Are evolutionists credible?

Question

When you consider that claims such as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and then have frauds like Haekel modify drawings and add fish gills to embryos to justify his fuhrer's "ethnic cleansing". When vestigal organs once claimed as useless (such as the appendix) are later found essential. When "apemen" such as Nebraska man (pig tooth), Piltdown man (hoax based on human skullcap and orangutan's jaw), and Ramapithecus (extinct orangutan) are presented as missing links. Makes me wonder what else evolutionists are trying to pass as reliable science.

Answer 1

Some are but unfortunately some are not even aware of the many issues you have brought up. I read this in Icons of evolution and surprisingly a few of the scientists were unaware of haecknels drawings or the finch beak debacle. Many assume evolution is true because even though it isn't evident in their area of science they believe from what they are told that is is true elsewhere. There is also allot of peer pressure within the scientific community. If you even question evolution you have to be prepared to face accusations and be ostricized by the like of Eugenie Scott and her cronies. In evolutionary theory was the creationists who create the hoax's or the evolutionists? And why even thought they know some of these things are untrue do they still allow them to be printed in text books as though they are true. I wasn't aware of many of these hoax's until I read it in a book by a Christian who is also a scientist. The Icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells. He was criticized by Eugenie Scott for this book but she also admitted it was technically correct.

Answer 2

Given that what we know about evolutionary change is the result of the work of thousands of reputable experts in the field, and given that the sole purpose of virtually all scientists is to discover the facts (read "truth") about the natural world, I can't see that digging up the few know frauds that have occurred proves anything at all. There have been a hundred times as many major frauds in the art world. Does this fact somehow invalidate art as a pursuit? A few years back some biologist claimed to have implanted a gene that produced a checkerboard pattern in the fur of rats. Turns out he had produced the effect by surgical skin grafts. Wow, given a hoax like that I don't know what else those surgeons are trying to pass off as reliable science. I dare say this would just good reason to doubt the existence of validl surgery altogether!

Answer 3

If you use your average evolutionists' means of determining credibility it depends. They love to shove Copernicus down your throat and how his ideas where rejected by the church during a time of religious fanaticism and far less technology and scientific understanding, but can't admit when one of their own is downright dishonest. The church has acknowledged a "spherical" Earth and a heliocentric solar system (which if they had been reading their Bibles they would have known existed even in Copernicus's day: Isaiah 40:22), evolutionists however have held on to assertions for years even when hard scientific evidence contradicts their claims. Only after the truth is exposed do they sometimes modify their hypothesis to avoid losing their credibility. Take what they say with a grain of salt and continue to challenge popular thinking .

Answer 4

For you are the Body of Christ and individually Members of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:27)
That's Evolution in Action!


We are all descended from one woman, a fact DNA studies have confirmed. But where did all the different races come from? If skin color and facial features had changed suddenly, this bizarre event would certainly have been recorded somewhere! Since no one mentioned a sudden change, we can assume skin color and facial features changed so gradually nobody realized this was occurring. That is all evolution is the gradual changing of a species into a slightly different form.

Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed, which though the smallest of all seeds, grows up to become a tree so big that the birds of the Heavens can nest in its branches. The word evolution originally meant growth or unfolding as in the way a seedling emerges from its seed casing and grows to become an adult plant, so in a way Jesus Christ actually teaches that the Kingdom of Heaven evolves!

Matthew 13: to Matthew 13:9. A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop-- a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He, who has ears, let him hear.

This parable definitely teaches that out of an abundance of life forms, only a few manage to adept to their environment enough to survive to reproduce.

Another example. Matthew 7.13. To 7:14. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.

Again Jesus Christ teaches that out of an abundance of life forms only a few succeed in life.

I guess it’s a point of view and up to you to choose.

Answer 5

And all those hoaxes were caught by... fellow scientists in peer review! The process works! Isn't that beautiful? The hoax was found and corrected. (ps. you might want to look into that appendix claim, many people have theirs removed with no ill effects).

I don't know why theists keep trotting this out as 'how science isn't credible'. You are pretending that the entire mountain of evidence somehow crumbles to dust because some guy wanted to get ahead or was overzealous and got corrected.

Answer 6

like most sciences now and prior to 1600 was based on special interest such as slavery and the need to justify it even thogh there is nothing scientific about it. darwinism,egyptology,drapetomania etc... diseases of the past afflicting only africans( dilkie of being enslaved and wanting to flee). from scandinavia to us and back around all sciences should be questioned. all european countries believed the nonsense of the day and took it to heart because it justified evil acts. exam... blacks don't feel pain old south this allowed people such as j mariam sims to cut black female slaves while they screamed without the use of anesthesia. the sciences are very ******* up. play at your own risk.

Answer 7

Both Nebraska man and Piltdown man are hoaxes/mistakes from close to eighty years ago. Both are examples of good science overtaking bad science. As soon as the evidence was looked at clearly, they were both discredited.

In fact, all of your examples were discredited by scientists generations ago.

And if an appendix is essential, why do so many people live so long after they are removed?

Answer 8

How 'bout Dr. Dino winding up in jail for tax FRAUD?

In case you didn't notice, science was pretty quick to catch the errors of the one outright hoax that you mentioned. It was done by other scientists and didn't require any propaganda from Answers In Genesis or other such groups. We have 150 years of testing behind evolution and there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in longer than half that time that went against the big idea.

But whatever lets you sleep at night.

Answer 9

All of those frauds that you pointed out...you know who EXPOSED them as frauds? Evolutionary scientists.
Sure, there have been people in history who have tried to perpetuate frauds, but the very nature of science makes it impossible to succeed in doing so for any length of time.
As author Tim M. Berra once said,
"There is no domain of human knowledge or endeavor that is more open to scrutiny than science; it is the very nature of science that it be honest, fair, and aboveboard, ready at all times to admit it's errors and revise it's theories, and when scientists are caught faking their laboratory results, in support of doubtful hypothesis, they know they have bought their careers a one-way ticket to oblivion. Without the checks on it's practices, science would be doomed to failure: serious researchers would be few and beleaguered, and we would have no polio vaccine, no space flights, no television, no computers, not even plastic garbage bags."
True scientists are always ready and willing to admit when they're wrong, or if a mistake has been made. Religion, on the other hand, will not. It will deliberately and consciously tip results to favor their beliefs, and ignore any results contrary to their beliefs. The religious have even been known to claim that legitimate evidence (contradictory to their beliefs) has been "planted by Satan to trick us."
Now how "credible" is that?

Answer 10

Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", then no, they can't be credible.

Science, however is credible and the examples you mention actually prove its credibility.

Unlike most religious tenets, when science finds out that something is not true they tell the world. They do not keep propagating the same ancient myths and hope no one realizes how foolish they sound.