Evolution and Creation?

Question

Please someone tell me the main drawback for evolution?
also, sombody please tell me the main drawback for creation?

Please be completely serious and honest.

first question is for evolutionists only.
second is for creationists only.

I am also accepting emails from anyone who wants to email me about this question.

Answer 1

Main drawback of evolution is that we are stuck with it. I mean, look at all the sub-optimal design flaws we have: the eye with the nerves that go IN FRONT of the light sensitive cells before being bundled in the optic nerve and going through the back of the retina, causing a blind spot (instead of being "wired" from behind) is the result of the eye evolving from a much simpler light sensitive spot. To remain on the topic of eye, most mammals have only two kind of color light receptors, having lost 2 during the phase where mammals were essentially nocturnal critters a few million years ago (reptiles and birds still have those 4). Primates reacquired a 3rd one through mutation, but it is imperfectly coded resulting in occasional color blindness.

If you mean "drawback" in the sense of not being 100% supported, or whatever, well, its main drawback is that it has to partly be based on fossil record, which can be lacking at time, given that most dying critter do not do a very good job at putting their bones out of harm's way. And that soft tissues are usually not preserved at all.
But in terms of "draback" in proving it is true, there is none. Evolution is a fact; "theory" here does not mean "theoretical" or unproven, it means a body of knowledge with a reasonnable logical connections, that allows one to derive theoretical consequences from assumptions. The therory of relativity is still called theory, but no one would claim it is only theoretical.
As for creationism, it is based on the interpretation of a so called holy book. Its main drawback is that it is being force fed onto other people by brainwashed religious fanatics; and that is has absolutely no rational basis whatsoever, only the desire of some people who want it to be true at all cost.

Answer 2

The main drawback for evolution would be for specific species. By its very nature, evolution weeds out amimals and plants that do not adapt to their backgrounds or environments. This would mean that a single specific species may not survive. An example of this might be the great auk, which had never seen man before and was too docile to move out of man's way when it was being swung at with a club. The point is that life itself survives, perhaps in another form. However, this is a point of view from mankind and rather romanticises the whole thing.

The main drawback of creationism is that it is just a theory and the deeper you dig into it, the harder it becomes to justify. I have tried to argue with creationists before (in a reasoned way) about their belief, but just when things are getting tricky, they always say "it's god's will" or "we were not meant know everything". They are often not willing to have their theory put to any sort of test and if you don't have faith yourself, you think that the whole thing is just an unprovable myth.

Answer 3

The drawback for evolution is that some people don't want to believe in it because they think it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
They feel impelled to claim evolution is false, 'just a theory' (wordgames), incomplete, denying facts that don't match their faith, etcetera.

Funny enough (almost) none of these people have a problem with the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That in itself was cause for a huge controversy back in the 1600's, when the Church threatened Galileo if he were to speak of or publish that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
After all, the Bible said the Sun revolved around the Earth, so it must be true, right?
All those who claim otherwise must be put to death. All of a sudden that 'love theigh neighbour' and 'thou shalt not kill' is also in the bible, but it can be ignored at will.
The position of the Earth and Sun can not.

It just goes to say that the bible is not a physics-, astronomy- or biologybook, and that some narrow-minded people think that the bible must either be all true or all lies.


The main drawback about Creation is that is is completely unhelpful.
Evolution helps us to explain why bacteria and insects develop resistance to drugs and pesticides.
It helps us to understand ourselves, disease, animals and plants. It explains why things are as they are.

Creationism simply says 'God created the heaven and earth, that's all, now stop asking difficult questions and go back to practising our religion'.

Answer 4

Your question presupposed that evolution and creation are somehow equivalent or alternative concepts and can be compared as such.
However, evolution is a scientific theory that explains how species originated and evolved over time, based on genetics, and confirmed by experimental data from many different scientific disciplines. Thus evolution represents knowledge gained by experimentation, analysis and peer-review.

Creationism is a religous proposition, actually a Christian narrative on how the world was created by God. It is not subject to analysis or validation. Creationism is not science, because it cannot be disproven. Creationism is religion or perhaps philosophy. Creationism also relies upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, a book which was written and edited by men and appears in many different versions.

Answer 5

Main drawback for evolution? It requires middle school education and a bit of common sense to understand it.

Answer 6

The main draw back for evolution is that it conflicts with biblical accounts of creation. This causes many religious figures to criticise it. Main arguments used against evolution are that it doesn't explain several situations such as symbiosis.

Symbiosis is where two organisms depend upon each for each otehrs existence. This is bad for evolution in that how did these two creatures manage to evolve unless they spontaneously evolved to depend upon each other at once.
This is a false argument since evolution allows for a gradual growth of dependence rather than requiring it to be instant.

The other main argument against is how can complex organisms occur through random mutation? I.e.: If you leave your room in a mess, it is very unlikely that random movements like an earthquake would make it tidy. This argument is also false as genetic mutations aren't entirely random and the basic "mutations" that created life (According to evolution) were actaully quite simple and in some ways inevitable given the correct chemical mix.


The main arguments against creationism is that its not really a science. A basic definition of scientific endeavour is that it creates predictions and then provides empirical means of validating those predictions (ie: the science of hyrdodynamics predicts taht water raised above 100'C will boil. We can observe this effect) whereas creationism works the other way around and seeks to find science that will back up the observations as recorded in the bible. I am not aware of any predictions that creationism has made therefore none of its claims can be validated.

Secondly, the big argument against creationism is that it is based upon writings which were meant at the time largely as metaphors for the people. To interpret them as a scientific explanation for existence betrays their purpose: to provide moral guidance.

Many creationists beleive that to disbelieve the creation stories of the bible means to disbelieve the bible. Others who believe in science but retain their faith believe that much of the bible is not meant in a literal sense.

Finally, if it's not obvious I should state that I am pro-evolution. I think it is also pertinent to point out that in no country other than america is creationism commonly taught in schools. I am australian. Whilst I am sure that some schools would probably teach it, they are by no way common and in fact (and I really don't mean to offend when I say this) it is generally considered a very bizarre trait in america that it still holds currency as a science.

Answer 7

I think the answer is right there for everyone to see unless they chose to ignore it and follow their animal instinct to deny the existence of a very intelligent and complex design going from the smallest particle in your body to the massively huge galactic order.

When people chose to ignore the creator it’s chaos everywhere and science can try to answer what it wants it can never explain how the world we live in was initiated in the first place, they ago as far as a big bang but cannot answer the simple question of who caused the big bang to happen in the first place or why ? They can tell you come from a monkey but they cannot explain why monkeys or any other animal for that matter hasn’t evolve into a humanlike creature or even developed the ability to speak, to feel, to have morals and boundaries or the intelligence and arrogance to make up crap about theories that doesn’t make sense about how he came to be !

They tell you a creator is out of question but when they’re stuck in their answers they just say we don’t know how or why !!
Science would be much more productive and would make much more sense it if accepts one and only one concept, the presence of a creator and sustainer of the universe. If only we accept that everything falls into place and suddenly makes sense !!!

I will finish by quoting one of the most imminent scientist of our time, someone who shaped the very core of modern science, Albert Einstein himself, on his death bed he while trying to write the so called “theory of everything” said to his nurse “God is not hiding anything from us, he only wants us to look harder…” take the hint…

PS: God does not equal church, I will not dictate which faith should be followed or which God is the true God but it’s you duty to search and find out for yourself, just don’t take the easiest option… your parents or your society does not necessarily hold the ultimate truth…

Peace !

Answer 8

In Darwin's day the main criticism of evolution was that it didn't fit with their understanding of heredity based on the blending of parental characteristics. When Mendelian genetics was re-discovered it removed that objection. Today there are no known biological facts which contradict evolutionary theory. Most scientists consider recent research on molecular genetics to be the ultimate forensic proof of evolution.

I am not aware of any scientific facts which support theological based notions of creation.

Answer 9

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI


That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 10

the main drawback for creationism is the vast body of scientific evidence against it. I guess for evolution it would be the nonsense you have to listen to from creationists.