Why do people not believe in evolution?

Question

Please answer intelligently, and not in a way to ridicule others. I would like to know why some people do not believe in evolution. I would like to see an answer that does not pertain to them being close-minded, or followers of the bible, which means that only people who do not believe in evolution can answer this question. Thanks for your replies in advanced.

Answer 1

Missing Link. It means I do not have the evidence and I don't have the proof. Why would you believe in anything that will give you missing link for an answer everytime you ask the question

The fossil record has failed to prove that life evolved

The Challenge of Complexity

A second problem challenging today's scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.

There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible.#

Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the "intelligent design" evident in "observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it."




How could random forces produce something as complex as a single cell with its DNA, let alone a human?
A baby and DNA
A baby and DNA


A Spotty Fossil Record

A third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."
Facing the Evidence

The foregoing represents just the tip of an iceberg of unanswered questions that puzzle those who dismiss the evidence of a Creator. Some scientists realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions and conjectures.

Thus, after a lifetime of fruitful scientific research and work, astronomer Allan Sandage said: "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."

By pure chance?

When National Geographic recently printed an appealing cover capturing the loving bond between mother and child, a reader wrote to the magazine: "The mother-and-child picture on the cover is a masterpiece. How anyone can look at that darling child that only nine months before was a pinhead-size egg and think this magical development was only a blind accident of chance is beyond me."

Many would agree. Author and former professor of nuclear physics Dr. Gerald Schroeder compares the likelihood of mere chance being the cause behind the universe and life to the odds of winning the lottery three times in a row: "Before you collect your third winnings, you will be on your way to jail for having rigged the results. The probability of winning three in a row, or three in a lifetime, is so small as to be negligible."


I got more if you want to email me.

Answer 2

Sadly, yes. I do not understand how they can handle the cognitive dissonance. You are not well-educated because you do not recognize that theory is the highest level in science. It's not a guess. It is ignorant to say "JUST a theory". The common ancestor of all apes (including humans and chimps) is a monkey and that can be proven to your satisfaction. It does not depend on the theory of evolution. It's a fact. Theories do not have proof which only applies in mathematics. Theories have evidence. There is no evidence of a god of any kind. Theories are falsifiable. That's a feature, not a bug. If evidence is produced that indicates another theory or this one needs modification, then we learned something and are thankful for it. Religion does not have that feature. And it is requred. So creation by a god is not capable of being a theory. Since the discovery of mitochodrial DNA ancestry can be determined by genetic mapping and we don't need bones to verify the theory. Theories make predictions and can be used to develop other theories and open up entirely new lines of inquiry. The theory of evolution is useful because is works, not necessarily because it is fact. Evolution is fact but natural selection is a theory. Bottom line is that it works. God as an explanation doesn't work for us and is not really an answer in that regard. Its an excuse not to think about it.

Answer 3

Some people can't handle "loose ends", so they prefer to wholeheartedly embrace any theology handed to them on a plate, rather than think things through logically and decide on a "most likely" (though ultimately unprovable) explanation.

To reject evolution is to accept "God" as an imperfect and horribly flawed deity; there are so many examples of 'unintelligent design' in nature, that if there is a "God", he did a dreadful job, or he wasn't paying attention!

Answer 4

What was here before the bang?
Where did he blob (that blew up) come from (big bang) and why?
Where and how did the explosives come from?
How logical is it for an explosion to form uncounted stars and space objects?
Horses 5000 years ago are still horses (find one animal that even started becoming something else), surely there should be something 1/2 and 1/2( Becoming something else).

Answer 5

The same reason why some people believe in a supreme being. Some do some don't we all think differently in a way we can't help it. I believe in both evolution and a supreme being.

Answer 6

for me, it is simply unbelieveable if something just apear from nothing, and start modifying itself in order to cope with its surrounding. that's what the theory of evolution stated, isn't it?

umm.. well.. actually, i'm not really good at explaining things, so why don't you surf the link below and read it youself. as you said, be open-minded..

Answer 7

It's because it's easier to believe in something complicated that has been around for century's, rather than to believe in something as simple as evolution.
Hope this helps.

Answer 8

I believe in neither creation nor evolution. There's no proof that either is fact. All guesstimation. Think about it:

"A big, invisible flying god made everything in 6 days!"
"We come from monkeys!"

A bunch of bullshit both ways.

Answer 9

God vs. Science

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need You anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me," replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "We can take dirt and form it into the Likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the Earth and starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no," interrupts God. "Get your own dirt!"

Answer 10

I don't know either. I have a very unique belief in Evoultion. I believe it's a tool of God. Maybe he first created the world and than left it alone and let it evolve itself.