Is the Theory of Evolution scientifically credible?

Question

I was surfing the web today when I found this and thought I'd share it with all you Yahoo!A users. I just did a google search under "Evolution Problem".

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

I haven't read the books quoted in the essay but after reading the essay I'd highly recommend them. They are "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. And "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe.

I'm suggesting believably corrupt.

Answer 1

Yeah...evolution is a theory in crisis...Just now, I was reading an article about a new batch of dinosaur bones found in Switzerland. My son doesn't have the buds for 3rd molars, even though both parents had them. Your pinkie toe is getting smaller with each generation...You should actually read a bit more before you just post stuff like this to get criticized for. Most of us do actually read, & learn from stuff. But, I don't just go expound because I saw headlines!
Creationism & evoulutionism may yet live side by side, but Evolution gets proven every day. There are not a lot of miracles proven out, are there?

Answer 2

Do not believe a word of Behe. I'm not telling you solely from experience (although I have read parts of the book and a good deal of his writing that is available on the net); I'm telling you that because it's bad reasoning and worse science, and it is discredited by the majority of scientists (and an even larger majority of biologists). It is partly because of him that Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort can come across as "knowledgable" to some Christians about evolution by making a nice looking website, misquoting other real scientists, making unfathomable leaps of logic, and making absurd assumptions about what the theory of evolution really says.

You can believe whatever you want, just don't let the blinders that some religions pass on as belief keep you from understanding science.

Haven't read Denton, but I imagine it's more of the same. I'll look into him.

Edit: Did some research. Here's one of Denton's quotes:

"My fundamental problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random changes." (http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/dent.htm)

This is called an argument from incredulity. To understand what is wrong with this type of argument, read the following page: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

In summary, an argument from incredulity just means "I can't conceive that __________." This is not evidence enough in and of itself to justify the refutation of an entire theory. If his books make scientific sense and propose well documented evidence, it wouldn't necessarily shake the ground that evolution is built on, either, but it may begin a rethinking process.

From the statement I quoted, however, it isn't all that hard to understand how a rock lobser's eye developed, given enough time (more than 6000-10000 years). Way to much to include in this post, though, and somewhat off topic.

Answer 3

I read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. I recommend the book to anyone. I do not agree with his conclusions, though.

Yup, Evolution is scientifically credible.

Answer 4

If by credible you mean it unites all the fields of modern biology and has withstood every experiment designed to find flaws it in, then yes; it is not only credible but it is one of the greatest leaps of thought in history.

I suggest exercises in critical thinking. I bet you'd find some web pages if you looked for "moon landing fake" or "flat earth." Here's a link to a web site that says it's "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper." (Which by the way is as credible as the arguments of Behe or Denton.)

Ultimately, every argument against Evolution by Natural Selection boils down to: It's too difficult to understand so give up because it must be magic. [Invoke deity of choice].

Answer 5

I'm pretty skeptical of this essay because it doesn't actually cite any material from these books, it just mentions them in the beginning and then is based entirely on the opinion of the author. Also, this is a Christian website, which claims to address many questions (see the Atheists section) and does not.

Answer 6

To the extent that life started out simply, millions of years ago, and got more complex, it's not only credible, it's proven.

The details of Darwinian evolution are still being worked out.

Nothing about evolution denies the existence of a Creator who watches over us today. Science just says that, if they exist, they started the process 13 billion years ago with a Bang, and used some kind of evolution as a tool. Man and dinosaurs did not walk the Earth together.

Answer 7

First of all science does not nor has it ever discredited the existence of god! It can not simply because of the definition of science. Science is the study of the PHYSICAL (meaning measurable) universe based on observation and experimentation. Scientists make hypotheses and then run a test on them in such a way that it is designed to reject the hypotheses. Those that can not be rejected are then accepted. In this way scientists search for the rules that govern how the universe works.

In order to test God you first have to find a way to concretely measure him. Unfortunately the day that happens then religion becomes science and faith disappears.

Use science to answer questions it was meant to answer and use religion to answer the questions it was meant to answer (morale questions).

Answer 8

Uhm ... yes, the theory of evolution is scientifically credible.

If it wasn't, then the overwhelming majority of scientists who find evolution to be the backbone of modern biology, are *all* either unbelievably stupid, or unbelievably corrupt. Which are you suggesting?

Here. Before you go running out to buy books based on that one article, please read the following:
"A Response to Locke's, 'The Scientific Case Against Evolution' - P. Wesley Edwards
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FLockeResponse.htm

As Edwards concludes:
"I have to conclude that Locke’s “Scientific Case” not only fails to make its case, but is not very scientific. His claim of a “major trend” in biology against evolution would come as a surprise to biologists the world over, and his evidence to support this claim is either hundreds of years old, or is based on rather gross (though, I’m sure, unintentional) misrepresentations, of both science and individual scientists. It brings up old, unoriginal arguments that have long-since been discredited—arguments based on misrepresenting scientists’ views, misrepresenting evolutionary science, and even misrepresenting the scientific method itself. ... Such is yet another reason why creationism is not considered science at all."

I think Edwards is too kind. Locke's essay is an exercise in blatant deceit.

{edit}

I see you answered my question ... saying that you are willing to believe that scientists are *all* corrupt (or at least those who accept evolution, which is pretty much all of them). At least you're honest. ... But ... why? Why do you have such a low opinion of scientists? I for one, am alive today because of science, and there's a good chance you are too ... and there's a 100% chance that the computer you used to type those words exists because of science. On what basis, what evidence, do you distrust scientists SO MUCH that you are willing to believe they would participate in a massive fraud involving tens of thousands of scientists for over 150 years to betray their profession and defend a theory they *know* to be scientifically wrong?

Answer 9

So let me get this straight, you read a single essay and now think that his sources are 100% credible without ever actually reading them, or any other material on evolution. Kudos, you win the dumbest person on Yahoo contest.

Answer 10

Doesn't the web address give you a clue?
This person has an axe to grind - a sure guarantee of
the presence of highly processed fertilizer.
NOBODY who attempts to mix science and religion ever has, or ever will, be credible.
By definition, science demands proof while religion demands faith in the unprovable.