These evolutionists say the theory of Evolution is a religion and no proof for it. So why do they still teach it?

Question

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Answer 1

there are several things that need to be stated as a response. First, most "evolutionists" do not state that "the theory of evolution" is religion. Second, evolution is an observable fact and the argument is not about whether but how and why. Third, theories often have faults yet are still more correct than incorrect (or useful as a predictor of real behavior, a model of reality) so teaching the dominant idea or explanation is still better than teaching nothing. Portions of questionable application does not mean total falsehood, and questionable does not mean false, simply not shown to be true, a HUGE difference.



And finally, cherry-picking quotes out of context does not make them mean what you want them to mean. Even stating them within context does not impose the interpretation that you wish to impose. Basically, your declaration that those "evolutionists" declare "evolution" as false is a lie.

Answer 2

May be we don't know any more about evolution because science hasn't produced anything for 34 years. If we were to rely on your references we'd certainly be forgiven for forming the impression that no more science had been done post-1981.



Evolutionists do not say evolution is a religion. One reason, inter alia, is because religion is based on blind faith. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is a sound and logic scientific theory. It is supported by a large corpus of evidence. Evolution has been tested many times and it always passes the test.



Of course due to your ignorance you wouldn't know any of this. Like all creationists you demand evidence which has been produced. You simply ignore the evidence because it is a grave inconvenience to your propaganda that evolution has so much evidence. Fossils are a good source of evidence but they aren't the only source.



Please provide evidence for creation. I shall be far more generous than you are: I'll accept just one piece of evidence, just one, not a large body of evidence. You'll also have to tell me which creation myth you believe, e.g. Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, etc.



By the way, we scientists are experienced in reading the literature and citing it in our articles so your selective choice of references aren't going to fool anyone.

Answer 3

Because claiming that there's no proof for evolution is absolutely ridiculous. It's like claiming there's no evidence that the Sun exists. Evolution is UNDENIABLE. There's an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence supporting it. And we know more about evolution than we do about gravity.



Your first paragraph, even if true (which it isn't) is an argument from incredulity.



Your second paragraph is intellectually dishonest. The fossil record supports the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does NOT require the fossil record.



Your third paragraph totally misunderstands how evolution works and is willfully dishonest. It's not a tornado sweeping through and making a 747. It's a well documented, non-random process. No biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step.



Another argument for the "incomplete" record is just nonsense. If I gave you a sequence of numbers like

1, 2, _, _, _ 6, 7, _, _ , _, _, 12, _, _ I'm pretty sure you could figure out the gaps. It's a nonsense argument made by intellectually dishonest people.



The only "con-men" here are those using logical fallacies in their arguments...

Answer 4

Brilliant



you pick out 5 people (none of them are actual biologists or paleantologists) and present them as "authorities"



They teach it cos (hundreds of) thousands of scientists believe its correct

Maybe its wrong- but they dont think so.

And so far ALL the evidence says its correct, NONE says its wrong



but the BIG thibg to grasp is

Even if its wrong it dont prove a damned thing that "creation" is correct



cos there is ALWAYS option 3)

some other casue but we dont have a clue what it is



THATS why there are very few laws (and lots of things listed as "laws" aint laws) . cos there are VERY few things where you can say "THIS is the ONLY possible explanation and it CANNOT be anything else"

The BEST you can say -

ALL the evidence says this is correct- but we CANNOT guarantee that tomorrow something wont come along and prove its wrong



The real shame is - you didnt do any actual research but just found this website and picked out quotes from it-

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm

3 of the quotes over 50 years old!!!,

fred hoyle also believed in the steady state universe, until the evidence showed he was wrong

And Dr T N tahmisian is a commited creationist

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1957/JASA3-57Tahmisian.htmll.htm)



one of the quotes irrelevent to what evolution actually says and how it works, but ONLY relevent to how creationists claim it works (i,e they invent the mechanism as to how it works, then complain it cant work how they claim it does)

Answer 5

There may be GAPS in the intermediary stages of Evolution but ...

1. If you look at a clock when it says 1pm and then look again at 1.30pm does that mean (because you didn't see it) that 1.15pm didn't happen ?

2. As far a the fossil evidence is concerned it is actually very unlikely that a dead animal will leave one .. if they always did we'd be knee deep in them by now.

Answer 6

Ya know, it's kind of funny that you should ask that. It probably has to do with that fact that any individual who states evolution is a religion and stands without proof is an ignorant lying creationist. Ya....I'm pretty sure that's the reason. Rolls eyes

Answer 7

HONEST people ask Science questions in the appropriate Science section.



DISHONEST people ask Science questions in R&S, because they don't WANT an actual answer based on Science.



Thank you for making it so clear which kind of asker you are.





Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.



- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Answer 8

There is more than enough proof for evolution. Hundreds of museums and millions of published books contain irrefutable facts confirming this. Your paltry quotes from a few old sources (1981? A LOT has happened since then my friend) are hardly a dismissal of 100+ years of evolutionary discoveries.

Answer 9

There appears to be enough evidence to prove that evolution is true, but how populations evolve is the theory. The most controversial theory is natural selection.

Answer 10

They are in the dark. They teach against all knowledge essentially but then reap benefits of real observable data and even try to rename facts "evolution" because they have no proof, well we know genes are responsible but lets call that evolution! Ok!

Answer 11

Here's the trouble with your critique. You sourced a study from 35 years ago.



You assume we already have all the peices, yet this fish with wrist bones was discovered in 2006, which is certainly not your average fish.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik



It's not exactly easy finding fossils you know? When it comes to early human ancestors, they were a rather small group.



If there are flaws in evolution, fine, but there are flaws in your method as you are choosing to reference old studies.

Answer 12

Oh, John. John John John. Still at this? Really? You're STILL pretending that quote-mining is a valid style of argument after all the times you've had your *** handed to you? After all the times we've proven that your quotes were just flat-out lies? Do you HONESTLY think you're going to convince anyone of anything?



Did you ever stop to think that if creationism were real - like, if it were really and truly what actually happened to cause this earth to exist - if it TRULY and REALLY happened like that, then you wouldn't NEED to make up all these lies to support it?

Answer 13

No, evolutionary biology is not a religion, but nearly all well educated religious people accept and at least partially understand it.

It is taught because people, with or without belief in god, can use it to understand the growth of biological diversity.

Answer 14

Untrue! We have so much fossil evidence. But as fossil evidence is basically bones, it tends to get destroyed usually. It can be crushed or eaten by animals or decay into whatever. So we don't have all the fossil evidence. Big deal.. We have enough

Answer 15

Because in reality you could fill entire pages full of quotes from better and more recent and more learned scientists all of whom have many more publications in a wider variety of journals that don't even date back into the previous millennium.... IF you had at least half a brain.

Answer 16

You want to get the book titled, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" available used on ebay for cheap. Written by a molecular biologist, he presents each major tenant of evolutionary theory and takes the position of the creationist with interesting result. He and I both think there is a bit of religion with science although we both are not creationists.

Answer 17

Creationists are by their very nature LIARS…



Top 25 Creationist Fallacies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH0vQiudp6I



Why Do People Laugh at Creationists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw



Thunder: “I know a biologist who has a hobby of seeing how far into a creationist article he can read before hitting a blatant lie. He says he's never gotten out of the first paragraph.”



Creationist "explanations" consist of lies, fallacies, misinformation, distortions of truth, quote mining and when all else fails, screaming "you're going to hell" and storming off…



Creationism: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95253804@N03/12260819566/in/photostream/



Next time you see a creation "scientist" ask him where he got his degree.



“Dr” Richard Bliss, Curriculum Manager for the Institute for Creation Research, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a hotel.



“Dr” Kelly Segraves, Co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, says he got his "doctorate" from "Christian University" which doesn't exist.



“Dr” Harold Slusher, Co-founder of the Creation Research Society, got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill operating out of a post office box.



“Dr” Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his "doctorate" from another post office box in Phoenix.



“Dr” Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited bible college on the grounds of a church.



“Dr” Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry (now in prison) got his "doctorate" from an unaccredited mail order outfit called 'Patriot University'.



Fake science with fake scientists protecting THE Gravy Train



“All the available evidence from any source anywhere supports permits or aligns with evolution unanimously and exclusively… there is no factual evidence against evolution but if there was that would not be evidence for creationism.”



Whether you accept it or not, evolution IS the cornerstone of ALL medical research. Without the knowledge of evolution we'd still believe dust devils and-or sin caused diseases...



DM: It doesn't matter what the odds are because whatever they are they're still exponentially less than an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-capable god simply popping into existence out of absolutely nothing.



Judge John E Jones: It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.



Church-pamphlet science… http://www.flickr.com/photos/95253804@N03/12260380653/

~

Answer 18

You engage in typical creationist quote-mining fallacy.



Gould et al were not arguing that evolution was false, or that there was no proof for it - they were arguing for one variation of evolution vs. another. Their argument was whether "gradualism" - the traditional view of evolutionary development pioneered by Darwin, or "punctuated equilibrium" - periods of rapid speciation followed by periods of relatively slower evolution, better described the fossil evidence.



Please quit lying.

Answer 19

Garbage knowledge again Gisher? Are you a professional troller paid by answersingenesis or some other creationist organization? How much do you get paid for each post? And at the end I'll show everbody your "book of pages"... that's page one... page two is quote mining, and page 3 is downright lying.



And this post is a violation of TOS guidelines. Not only is it a rant, but you are going to pick the most religious dogmatic answer you can find. Do you get extra money for doing that?



Let's talk about evolution but on my terms. A person poses a rhetorical question on Y!, usually with no knowledge of evolutionary principles. S/he may provide unreferenced quotes, misquotes, made up quotes, misstatements, YouTube videos, or Creationist websites. S/he usually doesn't know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, which is the science of abiogenesis. The person doesn't provide any natural process that would STOP evolution from happening in nature. And the person's only alternative, whether stated or not, is a supernatural origin (Creationism) for the species diversity we see today.



So.... thanks for the opportunity to present references to readers that might never have seen Creationism exposed as a non-science, and evolution shown as very much a falsifiable set of predictions and mechanisms to explain the diversity of life on this planet. In 150 years of research in the fields of biology, biogeography, geology, molecular biology, anthropology, paleontology, population genetics, and others, the theory of evolution has been modified (see below for the definition of a theory), but never falsified.



If I were to suggest only one thing for you to read, it would be the 2005 court case where Creationists pushing Intelligent Design wanted it taught in the science curriculum of public schools as science. The conservative judge, after hearing evidence in a court of law, including testimony from the leading Creationists, ruled that Creationism was a religious approach and not scientific. Creationism/Intelligent Design did not use the methods of science and had no evidence to support it. Here is the full judge's decision which prohibited the teaching of ID in the science curriculum:



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html



and a quote from his conclusion: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."



Also you should see the position of the National Academy of Sciences. If you haven't heard of them: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/ "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research."



This is part of a statement by them about evolutionary theory.... http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.



Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously"

Answer 20

Wow. A lot of people ranting here that Have no clue about, well, much of anything...yet they really believe they're learned.

Answer 21

Because it turns out not understanding evolution really isn't an argument against it.

Answer 22

They still teach it because there is abundant proof of it.

Answer 23

1. Please read up on

punctuated equilibrium

2. The theory of evolution isn't a religion

3. Quote-mine less please

Answer 24

BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS REAL. UNLESS WE JUST POPPED OUT OF STARS... POOF