Why do creationists falsely attribute beliefs to biologists?

Question

One frequent claim is that biologists believe evolution happens by random chance. They don't. They think that species adapt through a process called natural selection. For example, the idea that a complex structure could arise spontaneously by chance is equivalent to throwing 100 coins in the air and expecting them all to come up heads. There is only about one chance in 10^30 of this happening. Why would creationists say that any scientist could possibly believe in something so preposterous? Instead, biologists think like this: Throw 100 coins as before. Now pick up the tails (usually about 50) and throw them again. Pick up the remaining tails and throw again. In less than 10 throws, all 100 coins will come up heads! All it took was random chance, selection, and repetition. So randomness is not what drives evolution in a certain direction (like, towards more complexity); it is NATURAL SELECTION that's in the driver's seat.

Dear ohio gal, no experiments? Why nature is experimenting all the time in Her great laboratory. Check out:

Dear Indecisive, "Get your facts straight before you criticize." Couldn't have put it better.

Dear chris_muriel007, I helped create an FDA-approved diagnostic test that scans HIV genes (protease and RT) for mutations that result in anti-viral drug resistance. Yes, mindless objects (very tiny ones) do undergo natural selection. Just because you've never seen a thing doesn't mean it's not there. Now look! I'm preaching to a Believer!

OK, I ask a perfectly legitimate question, and even gave an example. Not one responder so far has EVEN ATTEMPTED to answer the question. Yet creationists are still telling biologists that they think we all got here "by chance". Please answer the question!

Answer 1

I saw "The chance of a certain gene occurring" being used as some sort of argument here.

This is a fallacious concept, since the natural selection model does not rely on "a certain gene occurring". Rather, it includes the event of ANY self replicating nucleic acid developing from the previously developed sludge of amino acids. This previously developed sludge of amino acids has been successfully created in the laboratory by assembling the raw materials known to have existed on the ancient Earth (in point of fact they exist now) and adding a little energy in the form of heat (to simulate geothermal processes) and static electricity (to simulate lightning). Presto - an amino acid sludge. Next in the series of events required to drive natural selection would be the development of a self-replicating nucleic acid - not a "certain gene", but any such self-replicating nucleic acid would do. That's not such a leap of probability as compared to "a certain gene" suddenly appearing, and is in fact not necessarily random given the previously formed amino acids. Chaos theory can be used with nucleic acids as attractors, thus indicating that the process is deterministic if the right initial conditions are used. And those "right initial conditions" HAVE been created experimentally.

Whoever responded with the "certain gene" argument should do a little research before criticizing anyone's viewpoint.

Answer 2

The idea that there was a divine will at work, even in evolution that works by natural selection, cannot be denied. There is a beautiful order in all that occurs naturally. Throw a heap of grains on a plain and even ground. The grains fall and form themselves a pattern. In the wild growth forest and the formation and flowing of the rivers, without human intervention, there is a beauty and order, which would not have been possible but for the will of God.

Answer 3

The chance of a certain gene occuring -- which can only then be acted upon by natural selection -- is one of "chance".

As I've said before, I see amateurish questions from both the religionists and the atheists / creationists and the evolutionists.

Get your facts straight before you criticize.

Answer 4

Creationists are not scientists. They require revelation (what God reveals) in addition to science (what man observes). It is just another belief that thinks it can apply the scientific method to the bible.

Creationism is a belief, not a scientific theory. No amount of man's observation will lead to God.

Answer 5

Can you prove evolution by observing it? By setting up an experiment with a hypothesis, variables, etc?

No, it can't be done. NO proof.

Answer 6

You don't seem to have a question.
That's ironic.
Since all science begins with a question.
Like religion.

Answer 7

Well said, Bob

Answer 8

mindless objects cannot have natural selection..
which is why you are wrong.