some truth in sceince about creation?

Question

Here's the deal. On one hand I hear that evolution is only a theory (not fact) that has absolutely no evidence to support it. I hear that it is just as much a faith and religion as any other crazy creation myth. On the other hand, I hear that almost all (if not all) evidence against evolution and for biblical creationism is either a gross misunderstanding, or a gross misinterpretation of existing facts. I also hear that evolution is virtually uncontested in the science world, and that no scientist disagrees with it.

My question is how can I, not a scientist and not connected with the scientific world in anyway, be sure who's telling the truth? I don't doubt that people on both sides say thy are telling the truth (or atleast think they are), but obviously someone is lying. How can I discover the truth?

I will also be posting this question in the Religion & Spirituality board. I think the responeces should be interesting.

Answer 1

Great question!

1. First question ... how do you find sources you trust? A site like wikipedia is a *great* one-stop resource. Some creationists accuse wikipedia of bias ... but are never able to point to specific inaccuracies. But test wikipedia yourself on some topic you know about.

I also highly recommend sites from major universities. Since that's where the scientists work, the university sites will reflect pretty much what the scientists think.

But here's a hint. Don't *just* trust creationist sources to give you information about evolution. This is like trusting an atheist site to give you unbiased information about religion.

2. Second question ... what do the scientists really think? Do your own research to verify the claim that evolution is indeed virtually uncontested in the sciences. (It is, but don't take my word for it.) Even the most ardent creationist site and polling reveals that acceptance among scientists as at *worst* about 95%, and more likely at about 98% to 99%.

Again, consult the university web sites. Go to the bookstore and check out the credentials of authors (do they have a PhD. in molecular biology, or a PhD. in religious education?)

3. Third question ... once you verify that scientists almost unanimously accept evolution ... then ask yourself why they would endorse an idea if there really was "absolutely no evidence to support it."

All those scientists (we're talking tens of thousands of smart people, for over 150 years), would have to be either:
A - Universally inept *at the practice of science* (in other words really really STUPID people); or
B- Universally corrupt and willing to participate in a hoax so huge that it is unlike anyting *ever* in history.

So either the scientists are stupid and/or corrupt ... or the claim that "there is absolutely no evidence" is a blatant Lie.

4. Ask yourself "why would scientists lie"? ... Creationists like to say that scientists lie because they are all atheists ... but this is NOT true. Do some research and you will find that 40% of scientists are NOT atheists.

But above all, if you learn about the scientific community, while there are individual frauds ... a *group* hoax is extremely difficult to pull off. Scientists *love* to expose mistakes ... to expose a fraud or a hoax would be instant fame, awards, prizes, university teacher-ships, book deals, the works. And the prize for the hoaxer is a one way ticket to the dustbin of history.

Lies don't last long in the scientific community. There is too much to be lost, and too much to be gained from exposing it.

5. Ask yourself "why would creationists lie"? ... Answer: evolution threatens the *LITERAL* interpretation of the Bible, which is the simplistic, childlike way of approaching the Bible. But evolution does NOT threaten religion or faith at all ... IF you have a deeper understanding of what faith is about than pure literalism.

Why are so many creationists so *passionate* against evolution? Because they have the fundamental belief that evolution=atheism ... so they have to oppose evolution with every fiber of their being.

6. (This is the most important one.) Really ask yourself if evolution=atheism. Nothing else matters if you do.

Ask yourself why the Catholic Church (including the last two Popes) would officially declare that it has no problem with evolution, if the Church thought it was equivalent to atheism.

Ask yourself why over 10,800 *clergy* members have signed a letter against creationism and supporting evolution. (Google the "Clergy Letter Project" for more information.)

7. *Understand* evolution before you decide whether you accept or reject it. Really. Ask question. Read. Ask more questions. Challenge pro-evolution people to explain things.

Understand what the word "theory" means *in science*.

Learn the difference between "evidence" and "proof" (big difference ... science deals in *evidence*, not proof.)

And understand evolution in a little more detail than "humans came from monkeys." That is the CARTOON version.

8. Only after you *understand* evolution, then ask for *evidence*. The evidence will mean nothing if you think evolution is just about "man came from monkeys."

9. Make up your own mind.

Good luck!

Answer 2

Evolution is fact. Creation is myth. I am suspicious of anyone that has to question any science that has been proved over and over again and again.

Do you doubt that light travels at 186,000 miles per second? Do you doubt the sun rises in the East? Do you think the Internet would exist if it was left to religion?

In fact it is simple. The Christians are indeed lying. They cant prove anything. They are not intelligent enough to grasp the science. So, they believe the lie.

You could try reading about evolution. Try studying biology and evolution. Surely there cant be to much wrong with Evolution if it is so widely accepted as fact. You can start by getting your definitions correct. Look up what a Theory is in science.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, some people feel that evolution is some threat to their way of life or beliefs, and have accepted creationism or intellegent design as an alternate.

The idea that scientists "accept" evolution and somehow, by doing so, are not religious, is a gross exaggeration.

There is no "truth". There are a lot of "half-truths" and "gross misinterpretation", and that is for you to work out. Five hundred years ago, people accepted the idea that they could buy indulgences from the Church so that their souls would spend less time in Purgatory before passing into Heaven. How many people believe this now?

Think of a baseball game and you are the coach, and the theories are pitch-hitters. If one theory has a 500 average and another has a 200 average, which do you choose
to bat? (hint, evolution has the 500 average - it never claimed to be the truth, just the best model around)

Answer 4

Oh my. You are so misinformed. Let me reverse the question and pose it to you. Science depends on falsifiable and testable hypothesis. If I make up some statement but it can't be tested, it is a weak and unconvincing argument. For example: Leprechauns exist. Prove to me that there are no leprechauns. If you can't find one, that just means that they're too cleaver for you to catch but, they're out there. There are numerous ways that evolution by natural selection can be shown to be incorrect. Find a vertebrate fossil older than 500 million years and that would muck things up real good. However, there is no way of disproving religion. If the creator were to manifest and demonstrate how it did the deed, that would be convincing. Where is this intelligent being that is responsible for creation? What would convince you that your religious beliefs (intelligent design is nothing but religion with a fancy name) are wrong? Here is the difference between science and religion. One is based on evidence, testable hypothesis, experimental verification, and if evidence to the contrary is found, then science goes back to the drawing board to come up with a better, more complete model of how things work. The other depends on blind faith. Faith being belief in that which can not be proved. If it were demonstrated, then it would not be faith. Creation myths are exactly that. There is no evidence for it (other than ignorance. It's too complicated for me to understand so it must be magic.) and it can't be falsified. How can you disprove the existence of a god? And, any evidence against religion is usually met with hostility and denial. People who have questioned these creation stories were met by different reactions ranging from being ignored, shunned or exiled to death and genocide.

Answer 5

First, you have misunderstood the use of the word "theory" in science.

"Theory" is used in ordinary conversation to mean "guesswork" or "speculation," as in "I have a theory as to why Helen left her husband."

But that is not what "theory" means in scientific discussion. Among scientists, theory means "A body of related facts and concepts that support a given hypothesis or set of facts."

Thus in science, "theory" does not mean "the opposite of fact;" on the contrary, scientific theory is filled with actual, provable facts. For example, astronomers use a theory called the "heliocentric theory" to explain how the Solar System works.

If you read an engineering article about how a radio receiver is made and how it operates, you will find a section called "theory of operation." That doesn't mean that the engineer who designed the radio set is guessing about how it works. Instead, the engineer is drawing the connection between how the radio works and the supporting electrical and electromagnetic knowledge of science.

I hope you understand this; it is very important. I am really sorry that biologists use the word "theory" in talking to non-scientists about evolution. It would have been very helpful if they had realized most people don't know how scientists use the word "theory," and had instead said the "doctrine of evolution," or the "notion of evolution."

After having said all that, I will say that it doesn't seem to me that *anybody* is "lying." Scientists are people who deal not in "truth," but in facts. By definition, science does not lie. It would have no value to the human race at all if scientists did not check each other's work and make sure it all makes sense.

Evolution has probably been subjected to more validation and cross-checking than any other common doctrine in science. We know for sure that life is evolving, and has from the beginning. This is not "guesswork" or "speculation."

Creationists, on the other hand, are seeking a metaphysical explanation for the relationship between spirituality and the physical world. Many of them are very frightened, and tend to attack science because they think science will damage their spiritual understanding. But this is only a characteristic of people whose faith is weak or empty.

True faith is not frightened by facts that are equally true.

Answer 6

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is the best explanation for the biodiversity we see in archipelagoes and islands. The principles seen in these semi-isolated environments can be applied to continents as well. There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and I'll bet that secretsauce posts his list again).

Biblical Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a speculation. There is no evidence or observations which support Biblical Creationism -- the only source for Biblical Creationism is a "revelation" from Moses. To believe Biblical Creationism, you must have faith in Moses. Your faith may be misplaced. Moses is known to have exaggerated the extent of the Great Flood; such exaggeration casts doubt on the other stories he told that have been gathered in the Pentateuch (the name for these books of Moses may vary depending on your religion).

Answer 7

Most of my time is spent on the R&S board, but I'll answer from the bio board because that's where I first saw your question.

First of all, you must understand what a theory is. A theory is a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Micorevolution has been observed in experiments. Evolution is accepted by the majority of scientists in the world, but not 100% of them. Keep in mind that the idea that atoms, gravity, germs, and relativity exist are also considered theories.
A fact is something that is true. A theory may or may not be true.
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is based on passages from the Bible. Therefore it is something to be taken on faith. Faith, by definition, is something that does not have to have proof. In addition, creationism deals with God, a supernatural entity. Science, by definition, deals with observations of the natural world. Therefore, creationism isn't technically scientific. Also, creationism isn't testable or observable, so it can't be a hypothesis or a theory.

Now for the evidence: Evolution is supported by fossil evidence. Older fossils are simpler, but the newer ones are progressively more complex and modern, suggesting gradual change through time. Also, modern organisms share lots of common DNA with their ancestors, suggeting a relationship. Not only that, but eukaryotes contain billions of years of viral DNA, suggesting that viruses have infected organisms for longer than the 6,000 years of life suggested by creationism. Age is determined by various radioactive particles. Also, genetic mutations have been observed. HIV, for instance, which is bad at "proofreading" its replicated genetic code, so it evolves rapidly, greatly affecting the way that the virus is treated with drugs.
Creationism is supported by religious scriptures, which describe God creating the universe. However, there is no scientific proof that the Bible is accurate (see previous explanation about science requiring testable ideas about the natural world) other than the Bible simply saying that it is true. On the other hand, creationism could be proven true if a fossil were found that shows a highly evolved organism existing alongside the world's first organisms. However, such a fossil has never been found. Other evidence for creationism is limited to evidence suggesting that evolution is incorrect (irreducible complexity). However, even if evolution were to be disproven, that would not neccesarily mean that creationism is right.

Conclusion: Science points to evolution based on studies and analysis of evidence. Religion points to creation based on faith and trust in the accuracy of the Bible. Both sides can't both be right. After all, man could not have been created as man from the start and still descend from other primates. My personal opinion, as you probably could guess, is for evolution. However, both sides will tell you that the other is lying. And quite frankly, neither side has found enough of a reason to suggest that its own ideas are 100% accurate.

Answer 8

Those who say that evolution is "only a theory" do not know the definition of a theory in science.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a theory is "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "

The whole concept of science is that one proposes hypotheses and then tries to disprove them. This is the scientific method in a nutshell. Once tehy have been tested over and over, and have many, many studies supporting them, they become accepted as more than just hypotheses. If they later become part of the underlying framework of science, they become Theories. Newton's Laws of Gravity are an example of theories, as are Einstein's theories of relativity and conservation of energy. Tell the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the last one is just a theory.

The Theory of Evolution has been under assault by scientists seeking to disprove it since it was first introduced in 1859. It provoked much the same reaction amongst Darwin's peers that it invokes today among many fundamental christians. Over the years, much has been learned about heredity and genetics that was unknown when Darwin published his ideas. Gregor Mendel didn't publish his findings on genes for another 7 years, and the true importance wasn't realized until the early 1900's. Watson and Crick didn't discover the structure of DNA until nearly 100 years after Darwin's works were published. Yet all of the great advances in biology and genetics further support Darwin's ideas.

Darwin's research is documented work in peer reviewed journals with years of supporting evidence before he published and 150 years of testing. To say it is virtually uncontested today is true, but only because it has withstood over 100 years of ferocious assault by many of the greatest scientific minds of Darwin's day and later.

Meanwhile the evidence put forth by Creationists that evolution doesn't occur is the Bible, which shows no supporting data, never underwent peer review, and is highly subject to interpretation. Most scientists believe that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, however.

That being said, most scientists do not debate evolution with creationists because most creationists are not interested in facts and evidence. Creationists have their beliefs and dismiss anything that does not coincide with their beliefs as rubbish. Scientists, on the other hand tend to be more open to the evidence, but tend to be frustrated when those they are debating cannot or will not back their statements with data to support them. I can show you data that supports the existance of evolution. There are thousands, millions of examples. Archaeopterix, Australopithecus, the finger bones in whale flippers, even increasing resistance to anti-biotics by bacteria are all examples of evolution. Creationists cannot show you hard data or examples that prove creation. For them, it's a matter of faith, not fact.

Answer 9

As a scientist, I have extreme faith in mathematics.
2+2 = 4 is not changing from day to day. So am I also a crazed mathematics cultist? -- sorta, I guess.

I also have this faith in evolution. I have this faith because I can see the whole picture. I have this faith because evolution should REALLY be called natural selection. And we all KNOW that natural selection works. Lame calves in the wild get picked off by lions. They DON'T ever grow up to pass on their genetic material. That's all it is along with the idea that mutations DO occur at some rate. We know mutations occur.

So therefore it is a slam dunk that this occurs.

Answer 10

You are vastly mistaken. We believe in evolution because we have evidence to support it. On the other hand the only evidence that supports creationism is the Book of Genesis.

There once was a dude who wrote an entire book showcasing proof of evolution. His name was Charles Darwin and the book was The Origin of Species. Now we have even more evidence that supports evolution. Through better understanding of genetics we actually have greater proof of evolution. I could really write allot in here about the evidence, but talk to any high school-er and they will name quite a few.

Evolution is not just a theory. It is regarded as fact, because it makes more than perfect sense. Most priests and religious leaders agree with it.

I myself am very religious and I believe that an all knowing and all powerful being (God) created life and the planet we inhabit. Nature is perfect. It has no flaws and if you are willing to study biology closer you too will understand the fact I'm trying to get across to everybody.