Evolution: Are there any NON-religious arguments AGAINST evolution?

Question

Are there any arguments other than “creationism” against it? What are they?
I’m trying to convince my cousin of evolution and I want to make sure I cover all my bases, but any search I do comes up with copious Creationist websites and articles and little else. So I was wondering… what arguments are there other than the religious ones?

Answer 1

Here are two good indexes.

A very good website, talkorigins.com has compiled a long list of creationist claims against evolution ....

... and rebutted every single one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

It is a *very* long list.

Why is it so long? Because creationists are very good at asking questions ... but very very BAD at thinking about, or hearing answers. Thus they will ask "How does evolution explain X?" after thinking about X for 5 seconds ... and even if scientists respond with "That's easy. Evolution explains X as follows ..." it doesn't matter. The next day 10 creationist websites all list "How does evolution explain X?" as a list of "stumper" questions to ask those "evolutionists."

In other words, once a creationist question is asked ... it *never* dies ... no matter how easily it is answered. It gets copied on and on, like a zombie that just will not die.

A second interesting list was put together by a hard-core creationist site, answersingenesis.com:
"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

In other words, that is a list of arguments that are so bad, that even AiG finds them embarassing ... and yet creationists use these questions all the time.

As far as convincing your cousin, that's a tough road to hoe. My only advice:

1. The *first* point should be to dispel the BIG LIE ... the idea that evolution=atheism. If your cousin is a fundamentalist Christian (and most creationists are), then as long as they have that evolution=atheism idea, then NOTHING you say will make any difference. They will oppose you with every fiber of their being ... and if you were to even START to make sense, they will shut you off. Because you think you're arguing about science, and they hear someone arguing in favor of atheism. They will not, cannot listen to you until you get rid of the BIG LIE that they have been taught since *before* they were in school. For some information to dispel the BIG LIE, see my answer to another question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070812223911AAPkAtN&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTJcWUAxmFBsiepOCosP.6LJk1icAO9ZyQ--&paid=answered#NbUvWze9UjJ7zwGjt8XS

2. Separate understanding from belief. If they are receptive to talking about it, the first order of business should be to clarify what the theory of evolution actually says. Forget about evidence at this stage. Forget about all the fossils, and DNA, and morphology, embryology ... all that evidence. Your first order of business is not to make them *believe* something, but just to *understand* it fairly.

Good luck.

Answer 2

A long time ago life was horizontal. This means that all life would share their genes and adapt in this way. This was very fast and efficient. But, then, there came one strain of bacteria that kept it's superior genes to itself. It evolved according to Darwinism. Eventually, all life did this. This was vertical evolution. Now we are entering an age of genetic engineering where we will make life horizontal again. This is because we will take the best genes from different forms of life and cross breed. So for that huge swath of time between the two horizontal ages evolution was undeniably following Darwinism.

Answer 3

SaintofSorts - the story you've alluded to doesn't expose a flaw in evolution theory at all, and I'm at a loss to understand how you could come to that conclusion if you'd bothered to read the article properly.
For your information, the idea that homo habilis and homo erectus co-existed changes NOTHING about the way human evolution is understood, save for the fact that it might indicate that these two species co-existed. For your information, this is nothing new in anthropology. It is already well known that Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens co-existed.

This new finding MAY indicate that Habilis and Erectus had a common ancestor and therefore Erectus may not have evolved from Habilis. It is also equally possible that Erectus DID evolve from an isolated community of Habilis.

Answer 4

It's widely accepted science. There are no counter hypotheses to common descent by modification, natural selection, or change in allelic frequency. There is some contention in interpreting exact details in various lines of descent, especially human.

Answer 5

[edit] Objections to evolution's morality

Other common objections to evolution allege that evolution leads to objectionable results, including bad beliefs, behaviors, and events. It is argued that the teaching of evolution degrades values, undermines morals, and fosters irreligion or atheism. All of these may be considered appeals to consequences, as the potential ramifications of belief in evolutionary theory have nothing to do with its objective empirical reality.


[edit] Evolution leads to immorality and social ills

Further information: Social effect of evolutionary theory

It is claimed that many perceived social ills like crime, teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, immorality, wars, etc. are caused by a belief in evolution.[79] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote August 8, 2005 in National Public Radio's forum, "Taking Issue", that "Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin — and thus the meaning — of human life.... Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality".[80][81] Creationist Ken Ham likens evolution to a horde of termites, weakening society's foundation. In Why Won't They Listen?, Ham suggests that "evolutionary termites" are responsible for pornography, homosexual behavior and lawlessness. He also writes, "I'm not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I'm saying is that the more a culture abandons God's word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change."[82] Former Texas Republican Representative Tom DeLay claimed that the Columbine school shootings were caused by the teaching of evolution. DeLay is quoted as stating that "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup."[83] Henry M. Morris, engineering professor and founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research, claims that evolution was part of a pagan religion that emerged after the Tower of Babel, was part of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies, and was responsible for everything from war to pornography to the breakup of the nuclear family.[84]


[edit] Evolution leads to atheism

Another charge leveled at evolutionary theory by creationists is that belief in evolution is either tantamount to atheism, or conducive to atheism. It is commonly claimed that all proponents of evolutionary theory are "materialistic atheists". On the other hand, Davis Young argues that Creation Science itself is harmful to Christianity because its bad science will turn more away than it recruits. Young asks, "Can we seriously expect non-Christians to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it?"[92] However, evolution does not either require or rule out the existence of a supernatural being. As Robert Pennock points out, evolution is no more atheistic than plumbing.[93]

In addition, a wide range of religions have reconciled a belief in a supernatural being with evolution.[94] Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found that "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education". These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[95] A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found that 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God. Only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list, however.[96]

Answer 6

All the rivals to evolutionary theory have not stood the test of supportable evidence. That is what it is about, evidence. Naturally, creationists just attack evolutionary theory and do not provide any testable evidence. Go here for ammo.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 7

The Behe-esque Intelligent Design mantra: "We have observed biochemical systems of such complexity, irreducible complexity, that it is hard to imagine how they could have evolved."

=
Just got to say that I disagree with Behe's conclusions. You should read his book anyway -- it'll make you think, and thinking isn't necessarily a bad thing. "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

Answer 8

yeh, several, Read a book called "The Collapse of Evolution" plenty of stuff in their for you to look into. If you want something form the book, e-mail me

Answer 9

What about natural selection? As the Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe. We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get wolves.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. This is called “neo-Darwinian evolution.” So, the question is, can random mutations produce new creative information?

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information.

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this is always the case. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

As T. Wallace has said, “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 10

1. The purpose of the Pythagorean Theorem for any other species than human.
2. Humor of any kind, has no place in a random universe. (Try telling a joke to a chimpanzee and see if they 'get it').
3. The absence of any other species on the planet with a recognizable, translatable language pattern.
4. The recognition and discovery of higher mathematics in a very short time period, given the relative time for complete evolution in a random universe. According to the relative time frame of evolution, we should still be in the Bronze Age.
5. Really good Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.
6. The manipulation of atoms into an atomic bomb.
7. The odds of us even 'evolving' our current stage of existence in a random universe on one lonely planet in the seeming middle of nowhere in the universe are far too staggering to be ignored.
8. Hot chicks having a thing for shoes have no place in a random existence.
9. No one particular race of specifically beautiful, physically superior human beings has been established at any time. Kind of shoots Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" all to hell, don't it?
10. The capacity for sympathy, empathy, and desire to keep alive physically and mentally imperfect persons also shoots "Survival of the Fittest" all to hell.
11. In fact, according to Darwin, only beautiful supermodels and pro atheletes should be breeding, and yet really ugly people still get it on and are having 2.4 more children than supermodels and pro atheletes...
12. Surfing, moto cross, NASCAR, running for fun and not necessarily for your life, riding horses for pleasure and not for daily transportation, the useless toys that come with McDonald's Happy Meals that are played with once and end up in the landfills, again, none have a place in a random existence.
13. Visions of a Higher Power, the Mysteries of the Unexplained, those who refuse to deny they witnessed miracles despite attempts to refute their testimony.
14. Where does my very specific preference for cucumbers, mashed potatoes and gravy, and California Roll come from? I am so far away from my German/Polish heritage, it's not an inborn, genetic, or cultural preference. It's not a learned response to a specific instigator, none of my other brothers or sisters (out of ten) share any of the same preferences - they are strictly my own. According to evolution, I should be eating and seeking specifically local foods grown in my home town.
I could go on and on...