Have you read the Wikipedia article: Objections to Evolution?

Question

It's very interesting from whichever side of the fence you are on.

I would recommend the article section called "Objections to evolution's scientific acceptance" but really, the whole things is quite good.

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

Have you read it and what are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Considering the quality of other wiki pages, it really doesn't have much more credibility than taking random Best Answers from Yahoo! Answers.

But I'll read it and see what it has to say.

UPDATE

OK. Now I've read it, and it's actually a pretty good page. As long as it remains in the form I just read it, I would recommend it as a primer on understanding the objections and the refutations of those objections.

Answer 2

Most important part.

"For example, in common usage theories such as "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts", even though they are purely theoretical. From a scientific standpoint, therefore, the theory of evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the technical definition, this applies to the observed process of evolution occurring whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time, whereas under the colloquial definition, this applies to evolutionary theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists."

Answer 3

Nothing new there. I find the arguments very weak and refutable. And some of the arguments have nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not (evolution leading to immorality was one of the issues listed there....whether that is true or not has no bearing on the validity of evolution as a scientific theory)

Answer 4

I read it just now. Some new information there.
I am a person of faith and do believe that a 'God' created the cosmos, but I also have no doubt that micoevolution is not only possible but plausible...and there is a whole lot of evidence to support this. Macroevolution is even supported on many levels, but it doesn't actually conlict with my belief in God.
I do believe that religion and science can cooexist. For many it does.

Answer 5

You know, lovely as wiki is for the odd thing, there's a reason that schools and universities will give you a zero if you use it (I am honestly not lying, I have been told this by my professors and seen students fall afoul of it). And I can tell you to them it means bull how well argued it is, you've got to read and verify their sources yourself. (This is also the reason that a good deal of student reports say supporting literature rather than a book title, they don't want to fall afoul of the no wiki rule).

Answer 6

I've read it. There really aren't any claims listed there that haven't already been refuted. And even the things that the theory of evolution can't explain, aren't proof (or even evidence) for any sort of magical, invisible, super-being.

Answer 7

Not really that interesting considering all the "objections" are dealt with and shown that scientifically, they aren't really objections.

Answer 8

It looks like a good source of refutations to creationist objections.

It helps that I read quickly!

Answer 9

On any controversial topic, I avoid wikipedia. Even on non-controversial topics, it's gone way down hill. Wikipedia was a good way to research information years ago, when only nerdy people knew about it.

Answer 10

it think its important to note, that it states quite clearly that

"...nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources."

that says it all, really.