Scientists who don't believe in evolution ...?

Question

Can you please state your view, tell your discipline and give some details of your academic record?

need specifics people - degrees and university, years, please.

without that information, I consider the answers null.

Answer 1

Check out "In Six Days", edited by John Ashton PhD. The subtitle is "Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation". All of these guys and gals have doctorates in their fields, some are on national boards and have made important discoveries and such.

Answer 2

It's very unusual for scientists to believe in absolute truth of creation of human by God and that science supports it. It's just opposite of nature of science which is to assume nature can be explained by math/reasoning and not by supernatural force. Science is really tentative truth that evolves over time where as religion preaches absolute truth of unchanging god. Many who critizes evolution fails to see if evolution is put up to kind of standard they require no other scientific ideas will be considered valid. They fail to distinguish scientific truth and religious truth.

People seem to be bothered by apparent contridiction of evolution and creationism, but those aren't the only contridictions in the universe.

Also lot of people have idea that evolution is too incomplete, but it is a theory that is complex. It's like people can predict volcano somewhat and know how they work, but it's still very unpredictable. That doesn't give reason to say geology is not a good science or something wrong with way you predict volcano, but theres just so many variables that are impractical to keep track of.

Last thing is that when you can't figure out something that doesn't mean theres no way to figure it out. Scientist constantly pursue their search for new 'truth'. People who critize evolution love to point out evolution can't explain every single step in eye evolution or some other things. That's matter of shear computations and calculations not about core theory. Science wouldn't be science if they stop and say this is too hard we can't figure this out.

Evolution has stood for long time and its unlikely there's major flaw. It is just sort of unlucky in that it is singled out when people could have chosen various other ideas to pick on. But there are critics on just about every piece of ideas in science I'm sure.

Try reading about philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and some others. In science people don't chose or not chose to believe piece of idea, but the ideas either stand or fall upon peer review and criticism.

Answer 3

i believe in micro evolution, but not macro. im open to ideas, but the lack of evidence in the fossil record makes macro evolution hard to believe, since the fossil record is so much more complete than it was when the theory of evolution was first considered, and because mutations dont occur often enough or survive often enough to have produced complicated life in such short time (yes i thnk billions of years is too short an amount of time). i definetely believe in a creator because there are many circumstances needed for spontaneous life, including the breaking of laws of physics, the right parts of new cells forming at the right time and in the right combinations...the list goes on and on forever. i have also read 'In Six Days,' it was interesting, i recommend it and also, 'Dismantling Evolution,' by Ralph O. Muncaster is another book that goes into lots of detail in lots of different areas of science.

Answer 4

Im here to tell ya that 1 million scientists would have to read your question before one scientist would answer it