Arguments against evolution??

Question

I think probably the main argument that I hear against the theory of evolution is that no one has ever seen evolution in action. However, there are lots of things that scientists don't see but have good reason to believe that they are true. Take atoms for example. No one has ever seen an atom but there is lots of good indirect evidence that atoms exist. The atomic bomb and nuclear energy show that although we can't see atoms, we still have a pretty good understanding of what an atom is and looks like. No one has ever seen gravity, however there is pretty good indirect evidence that gravity exists. The same goes for evolution. No one has ever seen evolution, but there is lots of good indirect evidence, like the fossil record and changes in gene frequency that evolution is a real phenomenon. How come religious types don't protest the teaching of gravity and atoms even though we have never seen either, but they do protest evolution for that reason????

Answer 1

"I think probably the main argument that I hear against the theory of evolution is that no one has ever seen evolution in action. However, there are lots of things that scientists don't see but have good reason to believe that they are true."

Well, the fact that we _have_ seen evolution in action kinda shoots that one down as well.

Answer 2

But we *have* all seen evolution in action! Whenever a strain of bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic that used to kill it ... that's evolution. Ever seen a seedless watermelon? That's evolution, too. Yes, it's evolution by artificial genetic modification, but it's still evolution.

What people have a hard time grasping is the concept of long-term evolution that involves gradual changes to an organism as it adapts to its surroundings. And you're right ... people can't grasp it because they can't see it in action. But if we can see it on the immediate micro level with newly resistent bacteria, surely we can imagine how the same thing happens on a much larger time scale.

The theory may have its flaws, but that's only because science hasn't answered all the questions yet. And in any event, it makes a lot more logical sense than saying some supernatural being blew on a pile of dirt to create the first human. I mean, I grew out of fairy tales when I was a kid.

And no, before someone says it, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved *alongside* monkeys, from a common ancestor. Kind of like different branches on the same tree.

Answer 3

I think of evolution as a process of slow change over time. Evolution is happening all around us, every moment of every day. It is just that the change happens so slowly, we don't perceive it. I also believe that there is a Creator, an Energy or Entity, that uses the process of evolution to create.

It makes sense, and in this way, we don't have to discount scientific process, or the Creator. I don't however, prescribe to literal Biblical understanding, (like 7 days.....Gods time and perspective are very different than ours), or a male God full of anger and hate.

You have a good argument, because the basis of religion is a foundation of faith.....we cannot see God either, and yet many believe. Why can't this be the same for evolution?

Answer 4

I know that the whole reason for the people I know not believing in evolution is because thats right they don't see it in action. I have studied evolution at my university as part of my anthropology classes and I am christian (with some other religious belief not pertaining to christianity) anyways and I have to admit at first I was hesitant to take any real regard to evolution but I think now it is possible for both to be in existance and work on a basis together.

Answer 5

greater complicated than that. It is going greater like this. you initiate with the "understanding" that god exists, and that he cares touching directly to the universe and human beings in specific. it truly is then difficult to have faith that he does not have been messing around along with his introduction with a view to get what he needed (us, apparently). so they bypass searching for the transitions in evolution that are very difficult to describe. that may not difficult - we've basically been examining evolutionary biology for slightly over a century. They the two deduce that evolution replaced into helped alongside or that it in basic terms did no longer take place. in case you look on a similar information with the theory that god does not exist or does not intrude interior the universe, you're surprised by ability of ways nicely evolution explains each thing, and you anticipate that quicker or later we are going to understand how those "strange" transitions got here approximately. There truly isn't any element arguing, using fact the positions are truly separated by ability of the commencing assumptions, no longer the information or the logic.

Answer 6

1) Yes, we HAVE seen evolution in action. In the lab, we can see bacteria evolve, and flies, and similar organisms. The problem is that it takes often hundreds of generations - and we haven't been keeping track of humans very long at all.

2) Actually, we HAVE seen atoms. Electron microscopes are a wonderful thing.

3) Overall, I agree.

Answer 7

Well, actually, scientists have observed plenty of evolution - bacteria becoming resistant to anti-septics, average human height increasing, elm trees resistant to Dutch elm disease. The real kicker is that we even make it happen. Agriculture would not be nearly the business it is today without genetic engineering to produce crops that are unaffected by herbicides, grow shorter to eliminate unnecessary stalks in the fields, will grow in colder climates.

Oh, we observe evolution alright. Now what's the next argument you have seen?

Answer 8

It is ironic that the God Squad member have come up with lots of analogies for arguing that god is there even when he is invisible (you can't see air can you!)

So they can believe in something that can not be seen and has no evidence for it, but when it comes to something that can not be seen over a single lifetime but there is loads of evidence for, well all those highly qualified scientists are just plain wrong!

It would be funny if it was not so pathetic.

Answer 9

to Steve above: you are really ignorant. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't rule out evolution. It only applies to closed systems, and the earth's biosphere isn't closed. Try looking things up before stating them.

To answer the question, some people are increadibly ignorant, and do not have a capacity to reason.

Answer 10

Evolution is not a science Evolution defies mathematical probability. Evolution defies laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics.)

Evolution claims, random change & natural selection make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent design. Chance and random changes simply do not produce higher levels of organization & complexity.