why do you think creationist have a weak argument when discussing evolution?

Answer 1

Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.comThu Aug 10, 5:45 PM ET

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.

The study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent. The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however. And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.

Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.

The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.

Religion belief and evolution

The researchers also compared 10 independent variables­including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”­between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.

The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs­defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer­were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.

“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”

This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.

Politics and the Flat Earth

Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes­something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.

Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.

"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, 'We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers who we will approach for the right answers."

The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.

“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.

The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")

Science alone is not enough

But the problem is more than one of education­it goes deeper, and is a function of our country's culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in California.

“The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it,” Scott said in a telephone interview.

Myers expressed a similar sentiment. About the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which ruled against intelligent design, Myers said "it was a great victory for our side and it’s done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn’t address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists­they're not going to change because of a court decision."

Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies' acceptance of evolution.

"There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives," Scott said. “The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ‘my theology versus your theology’ discussion, but it matters because it’s having a negative effect on American scientific literacy."

The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or ID, a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being. ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.

But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields. Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.

“Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can’t do the job so therefore God did it,” she said.

Another view

Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the primary backer of ID, has a different view of the study.

"A better explanation for the high percentage of doubters of Darwinism in America may be that this country's citizens are famously independent and are not given to being rolled by an ideological elite in any field," Chapman said. "In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory. Over 640 have now signed a public dissent and the number keeps growing."

Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in California points out, however, that most of the scientists Chapman refers to do not do research in the field of evolution.

"If you look at the list, you can't find anybody who's really a significant contributor to the field or anyone who's done recognizable work on evolution," Matzke said.

Scott says the news is not all bad. The number of American adults unsure about the validity of evolution has increased in recent years, from 7 to 21 percent, but growth in this demographic comes at the expense of the other two groups. The percentage of Americans accepting evolution has declined, but so has the percentage of those who overtly reject it.

"I was very surprised to see that. To me that means the glass is half full,” Scott said. “That 21 percent we can educate."

Answer 2

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

Evolution is based on real, repetable, and sound evidence. Creationism and ID are based on faith and faith alone BY DEFINITION. When you try to bring faith into science, you fail.

Let me turn your question around, if (as many Bible thumpers claim) Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

The creationists need to go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution and find out for themselves.

Answer 3

I don't think creationist have a weak argument. Because they don't.
And who says that what God created hasn't evolved a little over time.
Like the bicycle??? It didn't start out as an 18 or 23 speed but it still has the basic idea with 2 wheels and a seat. But it was still invented/"created".

Answer 4

Creationists have a weak argument because they don't discuss evolution. They discuss Creationism.

Creationism is weak because there have been no recent direct measurements of the Creator, and accounts of old measurements are contradictory and suspect.

Answer 5

I believe that both sides have an extremely weak argument when it comes to explaining our creation and existence...

The majority of the conflict comes from the fact that many people don't have the first clue about how to explain us but don't want to look like they don't know what to say...So instead they decide to open their mouth and show everyone that they don't know what they are talking about.

I think that GOD created and provided for evolution to occur in all the species he placed on the earth. I believe that GOD's motives are beyond our comprehension but he has allowed us to make our own decisions and collaborate amongst ourselves until he came back to claim us.

The pseudo-scientific debate between the church and science has nothing at all to do with immorality depravity scientific method hypothesis faith atheism spirituality the church the Christos or Darwin...

It continues because there are two equally prideful egotistic establishments who at one time or another claimed themselves to be irrefutably correct in their assumption and they will degrade themselves into pits of Hell before they'll ever admit their similarities and swallow their foolish pride

ADDENDUM:

I have also had to use this statement a lot lately it's almost becoming a disclaimer; I am a Christian man who believes in GOD and is not ashamed or unsure of it... So save your atheist insults or religious slander for someone who is insecure enough to give a d@mn about yer insecurities

Answer 6

Creationist have weak point because their answers to all legitimate questions is faith. Just believe what the bible says. Bible says earth is flat and all the heavenly bodies move around the earth. So their foundation is very weak and erroneous whatever they build upon will crash to the ground. So eventually the creationist will be buried under that crumble.

Answer 7

i dont. i think the creationist have the weak arguements. after all you are basing all your facts on a book that was written by men who thought the world was flat. evolution is here today....evolution is in man today... look at all the ethnic differences.... people dont look the same all over the world... their bodies are different depending on the climate they live in. because they either adapted or died off. thats evolution for you. so how is that weak... now... tell me why god created the chinese with thicker eyelids than say ....swedish people who are predominately blonde?.... tell me where in the bible you can explain that one....jus cuz?

Answer 8

Because they don't understand science. Science begins with observations in nature. Creationism begins with the Bible. Any observation that doesn't fit it with the Bible, is either ignored or given a really wonderful, crazy explanation.

Like carbon dating, which is discredited because it implies an old earth. And because things that have yet to be explained are used as an argument (i.e. evolution can't explain this...), rather than a query that have yet to be adressed.

Answer 9

yes, because they're arguments do not have evidence, only their faith, whereas people who beleive in evolution have years of scientifical research, and the galapagos islands.

Answer 10

because they don't understand evolution and it's component parts,which is NATURAL SELECTION and ISOLATION!!!!worst of all,they seem to believe that modern science is refuting evolution,which is so not true!!!!

Answer 11

The well informed ones don't. Science itself refutes Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is still only a theory, it has never been proven, and thanks to modern science it is now being disproven. It takes far more faith to believe in Darwinian evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for creation and intelligent design than there is for Darwinian evolution. A lot of people believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution because they were (and are still being) taught this theory in school. This theory should no longer be taught in school now that modern science is continueously finding more evidence against it. At the time Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, science was not able to disprove it. Darwin's theory of evolution has not been proven. Only 9% of the population now believes in Darwinian evolution.

Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:

*Perry Marshall vs. 30+ Skeptics:
From August 2005 to July 2006, he has successfully defended the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

* The Problem of Information
for the Theory of Evolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

* Information Theory and the Origin of DNA: Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

* Biological Evidence
Evolution - Fact or Faith?
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/biolo1.html

*The Case for Intelligent Evolution
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf

* If you can read this, I can prove God exists
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

* Do real scientists believe in Creation?
Partial list of Creation Scientists
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

* New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

* How the theory of evolution breaks down in the light of modern science
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.html

* Famous atheist now believes in God
http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/famous-atheist-now-believes-in-god.htm

* Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/drr.htm

* Darwinism Is Strongly Rooted But Is Being Challenged
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/summary.shtml

* Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/intelligent-design.shtml

* Scientific arguments against evolution:
Science itself refutes Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

* Creation Science
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/creationscience.shtml

* The Origins of Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/origins.shtml

* Irreducible complexity
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm

* Anthropic Principle
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

* Biological Evidence
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm

* Darwinism is Racist
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml

* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

* Living "Fossils"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

* The Cambrian Explosion
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm

* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm

* "Missing Links"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

* The Moon
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm

* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm

* References
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/references.shtml

*DNA and the Origin of Life:
Information, Specification, and Explanation
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026

* Evolution - Fact or Faith?
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/biolo1.html

* Looking for more information on Intelligent Design?
http://www.arn.org/index.html