Can a rational person argue against evolution?

Answer 1

There are so many rational arguments against evolution, there are inumerable scientists, even secular ones, who believe that evolution is flawed, but they are silenced. There is only so much you can fit into yahoo answers...

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 2

Yes, it is very scary. At any rate, this is all naivety and wishful thinking. Evolution exists. While questioning sections of it is understandable, to deny the whole theory - a very big one - is assinign. Not only has evolution been observed in nature, many predictions have been made about natural findings and within labs. Evolution explains how living organisms EVOLVE. Try to explain how the wolf over many generations created the little toy dogs we have today. Do not use adaptation, mutation, and genetic drift because all these ideas are under the unbrella of evolution. I have only heard magic as a viable explanation! And if you agree that animals do change over time but not into other animals - what stops this change. If I can get a 150lb wolf to be a 5lb rat dog, what prevents the rat dog from becoming a rat? (Honestly, they are rats in my mind. Little snappy dogs scare me.) Evolution sheds light about the genetic make up of animals. A decade ago, many scientists claim that chickens/birds decended from dinosaurs - the bone structures are similar along with other percieved properties. Now scientists are discovering that chickens have hidden DNA to grow tails, teeth, and scales. Sometimes a mutation will cause these genes to turn on! As for the arguement that some systems are so complex that they could not have evolved (eye, knee, wing for example), this "proof" has been used many times. It has fallen many times. This is because irreductable complexity is flawed logic. It bases it proof on a negative. "My assertion is correct because what we do not know how these pieces could work alone." The eye is a notorious example. It does seem complex. however, many animals show different stages of a mammel's eye. Worms have photosensative skin. Some sea animals have pinhole eyes - photosensative skin with a hollow concave. Each addition of the eye increases the animals ability to see. Yes, they could be a similar design - SURE. However, I proved that changes in species do happen. New features do occurr with mutations. When a group is seperated into two isolated groups; they change faster causing a genetic drift. Yet some how the anti-evolutionists FAIL to prove their designer.

Answer 3

Yes. But only if he/she would has a logical explanation for all the evidence in favour of evolution. I have yet to see a creationist come up with a logical answer in this regard. The following arguments are examples which are NOT logical:

1. Evolution is just a theory: So are gravitation, relativity, electromagnetic theory, acoustic theory and antenna theory (to name a few).

2. Intelligent Design is an alternative theory: "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that Intelligent Design is not science." Would you consider Intelligent Falling an alternative theory to the Theory of Gravitation?

3. Irreducible complexity: Proved incorrect. The eye is not irreducibly complex. There were organisms with photo-sensitive cells, which evolved and got more complex to become the eye.

Evolution is the theory accepted by the scientific community due to the abundance of evidence supporting it. I have not seen any evidence (or even a logical argument) to prove it wrong.

Answer 4

Haha -- I just thought I'd point out the natural tension between your question and this answer: "personally I feel that the theory that we came from monkeys is misleading and untrue."

That's why you won't ever get a rational argument against evolution from a believer -- because religious faith is, by definition, belief in something that cannot be proven. Therefore, you get personal feelings and experiences (see: post about dad seeing existence beyond this life) instead of rational arguments.

Nice question though -- the "answers" are entertaining

Answer 5

Yes, a rational person can argue for or against evolution.
But is their argument rational?

A rational person can argue for or against creation.
But is their argument rational?

Your question, while rational, is inflammatory.
The tactic of questioning a person's intelligence, rationality, sanity, education, etc. is a cheap trick to draw emotional support to your point of view.

Yet, you offer nothing in support of your point of view.

Answer 6

Yes I feel a rational person can argue against evolution. I am a rational person yet I believe in God and that he created the world and everything in it. I believe that some type of evolution occured in the sense that environments change over time as do things like what we eat, what we do, and our genetics but personally I feel that the theory that we came from monkeys is misleading and untrue.

Answer 7

the problem is many people think evolution opposes creation but even evolution needs creation for it to work. evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation. if indeed the theory becomes law, that law had to exist before any humans could observe it.

to answer your question, i think so

Answer 8

sure. the key thing to realise is that everyone is selectively rational: everyone has some beliefs they just don't examine rationally. maybe there is a long list of these beliefs, or maybe it's a small list, but everyone does it. for some people, this may include the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of god. i happen to think that those people are wrong, but they ARE being (selectively) rational - they discard everything that contradicts their belief.

Answer 9

Yes, and no. There are rational arguments against accepting evolution in its entirety, because there are some substantial flaws in the theory. There are also theories that are related to evolution which require only a slight shift in thinking to resolve those flaws.

Unfortunately, evolutionists are not willing to shift, and creationists are not willing to shift, and so there is conflict.

Answer 10

Do you really believe we evolved from one cell? Really think!! You will probably start to throw things like science this science that ....!! Remember it is the same science that said smoking was good for you. Face it, we humans don't know everything and we are not perfect, scientists make mistakes. The biggest theories in the world made by the most intelligent at the time were WRONG. Hopefully you will one day come to realize.

Answer 11

if you are arguing against evolution and for a mythical being how can that person be called rational?
evolution has facts and science to back it up and god or a supreme being has no facts or science at all. just blind faith.
how is that rational?