For university professors who are evolutionists, darwiists, skeptics of creation/id?

Question

What makes you believe what you believe?

Please give your name, title, and school where you are on staff.

I am only looking for one reason per person, and I want as many different fields of science as possible

not a single person has given me any information. this information is useless.

There is nothing specific--i am looking for one single instance, and i need your qualifications. For example, if someone were to ask me one reason why i am skeptical of evolution, i might cite the anomalous characteristics of the water molecule, or the cambrian explosion, or the marine life found at high altitudes that points to a major flood. But only one of the above, in detail, and not "oh everything makes me skeptical" Science deals with what can be observed. We can't observe evolution or creation, but we might be able to find evidence....I want evidence!!!

Answer 1

First, understand that while there are a few university professors on Yahoo answers, in general they don't spend a lot of time here ... and may not have seen this question.

Second, do you really expect people to give their name, title, and employer (school) on Yahoo, or any other public internet forum? Would you?

Third, why do you limit things to one reason per person? Most people who accept evolution do so for *dozens* of reasons. A single piece of evidence is rarely convincing ... it is the sum total of *all* evidence that becomes overwhelmingly convincing.

My field is mathematics, but I make my living as a writer and college instructor in the computer field.

You asked for evidence for why I find the theory of evolution convincing? Here's my list:

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

e. Not to mention all the mechanisms of natural selection verified by artificial selection (breeding of dogs, horses, cats, beef cattle, dairy goats, orchids, roses, champion squash, etc., etc.)

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

5. Evidence from proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

Answer 2

I have travelled all over the world and seen the geology that is described in textbooks that explain how the world is billions of years old. When you compare the texts with the actual rocks you see that the geologists have accurately and fairly explained how they are arranged. The same is true for all the books about biology, botany, zoology, microbiology, etc. The scientists have been honest and thoughtful about recording and explaining what they have seen..

When you take all this faithfully recorded information and work through it, you see that the theory of evolution is a very good and reasonable explanation for how things have developed. There is no evidence that significantly contradicts evolution, and there is a huge amount of evidence that supports and explains evolution.

In science you have to explain what kind of evidence you would accept that your idea is wrong. Evolutionists have given many examples of evidence which might prove evolution to be false, but despite decades of attempts to find any of this evidence, it remains elusive.

On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence to convince me that creationism is correct. And there are many lines of evidence from rock dating to genetics, to astrophysics, that are strongly opposed to the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Many of the ideas that creationists support (say, for example, Noah's Ark) are just plain silly.

Creationist ideas can never be accepted by scientists until real evidence is provided from biology, geology, physics, astronomy, genetics and other sciences. Unless this evidence is so convincing that atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and people of all religions can be convinced, then Creationism is just a fantasy of ignorant fundamentalist yahoos.

Answer 3

I beleive because EVERYTHING I have studied in science supports it, and NOTHING supports a higher power.

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.

This includes intelligent design (ID), which is veiled creationism. Yes, things are complex, but we, as scientists, do not throw up our hands at complexity and say, "oh well, god did it." No, that is what drives us to probe further and continue our work to understand more. ID only brings faith into science, which makes ID not science.

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 stagnant 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. Again, that's why you need faith for religion, that is the leap you must make in order to believe and be accepted, that's why it is not 'easy' to be in a religion! Faith, more accurately blind faith, is required!

Go to a museum, take a class in biology/geology/science, 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 4

Every thinking person should be a skeptic of evolution, creation, and intelligent design. Science has learned a lot about how the universe works and how it is changing. Learn all you can about what science has discovered. But be careful of claims which are not supported by science. There are many in all of these fields. Pay attention to what science does NOT tell us. Science has not (yet?) given us enough information to answer our questions about the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. We understand something about how DNA works, but not why it works or how it came into existence. Until we get such knowledge, it is the opposite of science to rule out possible explanations.

Answer 5

First, I'm not an "evolutionist" or a "darwinist" because evolution is not an "-ism" (this is like confusing ecology with ecologism).
I'm a biologist, and I teach vertebrate zoology and ecology at college level.

My research is focused on skeletal specializations of mammals. So in case I needed any "convincing", every day I see the structural similarities and differences between different taxa (both living and extinct) that result from evolutionary processes, as well as the variation within each species that are the basis for selection to occur.

Answer 6

It's not a question of believing, it's a question of examining the evidence and accept it's logical conclusions. And there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. ID/creationism cannot be tested, cannot make predictions, and are completely useless. Evolution can and is tested regularly, makes predictions that have been proven to be true and is used extensively in modern medicine.

I worked as an adjunct at a major university, and I'm finishing a PhD in physics. Sorry, not giving out my name here.

Answer 7

I think you'll find many of your answers at "Reasons to Believe" . Check it out. Dr. Hugh Ross, who founded "Reasons to Believe" is a both and accomplished scientist (he's a Ph.D. astro-physicist) and a committed Christian. He is not an "evolutionist", but he does believe the Bible and science can be fully reconciled. He accepts such facts that the earth is approximately 5 billion years old and the age of our universe about 13.75 billion, but believes this can be fully reconciled with what the Bible says.

From the tenor of your question, I think you might find some answers at "Reasons to Believe" to that with which you're concerned.

Answer 8

When an (honest) Creationist comes upon a pile of bricks and pebbles, using the "complexity" argument that is the cornerstone of creationist logic, that creationist would have to conclude that the bricks might indeed have occured "naturally" since they were such a simple shapes, but that the pebbles (with their unique, individual curves describable only using higher calculus) were simply too complex not to have been deliberately designed by a "higher being"...

I wash the chemistry lab glassware.

Answer 9

The one reason is ALL the evidence I have seen. Any real scientist looks at ALL the evidence available.

Sorry, I don't have the patience of secretsauce, especially given your form when you last asked this question, so that's it. My 'qualifications' include a phd in geology & paleontology and many scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals in those fields.

Answer 10

expensive Mr. Gullible, I see which you have self assurance the Bible is genuine because of the fact it says it is genuine. It now is composed of my interest that no count what I write as an answer it won't have any relevance to you. you anticipate me to grant an answer which will in basic terms be laughed or scoffed at no count how rational or logical it is presented. Sorry, yet in spite of ways I answer you will no longer comprehend it considering which you have constrained your techniques to in basic terms searching for solutions out of an historic e book of fiction, for this reason, i'm no longer able to modern to you an argument of which you will ever understand. you have my pity.