Why people deny Evolution? (And other Scientific theories)?

Question

Why do people want to deny Evolution, why does religous faith and delusion seem more important than Science and knowledge?

Don't give me the Kirk Cameron thing, it's stupid, all cola cans are virtually identical, but not all humans are identical, we are all unique in DNA, but the cola can follows a strict design.

Evolution isn't transformation, it means that since offsprings and parents are different to each other, even further down the line will have an even different individual, as it develop traits that lead it to better survive, it's children also get that trait.

Gravity is also a theory.

Species is not an existant barrier, it's a clssification if indivudals based on genetics.

Theory means something which includes facts and hypotheses, not a belief.

NOTICE: Don't say evolution is not happening if you know next to nothing about it, EVOLUTION IS NOT a transformation.

Things you say which would make you sound ignorant:
It's "just" a theory.
We didn't evolve from apes.

For Hyzakyt:
In Genesis, many information, like how the Sun and Moon are two lights governing the sky contradicts Science, thanks for playing our game!

Evolution is part of Biology which is a part of Science.

To ahandle101:
The flat earth thing was a religious belief, based that Earth has 4 corners, as told by religios leaders.

Young Earth is also like Flat Earth, but harder to disprove, because theists think carbon dating is a fraud.

Answer 1

One word.


FEAR

Answer 2

Is it truly a denial or a request for proof that a theory is truly more than just another idea dreamed up that grew into a thought that was revealed for some motive without any proof. Many dream and many reveal their thoughts but few do prove that their thoughts are of any more value that to just occupy time and space if printed on a printed page.

Evolution is the new guy on the block trying to knock out the old long time champion creation. It seems evolution is making some headway in the knockout but is lacking in the power punch. He must come up with some proof, solid proof which seems to not exist to win this fight. Either that or destroy all the Bibles and wait 100 years for all the creationists to die off.

Don't make the error of many and assume science does prove evolution. Science does prove that many creationists either do not understand their own books or they are liars. However do not miss the fact that some scientists do support creation while others do support evolution.

In my opinion first words like science, evolution, creation, etc should be clearly defined before they are used in a conversation so all will see the same picture and the point alike. It is the fact that those who do communicate are in fact seeing different pictures that is the major cause of no meetings of the minds.

Answer 3

Because those scientific theories are just that, theories. While there may be tons of supporting evidence for them, they cannot be proven as scientific fact. Sometimes, despite "overwhelming" supporting evidence, scientific theories can be wrong. Back in the 15th century, "everyone knew" that the world was flat. Ships that sailed off to the west of Europe were never seen again, so "obviously" they fell off the edge of the world. Before that, man observed scientifically that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, therefore the Sun "must" revolve around the Earth.

What I'm trying to point out here is that smart scientists will admit that their theories could be wrong (even if they generally accept that they most likely aren't) while faith is the belief in something no matter how much contradictory evidence there may be.

Answer 4

You seem to have your terms confused. Scientific theories are just that, "theories". They aren't facts. They are ideas that people have come up with to explain things that they don't have direct evidence for.

Religious faith isn't "delusion". It's trusting that the God who created the Heavens and the Earth knows how life came to be on this planet better than some fallible human being who is taking their best guess based upon their limited mental capacity and limited knowledge of things that now exist on earth and their interpolation of those things into the distant past.

If you want to read some scientific articles from a faith based perspective that don't rely primarily upon the Bible to explain why Intelligent design makes more sense than "time + random chance = every complex life form on this planet" then click on the Answers button @ http://web.express56.com/~bromar/ and browse through the many articles comparing evolution to creationism.

Answer 5

Evolution is still only a theory, not fact. Evolutionists have mastered faith and delusion.
Can you deny the third law of thermodynamics - or the law of entropy? Everything is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder or chaos. That is the exact opposite of the THEORY of evolution. It takes some pretty good faith to plug that hole.
Can you find any universities started by atheists? There are plenty of them that were started by Christians. You have been brainwashed if you think that Christians are all a bunch of idiots. Issac Newton and Meriam Webster are only 2 in a long list of Christian thinkers.

Answer 6

Because it's not real and science has actually disproved evolution if you really think about it. Seeing as how the only way any human or animal has been able to "evolve" recently is by losing something genetically rather than gain anything. You should read "Monster" by Frank Peretti even though it is fiction it has a lot of scientific facts about evolution in it.

Answer 7

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it's surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola... 12 fluid ounces."

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.



Here is another:

"The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare"

Note that the banana...

1. is shaped for the human hand.

2. has a non-slip surface.

3. Has outward indicators of it's inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.

4. Has a tab for removal of it's wrapper.

5. Is perforated on wrapper.

6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.

7. Is shaped for the human mouth.

8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.

9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.

10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it's muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Agreed... it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact... man can't create anything from nothing... we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye... is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.

Again... another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

"George Gallup; "If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing... why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this... then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble."

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered "Yes" to any of those statements... please give details:______________________...



Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________...

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: "There is no gold in China."

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

"C" is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let's say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an "agnostic." You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn't seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on... that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear... because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor... so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible... like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn't, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God... as a thief can't find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?

Answer 8

you are missing a very important word. Evolution is a THEORY even by science.

Here is my opinion of science Their theory!

At the start of the 18th century there was printed a paper titled 100 absolute proved science facts.

At The start of The 19th all the 18th facts were disproved and another paper was published by the same title.

AT the start of the 20th all were disproved again and they decided not to waste their time.

so knowledge and science doesn't equal fact by any stretch

Answer 9

Would it not also make sense to compare god and evolution to a court system? They say innocent until proven guilty but it usually works the other way around. EX:If your the victim you have to prove that you were even victimized in the first place!
Another interesting thought for ya...what came first, the chicken or the egg? Don't you suppose it could be both?
I say let people be open to whatever they wish, so long as they are truly open to it....

Answer 10

I think it's funny how you lumped religious faith with delusion, and excluded it from science and knowledge.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7

There's nothing delusional about faith. There's nothing scientific that contradicts anything in the Bible.

By the way, evolution isn't science... it's religion.

Answer 11

Nothing wrong with science and knowledge. Lots of Christians use science and knowledge... i.e. Dr. Joseph Lister, (developed sterilization techniques still used today....) Pastor Thomas Welch, who used the (then new) technique of pasteurization making grape juice available for all...(to name a couple)
The scientific method says that UNTIL a theorem is proven through experimentation and observation it is STILL a theory and not to be regarded as canon. has the missing link been found yet?