Why is it that people think it's "illogical" to believe in creation?

Question

I don't understand why people think it is illogical to believe in creation when it is much more logical (in my humble opinion) than believing in evolution.

Take for example the giraffe. It is so tall, its heart has to work majorly against gravity to get blood to its brain. Well, it gets thirsty and bends down to get a drink. The heart pumps so much that its head explodes. But that isn't how it is, in fact, it has a sort of sponge that absorbs the excess blood and little valves up and down its neck that cut off the full amount of blood being pumped. Well, the giraffe sees a lion and it has to take off. Well, with just those features, it lifts its head up and oh no, not enough blood, it passes out and gets eaten. But wait, there is a solution to that too! The giraffe opens up its neck blood valves and uses the blood in the "sponge" in its brain. Now this is just a brief summary of what really is in a giraffe's neck.

The only logical conclusion is that an allmighty Creator made it!

Please respond respectfully and not in all caps =]

Let me explain myself...

Evolution is a proven fact. Things change over time. I don't deny it. However, the change from such things as a primate to a human being are simply theory.

I apologize for not explaining that well enough. But, to say that we have all witnessed evolution in the case of things changing from one thing (like a fish) to another (a reptile) would be a lie, as that has never been witnessed naturally taking place.

Answer 1

you have got to be kidding me. You are going to sit there and tell me that you think it is MORE logical that: a magical sky fairy created man from dirt, women from man ribs, then placed these two people on the Earth and forced them to populate the Earth through incest..... than evolution?!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!
Do you have any evidence at ALL for creation other than your Bible? of course not. Now, please direct your attention to the MOUNTAINS of evidence that supports evolution.

(PS-your points about giraffe biology can be explained through evolution).

Answer 2

Just because something is too complicated to understand, doesn't mean that we should just to default to "Well God did it then." We certainly wouldn't have come as far as we have in the fields of science if scientists thought like that. Things like what happens with a giraffe is an example of species adapting. If those things didn't happen, the giraffe would have died off. They know that the giraffe didn't always have a neck as long as it has now. The neck has grown gradually. The animals that didn't have the ability to circulate blood the way current giraffe's do would have slowly died off. Eventually, what you are left with is a species with a long neck that circulates blood appropriate to it's physical make-up. That's the nature of evolution. It's a mistake to say that a supernatural being making things is a "logical" conclusion, because (and no disrespect meant here) there's nothing "logical" about a supernatural being. The very nature of the supernatural makes it illogical. That's why it's called the SUPERnatural. Science is logic. God is a belief.

Actually--it's not true that fish evolving to reptiles hasn't been observed. It has been observed in fossils. Yes, you don't see it happening before your EYES, it took millions of years, but there is physical evidence of it.

Answer 3

If God created it, why would it need all those fancy valves? A perfect creator could have just changed the way the plumbing works to eliminate the problems.

It needs them because earlier 'versions' of giraffes did not have them, and they developed as the species evolved. We have fossils of 'short-necked giraffes' that help demonstrate how the process works.

The author Stephen Jay Gould points out that there are several complex relationships in nature that seem t be good evidence for creation, but that there are also imperfect relationships that seem to argue against a perfect creator.

For example, the Panda's thumb. Here is a species that stopped eating meat for various reasons and eats a lot of a plant that is not very nutritious. It collects the leaves by stripping them off in its paw between fingers and 'thumb'- but it does not really have a thumb- instead, it has an unusual bony structure that does the basic job.

There are some examples of things that seem to argue for creation, and there are other things that argue for randomness.

While I am not a scientist, I've studied religion and science for decades, and I think that we are misunderstanding Genesis, and trying to force the real world to fit that preconception.

Answer 4

First, I respect your right to "believe" in whatever you choose. However, a cogent debate is impossible without logic. Your sentence says it all. "The only logical conclusion is that the almighty Creator made it." (Who made the creator?) It does not MATTER to me that you choose "faith." What matters, is that your "arguments" are totally illogical. Good grief, with the slightest nuance, we could all have three eyes, or a nose where our ear is. So? Your giraffe analogy is an example of a false premise. Another rather puzzling thing I've seen, (with no disrespect), is that while God is considered all loving & good, why then did he place "temptation" only to declare we are all sinners? Why did he give us "free will" & if we don't worship, and/or obey, condemn us to: The lake of fire, the iron rod, eternal hell & so on & so on? I find this quite contradictory. Your "humble" opinion is precisely that. Great, if it pleases you. Sincerely. But I'd suggest when you enter this forum, that you NOT critisize others. Especially, when you have NO logic to support your "belief." (If you are NOT using logic, then please don't represent yourself as doing so.)

Answer 5

Okay I'll try to explain this without beating you up for not knowing.
Skeptic is right; we have fossils showing proto-giraffes who get longer and longer necks as the fossils get newer and newer (as the trees were getting taller and taller). Which is more likely, the giraffes with longer necks ate more (and were able to mate more often than the small giraffes) because they had longer necks? Or because God created them that way?
If God created them that way, don't you think he would've created them with even more adaptions (say like a neck that could stretch, instead of a permanently long neck which creates all sorts of problems)?
The reason evolution is more logical is because we have evidence that backs up the theory. Creationism has the theory, but weak/no evidence; only faith in the Bible.

Answer 6

No. That has nothing to do with logic. It's a trait some research psychologists call "attribution of agency." Let me give you an example:
Take a group of people and show them geometric figures randomly moving about on a screen. Later, when you ask them to give a narration of what they've seen, they will likely as not describe it as "these things were chasing those things" .."these things tried to capture those other things" etc. In other words, it seems people cannot HELP attributing an "agent" (something with volition) to almost any thing they observe. There are "angry" clouds, cruel winds, etc. But it's all in your head.

In case you didn't notice it, you made no connection whatsoever between what you observed and the "logical" conclusion." YOU have a need to find a "maker." But your need doesn't a maker make. Your awe at the complexity of biology does NOT require a "Creator" as an answer. So ..keep the awe, and drop the magic solution.

Answer 7

It's really simple: there is no evidence of any kind that supports any "creation" story; there is an overwhelming moutain of evidence that supports the correctness of evolution by natural selection.
Your own personal ignorance of how evolution works doesn't affect the fact that there is a ton of evidence for it -- it just means you've never bothered to see that evidence. Evolution does indeed provide a perfectly natural explanation of a giraffe -- you just don't know about it because you haven't studied evolution.

And even if it didn't...that would just mean we don't know, it wouldn't mean "god did it." To conclude that "god did it," there would need to be evidence to show that "god did it" -- there isn't. None. Zip.

It also amazes me that many current fundamentalist christians think creation and evolution are some kind of "opposite" -- that if they show one single thing wrong with evolution, it means creation is right. There are so many things illogical about that way of thinking...
First, as I mentioned above, even if evolution is wrong that doesn't mean "god did it" without evidence. Second, no serious scientist (or "natural philosopher" as they were often called back then) for nearly 100 years *before* Darwin accepted the bible creation story. There was, long before Darwin, already enough evidence from geology, archaeology, biology, and other sciences that showed the biblical creation story was wrong. Darwin just filled in one of the gaps in our knowledge about HOW the species arose, that's all. The creation story was already proven wrong, long before Darwin.

Go get some education -- it'll keep you from posting questions that just make you appear to *need* more education.

Peace.

Answer 8

Evolution is a fact. It happens. It can be observed. It can be measured. It can explain specie differentiation. It cannot explain the origin of evolution or the rest of the universe. No evolutionary biologist can make the claim that the fact of evolution excludes the possibility of a creator. Only that a creator is not necessary to the origin of life, the universe and everything.

The worst logic inserts a creator into processes that are entirely possible, if not extant, without one. It is interesting to note the laziness of people who do so. It is too difficult for some to go out and investigate for themselves the foundation of debates of origin.

A religious leader may make claims so far out of their intellectual capacity that it is a shame watching them fail to parley effectively and reasonable with the evolutionary scientists. Such a debate can be completed in two to three statements. Regardless of the preacher's poor observational skills, inability to honestly make measurements, and collect empirical data - the adherents shout from such a position as puppets.

Let us hope that the adherents remain puppets, for if they should become a mob, the violence of their creator will manifest in our midst.

Answer 9

All things supernatural are illogical by definition and your *very narrow* comparison (God vs. Creationism) certainly doesn't help your point. Evolution *only* addresses species diversity, while Creation "addresses" all of cosmology and all of life (including the unknown origins of life - OOL).

Your "Creator" could not simply pop into being, and could not have always been. It's far, far harder to account for the existence of God(s) than anything living, and if you take issue with a mammal's neck, you're simply not thinking of what's at stake vis-a-vis any God. A 'Goddidit' explanation is a cop-out.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." – Richard Dawkins

Answer 10

because some people don't know what logic is. Honestly, if something can have a flow of one step to another, and doesn't break scientific laws, then it is logical.

technically, both theories are logical in some ways, and illogical in others. it's illogical to base a theory on supposed evidence, as no one actually saw what happened, nor can they PROVE it happened. We can't prove that all the fossils found weren't co-incidences or random mutations that did not continue through the genetic line. We can't prove that a complex organism can form without a progression of steps. so both are illogical, just few actually see this...

Answer 11

If God really created the giraffe, wouldn't it have been more logical not to give the giraffe a long neck at all?