What are the chances that in studying evolution in order to attack it, creationists actually learn something?

Answer 1

They will not attack directly evolution, they will attack Darwin conclusions... As those are not incorporating newer information from the Neodarwinism, which are much more deeper than the older Darwin documents.

Also the current evolution theory knowledge of the mass, is somewhat in the sleeping field, which mean on the already written or published materials in mass media, but the active field of studies, related to evolution are extremely active and a lot more different than the current academic understanding of how evolution works as a process!
So until those study reach the mainstream, those creationisms will get the upper hand, as the newest evidences concerning evolutional processes, leave Darwin in the dust pretty much too...

Answer 2

Most people I know have studied evolution. Many of us are college graduates. We don't understand why you don't admit to some of the problems in evolution theory ( notice I said problems) and let a discussion be done rather than a gain say negation of any comment that makes evolution theory seem to already have all the answers to all questions. It prevents learning and discussion and merely adds to frustration.

Answer 3

Learn something for or against evolution? Also, it's easy for allot of people to switch sides. Some people are creationists or (no-god-thing-that-begins-with - an-a-that-I-forget) because they are stubborn and prejudiced and don't like changing from how they were raised.

Answer 4

In my case, 100%. For example, I learned that the Fairy Tale of Evolution is based more on the untestable philosophical assumptions of uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism than on actual evidence or how much imagination one has to have to take a small handful of bones and pretend that it's an imaginary ancestor somewhere between apes and humans.

Answer 5

Yes this happens. There is a book called Forbidden Archiology it has heaps of archiological findings that prove evolution false. It shows that man was way more intelligent even millison of years and they didn't look like apes or cavemen. It is evolution of the Soul not the body (reincarnation) This is in alignment with the ancient Vedas. Unfortunately the BIble has been tampered with and doesn't show how old life on earth actually is But the Vedas do. For the origina new testament before King Constantine changed so many things go to gospelofthenazirenes.com For sincere seekers of truth.Jeus originally taught karma, reincarnation and no one goes to hell eternally. Make way more sense than the Bible Constantine reproduced.

Answer 6

Sure, 'creationists' can study, but their strong desire to know the truth is already satisfied. they don't need to study anything else.

But the same goes for the other ones, they don't study the Bible, do they?

Both sides are content with what they have. I'm sure both sides would learn lots of things and understand more. But both sides can't be true.

Answer 7

They don't generally study it, though. They read caricatures of it in books by the likes of Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson (who is not even a biologist).


To the girl who claims she's educated just because she's in grad school: You cannot claim you understand evolution and then in the next line claim it says "I came from a monkey." You just can't. You should have studied harder. You should open your mind a little, and let your reason decide rather than your immediate, visceral response that tells you you won't accept what all the evidence says is correct.

Answer 8

What connection does studying something in order to make sense of it have to do with attacking it? You can be both a scientist and a creationist. In fact, there are many famous scientists who admit to being both!

Answer 9

Unfortunately, they "study" evolution via Answers in Genesis, so they never study it at all.

Hence questions that start with, "If we came from monkeys..."

Answer 10

They "might" actually learn something and make them realize there's another side on the same coin. The only problem would be (depending on their faith), their conclusions would still be biased towards what they hold true.