Is it true, Scientists are increasingly disbelieveing the theory of evolution?

Question

I read that as Scientists study the Big Bang, evoultion, etc... more, more and more are starting to doubt it.

I also read that evolution is not a fact. That they have only been able to study present-day records, so evolution is technically a theory?

I'm trying to find out the truth about this on Google, but it just leads to debates about the Bible and Science, which is not what I want.

Thank you very much for your answers :)

Answer 1

No you are actually totally wrong on Everything you said. Infact the only people who deny evolution are Creationists. And the only websites you will find false information like what you stated are on False non-science websites such as Answersingenesis.org. I cannot think of one scientist that I know who disputes evolution.
http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html

Answer 2

The Big Bang theory is being supported by more and more evidence every day. What it states is that our universe (space, time, matter, energy) all had a starting point. We can put an approximate age to the universe of 13.5 billion years.

Evolution is a little more tricky as there are different forms of evolution. The most popular breakup is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution states that species adapt. For example, your children are not the same as you. From an information standpoint, a species contains a diverse set of genetic information that allows for variations within a species. Micro-evolution has gone through the scientific process from a hypothesis to being tested to being a theory to being considered fact.

Macro-evolution states species change into new species and that all life now originated from a single species. From an information standpoint, data is added to the genes of species allowing them to form new species; this is the opposite of micro-evolution. Macro-evolution has gone through the hypothesis and testing phases of the scientific process, but has repeatedly failed in testing. The great debate comes in here, where some people consider it fact while others consider it false.

Originally macro-evolution was based on the mechanisms used by micro-evolution, small gradual changes with survival of the fittest pruning out the weak. The fossil record does not support gradual changes, though. If it did we would not see "species" but rather a continuous progression of various lifeforms. These are often referred to as missing links. For the gradual process to work, each fossil record would need to be a missing link. What we see instead is species.

The next theory is called punctuated equilibrium. This states that we would have species. This matches the fossil record. The problem is that we do not have a mechanism to get from one species to another.

A third problem with macro-evolution is that we do not have a good way of explaining how the information gets added to the genetics. The leading hypothesis is that cosmic rays add data to our genes and natural selection eliminates the bad mutations. Just to put this process in perspective, doctors call the mutations cancer.

On a side note, macro-evolution does not state how life began, just how it has changed over time. The current leading theories are that it came from space on an asteroid or God created it here on earth.

Answer 3

Big bang and evolution are two entirely different theories.
The big bang theory states that the universe was created by an outward expansion of matter which was in a hot and dense state. Since the universe is still expanding (Hubble's law)-that would seem to bear this theory out.

Evolution deals with the start of life on earth and says that life evolved through a process of natural selection over billions of years.

A scientific theory is about as close to factual as you can get. It's more than just an idea or an hypothesis. A scientific theory has been repeatedly tested and has held up under those tests.

Answer 4

If evolution were true, how is it that with all of the creatures on the Earth that have "evolved", only humans have a language, wear clothing, develop technology, appreciate aesthetics, worship their Creator & c?

Are evolutionists unaware of the tremendous gap between humans (no matter how primitive their culture) and the animal kingdom? Can you imagine a chimp, or a gorilla making this argument?

No animal has ever built on the experiences of preceding generations. Only humans. Dog five thousand years ago were identical to dogs today. They have made no progress. The same can be said for chimpanzees. No chimpanzee will ever write a book.

So why hasn't some other "evolved" species differentiated itself from the rest of the animal kingdom?

No evolutionist ever answers questions like this. Or, where are all the transitional forms? Is evolution going on now? Where are the evolving animals? You know, the ones with partially evolved organs or appendages that don't function.

What purpose did the eye serve before it developed sufficiently (over millions of years) to work? Or, if dinosaurs evolved into birds, how did they survive with wings that were too small to permit flight, and arms that could no longer grasp prey? How could undeveloped faculties contribute to survivability?

Answer 5

An hypothesis is an idea. When it is proven true and cannot be disproven it becomes a scientific fact called a theory. Evolution is just an hypothesis, and idea. It has never been proven true. same with the big bang, just an idea.

There are lots of mystical things that science won't attempt to unfold or prove true because these things go beyond the realm of science. In other words, scientists are beginning to realize that the universe is a lot more complex than we would like to believe, and there are more unexplainable things than we can imagine and which science is at a loss to explain. Some of them are things that spiritual people have said long ago, but science had refused to acknowledge them, only to have these things come back to haunt them now.

Science is only one way of making a model of reality, and it falls short in many areas, including evolution and the big bang.

Answer 6

I seriously doubt they are loosing faith in the scientific method.

There may be revisions made to the theory of evolution, but the process of evolution is a fact and is completely substantiated. All that's changing is the order and time frames in which evidence occurs.

And the Big Bang also has more proof than any other theory available, so I don't se that going away anytime soon, no matter how many creationist websites scream.

Answer 7

No, evolution is still considered one of the strongest theories there are. All scientists in related fields accept this. There are only a few "scientists" who get degrees for the sole purpose of being evolution deniers. But there are literally only a handful of them.

Evolution is a theory because that is what it is. A theory is the highest order in science. There is nothing more a theory can become then a theory.

Answer 8

Scientists are always refining theories. The theory of Evolution is being refined with every fossil we find, every strand of DNA we understand better. Evolution happens, as most scientists agree, it's the process that scientists are now debating. (Fast or slow, guided by nature and conscious effort of the species or not)

Evolution has millions of years of fossils to sift through to create a 'picture' of what happened. Ever put together a jigsaw puzzle? Try doing it without the box! You are not sure what you are going to get. Religion just tries to tell us what the original picture looks like and we are supposed to believe it, science is trying to put that picture back together and the journey is getting interesting! Hey, maybe there IS a supreme being that set evolution in motion! or maybe it's aliens...or just a really complicated chemical reaction! We may never know for sure!

Answer 9

Answers in Genesis have collected "scientists" (it included mathematicians, engineers and food scientists, kudos to them, but they are in a questionable position to judge evolutionarly biology) which you can find here. There are some other useful links on the same page:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

The National Center for Science in Education don't take this list seriously enough to produce their own list, which would go on forever. The truth is there is NO growth among scientists, especially experts in the field, for non-evolutionary models of creation (and certainly not creationism, which is not remotely scientific). But for fun they initiated "Project Steve", a list of scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary model of creation AND WHO ARE ALSO CALLED STEVE, STEVEN, STEPHEN, STEPHANIE, and so on. You can find this here:

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

The list:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

You may note that there are 193 "scientists" who support the creation model (some of these have their degrees from notorious degree mills). There are 821 Steves who support the evolutionary model. The Creationists list has been static for months, the Steve list grows daily. The only people saying that scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution are desperate creationists.

Answer 10

ha ha ha I don't even know where to begin on this one.

A) Creationist sites are NOT a good and balanced and impartial place to get information about what scientists do and do not believe
B) Big Bang and evolution are pretty much settled. It's the particulars which are being discussed.
C) Here's the definition of scientific theory:
a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

While creationists like to pretend "a scientific theory" is the same as "a theory" and the same as "a wild guess" this is simply not true.

Answer 11

First, where did you read it? Remember, sources can be biased, and can spin information in a way that supports their ideas.

Second, yes, evolution is a theory. Theories are, by definition, well substantiated. Science generally doesn't use the word 'fact' as it should always be willing to adjust to fit new information, and using 'fact' makes it difficult to do that.

Finally, I have never read anywhere of a big shift from evolution to creationism. One of my favourite sites is Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who support evolution. It far outstrips any list of creationist scientists I've ever seen.