Question:
I don't understand how anyone can deny what has been common knowledge since the mid 1930s. Why deny evolution?
Momofthreeboys
2011-11-24 22:16:03 UTC
A quotation from a wonderful story published in 1937, "There are strange things living in the pools and lakes in the hearts of mountains: fish whose fathers swam in, goodness only knows how many years ago, and never swam out again, while their eyes grew bigger and bigger and bigger from trying to see in the blackness;"

Poetic license aside, this is an eloquent reference from over 7 decades ago. How could anyone deny it now when informations is vastly more readily available than it was then?

(Ten points to the first person who can name the source, or best answer if no one can, though I would weep in shame for my country and all whose primary language is English)
Nineteen answers:
Old Bookworm
2011-11-24 22:27:03 UTC
It is denied by those who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't understand how they can hold to that belief in the face of all the evidence, but it's obviously their right to believe what they wish.



The quotation is from The Hobbit; the bit where Golum first appears. It goes on to explain that there are even stranger things than the fish.
jonz
2011-11-25 06:22:18 UTC
Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it true. That goes for anything and I'm sure you know that already. When you talk about facts, I assume you mean evidence's that have been found. The thing is, the evidence is there, but it is how you interpret the evidence which results in your conclusion. If you look at evidence with a presupposition of evolution, you are going to interpret it on the basis of evolution. The same goes for creationists as well. We must not argue over the evidence, for we use our world views to interpret the evidence. The core of the matter is our world views, or presuppositions. Those are what must be debated.
Joaquim Zorro
2011-11-25 06:32:41 UTC
I was an hour late for a meeting and explaining to them that the reason for this was that the ferry crossing the river had closed early that day; and I stood on the edge of the water when a tree fell into the river and carved itself into a boat; I then could cross the river and come, albeit an hour late. They all stood and looked at me aghast and disbelief; you want us to believe that stupendous story they retorted. To which I pointed at the banner above the auditorium which read in loud red letters: "TODAY WE WILL PROVE EVOLUTION", and I said to them: "And you want me to believe something greater than that?"



That guy Darwin is still just a THEORY and so are his followers.
?
2011-11-25 06:36:49 UTC
It's an article of faith that scientists accept simply because they can't bring themselves to believe in God.



"There is no direct proof or evidence that any of the (events) or changes suggested (by the theory of evolution) ever took place. In a sense this account is science fiction..." N. J. Berril, "The Origin of Vertebrates" (Oxford University Press, 1955), 13.



Patterson describes [the widespread bias in favor of evolution] as "an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma" [1] which Greene sees "as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds men's minds..." [2] The modified but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers in scientific faith..." [3]



1 C. Patterson, in "Evolution" (1977), 150.

2 Bird, "Origin of Species Revisited", vol. 2, 5.

3 "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, 48-49, quoted by Bird, "Origin of Species Revisited", vol. 2, 52.



Biologist William Bates announced: "Discussions of evolution came to an end primarily because it was obvious that no progress was being made... We cannot see how the differentiation of species came about. Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we daily witness, but no origin of species..."

Source(s):

Source(s):

Rabbi Dovid Brown, "Mysteries of the Creation" Targum/Feldheim, 1997, Evolution is dealt with at length on pgs 240-308.
Kathy Miller
2011-11-25 06:22:45 UTC
Mankind is very vain, each generation knows it all. They will look back and laugh at us, probably call us pagans in the future. We have but touched the tip of the iceberg in our understandings. The whole concept of creation is beyond our understanding. I think the answer will be found somewhere between the two, like intelligent design by Life itself, of which everything is alive aware and in motion even the atom, and all Life is One Life, an atom knows that I don't know why we can't figure it out.
2011-11-25 06:19:11 UTC
Because the implications of evolution are so harsh. Some people aren't strong enough to handle them. Evolution implies:



No Gods worth having exist.



No life after death exists.



Morality is ultimately an illusion of natural selection.



Life is ultimately meaningless.



Free will is an illusion, behavior is determined by genetics and environment.



Moral accountability is by implication an illusion.



Finally, since there is no free will or accountability for actions, there can be no satisfaction in what we do. We aren't responsible for our actions, so it makes no sense to take a sense of personal achievement in what we do. There can be no deep satisfaction of any kind in life, only the illusion of it.
2011-11-25 06:20:41 UTC
People who are indoctrinated to stay within their realm of belief (in creationism). They are programmed to not learn beyond what they're told, and to look at the facts and not the beliefs.



Evolution is a fact. Evolution via NATURAL SELECTION is the theory. The idea that animals change over time (evolution) is 100% fact. The how is where science is still poking at.
Believer
2011-11-25 06:24:19 UTC
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)

" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Niles Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)



"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)



"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")



"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
Reginald
2011-11-25 06:22:18 UTC
Stupidity
Waleed
2011-11-25 06:43:01 UTC
there is no proof of the missing link. no fossils have been found between the monkey and the ape



maybe they are hiding from us you know............fossils from the dinosaurs age have been found but not the missing link. it is such a mystery.



you can give me books and books about Darwinism or whatever but that fact will remain the same



Check out the Qur'an it is perfect as god says:



Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (4:82)
Bella
2011-11-25 06:29:00 UTC
I believe "microevolution" ( variations within a species) is real - observable. But "macrevolution" is not. --- Intelligent design and the complexities in nature prove that we come from Intelligence.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology

In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will



1. Be contingent

2. Be complex

3. Display an independently specified pattern



Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.



Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?



What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics

In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”



One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.



Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.



What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology

With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that



1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.



It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.
rebekkah hot as the sun
2011-11-25 06:22:30 UTC
Tolkien?
2011-11-25 06:19:50 UTC
LOL the simple fact of how religious beliefs have all been subjected to factual increments of evolutionary development proves it is real.
Moses' s tables
2011-11-25 06:18:33 UTC
Is There a CREATOR?

Whom Should You Believe?





“Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—HEBREWS 3:4.



DO YOU agree with the logic of this Bible writer? Mankind has experienced some 2,000 years of scientific advancement since that verse was penned. Does anyone still think that the design evident in nature requires belief in a Designer, a Creator—God?



Even in industrialized countries many people would say yes. In the United States, for example, a survey conducted by Newsweek magazine in 2005 found that 80 percent of people “believe that God created the universe.” Is this belief due to a lack of education? Well, do any scientists believe in God? The science journal Nature reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers.
2011-11-25 06:18:48 UTC
Because in most cultures, opinion outweighs fact.
2011-11-25 06:19:06 UTC
Goebbels (Nazi Propaganda Minister) said "A lie told often enough becomes truth"



The whole hypothesis of Evolution is itself based on unobservable events, happening in unobservable past and most of it especially Chemical Evolution deny experimental reality.

One could easily say that Evolution is the Science of Fiction.



"Yes, we are all animals, descendants of a vast lineage of replicators sprung from primordial pond scum."

What this leads to is aptly shown by this dialog between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent Darwinist and atheist:

Jaron Lanier: "There's a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."



Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That's just tough. We have to face up to the truth."

And there is this :

Richard Dawkins on Evolution

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."

(www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript…



Don't let Madalyn Murray O'Hair intoxicate you with heavy dose of skepticism - You have no logical alternative but to accept that Jesus is God:



“I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.



You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. “



For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Col 2:9 (NIV)
2011-11-25 06:19:37 UTC
they're ignorant and it's quite depressing.
2011-11-25 06:18:22 UTC
Evolution has never been peer reviewed.

Evolution has never been observed in nature.

Evolution refuses to test itself against alternatives.



Wake me up when evolution is something other than a very popular opinion.



(Evolution wasn't taught in public schools in the US until Eisenhower. You may want to rethink.)
The Baptist
2011-11-25 06:18:04 UTC
Evolution is so inconsistent.


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