Is evolution under attack as a credible science by anyone other than those who support creationism?

Question

Is there any doubt within any established scientiific community of the validity of evolution as a legitimate science, that is, those who do not have a specific religious agenda to offer a theory such as creationism in its place? Would this question receive a similar rate of Yes and No answers if I were to post it in the category of Science, Mathematics and Biology where there may be more respondants of scientific inclination?

Please vote for me, I can't decide. There are some B.S. answers and some that answered every quetion but the one I asked but there are too many good answers for me to choose from.
Call it "Democracy in Action", if you like.
:)

Answer 1

Evolution is well supported across numerous disciplines of study. The only people who refuse to look at the mountains of evidence, and prefer instead to dwell on a few errors and lies told along the way, are creationists. Reasonable people know that errors and the occasional blatant lie are just part of life, and science is not excluded from that.

The big difference is that there are legions of brilliant egotistical scientists trying to knock down the big guys to make a name for themselves. I don't think most people appreciate the intense competition among scientists.

Serious errors and blatant lies tend to get revealed, and usually very quickly. The system isn't perfect, but it works better than most human inventions.

Answer 2

Yes there is much doubt in the scientific community.

Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, says:

“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

And how about this tidbit?
In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.” In other words, our theory does not work unless earth has the conditions that support our theory, so because we will not accept creation, by default earth MUST have had our theoretical conditions. STARTING TO SOUND LIKE BLIND FAITH YET ?

Answer 3

Evolution is just another theory, it may be demanded that evidence be gathered to prove its validity by any group offering up an alternative, the same as for any theory. Science is based on discovery evidence, a new discovery may revise what was previously believed to be true.

However, many creationists or intelligent designers, decry evolution as not being able to conclusively prove its basis as fact as there is insufficient observational or physical evidence. It is only a theory, and has never been denied as such.

Saying that one theory is invalid does not in turn automatically validate the counter theory. Creationism and ID are theories approached from a theological standpoint not a scientific one. For example using the argument that since the solar system is supposed to be millions of years old but the magnetic fields of the planets Jupiter and Neptune are still quite strong proves they were only formed millenia ago does not make it so. It only raises more questions. They draw conclusions from parallels written in the bible.

Is the bible to be taken so literally, I do not believe so. No one person has the TRUTH, we are all searching in the dark. But we should be searching with our eyes open. Science should be kept unbiased.

Answer 4

Yes... read the book by agnostic biophysicist Michael Behe... "Darwin's Black Box". Evolution is an outdated myth.

Is this the evidence for evolution?

Piltdown Man - A deliberate hoax. Ended up being a ape jaw attached to a human skull that was stained to look old.

Java Man - The discover later rejected it stating that a human & ape were just found in proximity.

Peking Man - Tools & human bones were found near the apes whose brains they were eating (monkey brains are still eaten in China).

Nebraska Man - An entire person (and family) was envisioned from a single tooth... a tooth that later proved to have come from a pig.

Lucy - Reclassified as an extinct ape.

Ramapithecus - A jaw & teeth were eventually dismissed as early human in origin (an Orangutan).

Neanderthal.... a man?
It was once thought that the Neanderthal was a man. But, thanks to advancement in science, genetic DNA research indicates that the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bi-pedal primates (apes) though.

Tools? The use of crude tools by Neanderthal does not mean they were human. Many animals including birds, fish, and mammals use "tools".

Shelter? If Neanderthal created shelters, it does not imply they were human. Many animals (beavers, birds, bees) also construct shelters.

Religion? There is no evidence that Neanderthal practiced any form of worship or religion. Interestingly, that is the primary way the bible separates Man from animals.

Why then do some people still insist Neanderthal was man?

Will we ever learn?

Answer 5

Firstly, understand that in our day and age, science has become its own religion, with its own dogma and adherents. That which is empirical is not the only proof of existence.

Otherwise you've got an awful lot of string theorists out there who are going to be mighty disillusioned.

If by creationism you mean the theory that the world was created by intelligent design (as opposed to any one specific deity) - then the answer is yes, absolutely.

Personally, I have little problem believing in both evolution and intelligent design. Evolving from the bed of the ocean floor as opposed to dirt is really semantics - the two theories share more in common than most minds are willing or able to comprehend.

Answer 6

Darwin's own scientific contemporaries considered his work to be full of conjecture and low on hard evidence. In 1872 an attempt was made to elect C Darwin to the prestigious zoological section of the French Institute, but failed because he received only 15 out of 45 votes. One of the prominent members of the Academy gave the reason;

" What has closed doors of the Academy to Mr Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame - the 'Origin of Spieces' and still more the 'Descent of Man' is not science, but mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage"

The Australian molecular biologist and reseacher Michael Denton, a known critic of Darwinism, writes;
" (Evolution theory ) is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."

We can go on...and on...and on....

Answer 7

Yes in and only in the sense that the actual mechanism of evolution is not completely understood. Hence it is difficult to make predictions using evolutionary theory.

The gross evolutionary theory of species change through niche adaption based upon statistically probabable fitness is beyond dispute.

The exact mechanisms that govern this process are poorly understood. It is sometimes impossible to distinquish which factor among several will provide a species with a statistically significant advantage such that it will create a species wide change.

Answer 8

Because evolution theory is legitimate science, it is freely questioned by anyone in the scientific community. (It's not like religious dogma where you're not allowed to express independent thought.) Science continually makes progress both in theory and application, because it is recognized by scientists that a theory or accepted fact is always subject to change when newer and better facts or ideas come along. That's why we're not in the Dark Ages anymore.

Answer 9

Is evolution a biased philosophy (ideology) or an unbiased science?

The evidence indicates that evolution is a biased philosophy/ideology.

--

There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Cordially,
John

Answer 10

Intelligent design proponents aren't necessarily creationists, they are often secular scientists that have come to the realization that evolution is an archaeic, outsourced attempt at defining life apart from God. The mountain of data is steadily climbing and impossible to discuss in this type of forum. If your interested in finding out more, the same things these scientists are discussing are the same in the creationist circles. The institute for creation research is a good place to start.