Does Darwin's theory of evolution seriously threaten the design argument?

Answer 1

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

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.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if 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.

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 or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 2

The question should be whether the design argument can stand on its own merits (i.e. be considered a fully fleshed-out and supported theory). Only then could it be held up against other theories. Unfortunately, the design argument doesn't stand up on its own. The entire body of "evidence" for it consists of logical fallacies. The first variety of fallacy includes arguments from ignorance or incredulity - "life is so complex that it has to be designed". The second type is false analogies "a watch was designed by a watchmaker, a building by an architect, therefore life must have been designed by a designer". The final type is the false dichotomy - the assumption that only two possibilities exist, therefore evidence against evolution is evidence for design (not to mention the fact that all of the evidence "against" evolution is comprised of falsehoods, lies, and misrepresented or half-understood science). So no, evolution doesn't threaten design because design was never a serious argument to begin with. It's like saying that spotting the moon landing sites threatens the argument that the Apollo program was a hoax, or that historical records threaten the beliefs of holocaust deniers. They're all examples of observation and evidence trumping ideas that never had any evidence in the first place.

Answer 3

That's like asking if the Chicago Bears football team "seriously threaten" the South Side Elementary School little-league baseball team.

I.e. ... one is seasoned, very strong. and been around for a while, and the other is enthusiastic but undeveloped, and really premature. ... And they're not just in totally different leagues, but playing in totally different games, by different rules.

...

Look, the "design argument" raises some very good and interesting questions (about information, the emergence of order). But asking bunch of questions is not a theory ... it is not even an "argument." And second, it fails to take into account that a lot of these questions have been answered for decades ... in fields such as information theory, chaos theory, emergence, etc.)

Answer 4

Darwins theory of evolution only works with animals and plants.

People are different in that Neanderthaler,Cro manum,Homo Erectus etc all lived at the same time in the same place near the oldest gold mines in the world ,called Zimbabwe ,
(which means deep deposits.)these were genetic experiments from the Anunaki,mistrials if you like.

the final product Homo Sapian was created/cloned and genetically engineered, as a slave race to mine gold for them ,the reptilian brain that we got is an Anunaki souvenir

Answer 5

I dont think Darwin is a threat to any one or even any theory.
The theory of evolution has too many loop holes. For one little item it left out the planning time to create a design for the architecture of the Universe and everything therein .Let alone the actual time of construction.
There is no comparison to what actually happened so why even try to elaborate on it?

Answer 6

Yes. Although people will believe what they believe. And that doesn't matter to me, just as long as they don't try to teach religion in science class.

add: Alice (above) is completely wrong re Darwin's marrying his cousin to create "stronger children". Several of Darwin's children suffered illness or weaknesses, and his fear that this might be due to the closeness of his and cousin's lineage was expressed in his writings on the ill effects of inbreeding and advantages of crossing.

Answer 7

Well first consider this. Darwin believed so strongly in his evolutionary theory that he married a close cousin because he thought he would create stronger children. The opposite happened. He had two or three very weak children and one or two that died.
As far as the validity of his argument, it depends on what you believe.

Answer 8

No, not really.
Scientific theories cannot threaten metaphysical belief.
A person who believes in creationism can always respond that evolution is a method that God chose in creating the species.

Answer 9

No, I don't think so, as long as you're open minded.

But more importantly, Darwinian evolution isn't the only method by which science has shown evolution occurs.

Ever wonder why there's a new cold/flu germ every year? Or why we have to keep inventing new antibiotics? Evolution is everywhere!

Answer 10

Anything that does not embrace creationism threatens creationism.