 7

In objects of known origin, there are certain features—specified complex information—that occur only in those made by an intelligent designer (or an intelligently designed program). So by the normal analogical reasoning we use in science, when we see these features in an object where the origin is unknown, we can likewise conclude that this object had an intelligent designer.

“These features are those that an archaeologist would use to determine whether an object was designed by an intelligent designer, or that a SETI devotee would use to argue that a signal from space came from an intelligent alien, or whether a ballot or card game was fixed, or whether a sequence of letters was the result of intelligence or monkeys on a keyboard.

“In the first two cases above, it would be perverse to complain that the archaeologist didn’t discuss whether the object’s designer itself had a designer, or that the SETI researcher didn’t tell us who designed the alien. It would be even sillier to argue from this that we should simply drop the idea of design, and conclude that the object or hypothetical space signal had no designer.”

Answer 8

I ask this question because I don't understand why creationists are so dishonest.



- The very basis of creationism is false, why should that change when presented with intelligence.

Answer 9

There is not evidence for evolution unless you are trying to say micro-evolution is macro-evolution, which is what probably most of what you have listed is.



Most things they call "evidence" isn't evidence it is assumptions based on assumptions.



Evidence is provable, testable, hard core facts. No one has ever seen one animal type turn into another ever, nor does the fossil record show this.



They tried to duplicated macro-evolution in experiments multiple times and failed every time, why? because once something mutates so far it dies or will revert back to its original state.



There is so much that can be listed to show evolution is impossible that I'd be here all day typing it out.

Answer 10

They don't have the evidence for their own religion but can't accept it's falseness, that's why they deny the evidence against it.

Answer 11

there is a lot more evidence for Intelligent design than there is for evolution.



so whats the deal with evolution anyway... did everything stop evolving (going from one thing to another?) I see adaptation changes within a species but that species stays the same. A couple of scientist (evolutionist) did an experiment on fruit flies who have the ability to rapidly reproduce, there theory was that with the reproduction of multiple generations of fruit flies eventually the fruit fly would evolve into something else...and after millions (literally millions) of generations of fruit flies were produced, there were changes with in the species, but at the end of the day they were still fruit flies, they never evolved into something else.

Answer 12

Truth comes a poor second to propaganda.



@Tommieca...

'Common ancestor' happens to be the correct answer. Would you rather we took the creationist stance and flat out lied?

Answer 13

The leaders of the creationist movement are dishonest.



The followers of the movement suspend their critical thinking skills.



Those who are follow this movement are terrified by the fact that humans are animals, and not "exceptional."



Some are terrified by the fact that the bible is not word for word facts or a science text.

Answer 14

Wikipedia is not a valid reference source.



Could anything you know be wrong?



If yes, then you can't know anything.

Answer 15

If this is evidence of evolution then why do you have to use platitudes to explain it. Mutations occur all the time but none of it seems to advance anything.



Most common platitude. "We didn't come from monkeys we came from a common ancestor.

Answer 16

I would simply refer them to the writings of St Augustine who cautioned against being dismissive of facts in the natural world because they seem to conflict with a narrow interpretation of scripture.

Answer 17

In contrast, a Creationist Wikipedia page should have [citation needed] after every line.

Answer 18

You're generalizing just to show-off your education.



Evolution began millions of years before Adam and Eve.



1.Man was MADE(evolved) millions of years ago.

2. Adam and Eve was CREATED thousands of years ago.



Thousands of years ago God decided to teach man to think like God (let us make man in our image) (Gen. 1:26.)



So GOD (He didn't say "us" this time)CREATED, Adam and Eve in His image - Nephilims(Sons of God designed for earth). Gen. 1:27.



Adam and Eve were suppose to teach, not mate with man(forbidden fruit) .



If you mate with man you die(become man).



When Eve mated with man (not Adam), Cain was born the first human(God + man).

Disappointingly, Cain did not inherit the image of God from Eve as the Devil had promised he would. Cain still needed to be taught the Gospel.



Adam mated with a woman(not Eve).



Jesus does not teach the "Original Sin Theory" that we are inherently guilty because of Adam's sin.