Why do scientists believe in evolution rather than creation, when they know how complex the universe is?

Question

The human body is actually more complex than the whole universe. It is so sophisticated, that by itself speaks of a Creator. In spite of that, people studying sciences and medecine shun Creation and believe in evolution. It is enigmatic to say the least.

Answer 1

So much misunderstanding, so little time. Not all scientists believe in evolution. Many who do, also believe in creation. Many creationists also believe in evolution. Nearly all scientists and Christians and Jews believe in Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fitness is well demonstrated. Genetic variations have propagated or terminated according to their value to the organism. You don't get much disagreement until you try to look for evidence of one species 'evolving' into another. It's hard to make the case that this is how all species happened when there's no evidence that it happened even once. The next challenge is making the case that life originated chemically. The Big Bang theories contemplate the history of the universe from a starting point of an extremely dense concentration of matter and energy. But none of those theories address where the matter and energy came from or what was just 'before' the Big Bang.

The motivation to deny the existence of a Creator is large indeed. If you acknowledge a Creator, then you must consider your obligation to obey that Creator. That's no enigma, that's just human nature.

Answer 2

You've answered your own question without even realizing it. Let's examine how complex any animal is... the number of systems, the number of variables within each system that keeps it working properly, the ways in which these systems interact to keep the animal alive... pretty darn complex. OK, now look at the human animal... all of the same features except a highly functioning brain which allows us to ponder such complex things.

OK, so we know how complex we are, how complex do you think a being who can create life, or even an entire universe would have to be? I would say it must be infinitely more complex than any of us can ever hope to be. So, if a complex system absolutely must be created by a more complex system, who created this creator... and who then created that creator, and so on. Remember each step up makes this being more and more complex.

You can't claim that man or the universe cannot form through purely natural means but then posit that some god figure can... it's an illogical claim.

Answer 3

No self-respecting scientist would take something on face value alone. Something must be proven before it can be taken seriously.

There has been a lot of evidence to show that evolution took place and little to show that everything was suddenly brought into existence.

To suggest that just because something is complex that it could not have developed naturally is ignorant. Science does not work on ignorance.

Also, your comment about the human body being more complex than the universe - that's a load of BS, there are a lot more things even on this planet that are more complex than a human's body. Again this shows ignorance in this area.

Answer 4

Evolution is only a scientific theory, and should be regarded as one. Some things point towards it, some don't, but for the time being it is the best we have. I'm a Christian, but I'm also a Nuclear Engineer/Plasma Physicist. Everything happens/happened for a reason, whether you believe it was natural or some creator did it. Doesn't really matter! Why is there gravity, nuclear force, or electromagnetic force? That is what we want to know. If you believe in a creator, then once we figure EVERYTHING out and why it happened, we will be having a conversation with that creator. And that is something that even you can respect.

Answer 5

regrettably, certain. i do not comprehend how they can manage the cognitive dissonance. you aren't to any extent further properly-knowledgeable because you do not do not forget that concept is the optimal aspect in technology. that's no longer a raffle. that's ignorant to assert "only a concept". the traditional ancestor of all apes (which includes people and chimps) is a monkey and that would properly be shown on your pride. It does no longer remember upon the idea of evolution. that's a actuality. Theories do no longer have evidence which in hardship-free words applies in arithmetic. Theories have evidence. there is not any evidence of a god of any form. Theories are falsifiable. that's a function, no longer a malicious program. If evidence is produced that exhibits yet another concept or this one desires change, then we discovered some thing and are grateful for it. faith does no longer have that function. And that's requred. So creation through a god isn't able to being a concept. because the invention of mitochodrial DNA ancestry will be determined through genetic mapping and we do not elect bones to verify the idea. Theories make predictions and would properly be used to advance different theories and open up totally new lines of inquiry. the idea of evolution is useful because is works, no longer unavoidably with the aid of the undeniable fact that's actuality. Evolution is actuality yet organic determination is a concept. base line is that it extremely works. God as a proof would not artwork for us and heavily isn't an answer in that regard. Its an excuse no longer to imagine about it.

Answer 6

In addition to the complexity of the human body evolution defies the law of entropy. No where in nature does simple become complex it is always the opposite.

Also more recently astronomers have discovered that the way the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun is rare if not unique. Most planets orbit their sun on a death march and will eventually collide with their sun.

Why is our solar system this way? Why is the earth the only planet in our solar system with an electromagnetic field around it that shields us from most of the sun's radiation. Why is it that if our planet was just a little closer to the sun or a little further away life could not be sustained?

How is it that in evolution the concept of the first living cell dividing without inherent instinct to tell it to reproduce?

If it is survival of the fittest where are the species that were almost fit. What happened to all of the hominids that lived contemporary to man?

I submit that it takes just as much and almost the same kind of faith to believe in evolution as it does in creationism. I think evolution appeals mostly to those that think that empirical evidence is superior to any other types of evidence. That explains the very condescending comments by such atheists.

The hubris of people who think that science is the answer to all the questions of life is astounding to me. Science is about finding the answers nothing more. Religion too is about finding answers and sometimes the only way those answers come is by living your life in a certain way.

The only real difference between the two are the questions that are being asked and who is being asked. Scientists ask nature and religionists ask deity.

Answer 7

You aren't really asking a question, you are pushing a viewpoint disguised (thinly) as a question.

I will try to answer anyway. The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution because it is an elegant solution to many complex questions in biology, and the vast majority of evidence points to it being the correct answer.

The problem with intelligent design or creationism is that it asks us to stop asking the hard questions. I may look at a flaggellum and say, "wow, that's complex. I wonder how it became so? Let me try to find out." ID or creationism basically tells me "Hey, god designed this flaggellum, so there is no way for us to figure it out". If this is true, why even try? Even if I try, I will inevitably introduce god to explain any problem that is too hard for me. That is not a good way to do research.

Answer 8

Science requires proof not faith. Since faith is required to believe in a creator, and there is no direct proof science must look at evidence found in fossils to figure out what has existed on this planet long before we came along. It is possible to believe that a creator may have started things in motion billions of years ago and has observed the progress of living creatures since that time. Science and faith can co-exist and while science should not ignore the faith of millions of people it has so far not been able to explain the evolution that has taken place. The fossil records cannot be ignored and so far evolution seems to be the best explanation.

Answer 9

There is no enigma in science. Of course the universe is complex, much too complex for a simplistic creation doctrine. Early people imagined a flat earth with the sun and moon circling overhead. Had the known what the universe is really like they would never have invented religion in the first place.

Answer 10

Scientists choose to believe in evolution because of the way evidence presents itself to them. But the good thing is, scientific theories are fluid - they change with every new discovery. A man of faith may assume that a scientist is 'myopic' while a man of science may accuse a Christian of being overly presumptious. However, there are many new encouraging trends of science and religion reconciling. I have read about many scientists who have converted to Christianity after trying to dispute God's presence. I guess, things will only be revealed to all of us in God's time.