Evolution : How can you deny Science If you've taken time to understand it?

Question

I understand there are people who deny evolution. In the same way, do these people deny the major findings of Geology, Astronomy and Physics too? After all, like all the sciences, they are inextricably linked.
Scientists spend their lives in the study of genetics only to have vast swathes of the population tell them everything they have discovered is rubbish. I heard on the news recently that a judge wants everyone in the UK to have their DNA profile on a database. I presume the evolution deniers will refuse on the grounds that DNA doesn’t exist??!!
My question was "How can you deny Science If you've taken time to understand it?" By this I mean, those who deny the findings of biologists are doing so blindly, having clearly not taken the time to learn and understand.

Dr John,
How can you be right? A Scientist who lies is disproved by another Scientist. That’s what science is!

Slayer,
Evolution remains an unproven theory? Try listening. Evolution remains a testable scientific model capable of explaining interaction of natural phenomina and predicting future occurances. Just like all the other scientific theories like gravity, relativity etc… If one single observation was able to disprove evolution, it would be disregarded and would no longer be a theory.

Perciever,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification

Mark185,
Can you recommend further reading on this new science of creation? Theories? tested models? research?

Emos.dnt.always.cut,
Thank you for illustrating my point. Education is the key to all understanding; try it, you may like it.

SirWilliam,
If you accept the theory of evolution, why do you have to deny god?

Answer 1

Darwin did do some great work for science. Masses of society and science have focused soley on this evolution theory. It is not an answer for where life came from it answers what has been happening after life got here. The birds he observed were not created in those specific environments. They adapted to their environment. Darwin's theory is a theory of adaptation not the source of life.

Answer 2

I am a creationist. As many other creationists I accept science upheld by the scientific method and also the biblical record which is in harmony with that. I have never met or heard of a creationist who does not believe in science.

If you have not personally studied the evidences that are presented on both sides of the evolution and creation controversy within the last 10 years then you are missing so much information and facts. The overall textbook presentations of mainstream evolution are outdated and in error. Only natural selection is observed by observation.
The scientific Field of Biology shows us that the Law of Bio Genesis (where only life can produce life) is true and invalidates evolutionary concepts of origins. How can people accept the false evolutionary belief that life could originate from non-life when that has never been observed to happen. What this boils down to is that to believe in main stream evolution you have to disregard some of the field of biology with it's law of Bio Genesis. Who are the ones rejecting science here? It's not the creationists. There are more examples of this kind of thing but I have written enough considering that a lot of people may not even read my post.

Answer 3

Well,let me see?If I am reading your comment right,it would seem that u r taking the stance of science over GOD.I took courses in school 4 science.I've seen the experiments,heard the lectures,seen the fossils,etc,etc,etc.I can't say that I understand it all,but I do know that THE BIBLE is more true that science ever will be.If anything,if more scientists were honest with the outcome of there findings.They would have to admit that there is a GOD.Yet,they need to push themselves to prove to the world that science is there true god.What they seem to over look is the fact that GOD has said,IN THE BIBLE that he has given us mysteries,and I believe that there r scientists out there that r saying,wow look at us.We have put these giant telescopes into space to see galaxies that we had never dreamed were out there,millions,billions of them.We have put men on the moon.We have gone deep under the waters of the earth,and found new species of life.Yet these simple minded men,and u will have to excuse the pun,always overlook the fact that it is GOD who formed them from the dust of the earth.It is GOD who has given them the mind to reach out as they have and become inquisitive.These same scientist need to know these things,just as the rest of us seek 4 understanding about this world.Why,because GOD has implanted it into ALL of the HUMAN RACE.U will never find anything more complex than the human mind.Yet ask a scientist,or better yet a Neurologist why the brain is so complex?Because it is a recorder of our entire life,and it can do so many things at one time.As for Evolution,I would rather take the facts,there r only a small amount of scientists who will truly come forward and say they believe in EVOLUTION.As for what this person has said about us not taking the time to learn and understand science.I would say that he has been reading the wrong books.Why don't u take the time to read the BIBLE,it will open your eyes to things that u have never thought were possible.U will find that THE BIBLE goes right along with scientific fact,but not Evolution.That was thrown out the window with Darwin,although there r some old proffessors out there that just keep teaching it b/c they don't want to change.

Answer 4

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone actually cares about science? That some people (like myself) find it rather boring and have better things to study? That not all people believe science is a "god" to be worshipped as you seem to think?

Oh, and about that judge who wants everyone in the UK to have their DNA on a database? Personally, I'd tell him to kiss my ***. I wouldn't care what that idiot wanted. I suppose all the Brits are going to dutifully bow down to this idiot and comply? What's next? The House of Commons mandating that all Brits must eat a banana every day of the week? Where's a Guy Fawkes when you need him, eh?

Answer 5

It's not that evolution skeptics deny science. You might say they interpret it differently than the mainstream. I'd agree that the guys who claim the earth is 6000 years old are a little over the top.

On the other hand, it's interesting that you mention DNA. Say what you like about science and evolution but nobody has ever whipped up a batch of DNA in the lab. Nobody has observed abiogenesis -- nobody has seen a living cell which did not come from another living cell. Makes you wonder what the first living cell evolved from. I know the theory as well as you do but science is about facts and nobody has proven that life evolved from self-replicating molecules. In that sense evolution is still a bit speculative.

Answer 6

Most religious people do not have a strong faith, no matter what they say or would like to believe. And faith and logic do not blend well. When questioned what certain points of their religion seem illogical, the only real defense they can muster is that they 'do not possess the wisdom or knowledge of God.'

Now, that being said, it is hard for people to want to delve into something that, on the surface, seems to contradict their weak faith. It may not take much to rock their foundation and collapse their world, so instead of seeking truth, they blindly deny that which they choose to avoid.

The truth is, both religion and science can exist side by side. The theory of evolution can work with the idea of a divine, intelligent creator. But most people are too scared to find out how those two could be linked.

Evolution is not really that complex. It basically states that a species most suited to an environment will continue to breed and outbreed weaker species, therefore slowly changing the type of species that is abundant in that area. Now who's to say that God didn't help this along? He's provided us with an entire universe based on rules and laws, why wouldn't he want the appearance of man on earth to seem scientifically logical?

What bothers me most are the people on this forum who don't take the time to TRULY understand that which seems to oppose them. The two can work together. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DENY GOD!

Answer 7

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth.

Answer 8

Why do we teach a theory as fact in our public schools. And we dont allow any other so called theories to be presented. This is a problem thats creating mindless children that wont think for themselves. Sorry if you want to believe you are a descendent of an ape go ahead. Just dont declare it as a fact to my children and this countryies children.
You dont like us pushing religion on you. But I think evolutionists are the ones pushing there religion on our youth.

Answer 9

they're maximum of contradictions right here. First sentence: many of the scientific fields have been invented by ability of scientists. Wow, i does not have guessed! "the shown fact that the earth revolved on it extremely is axis's replaced into not got here across by ability of Copernicus yet he replaced into taught it in Christian faculties (says some thing HUH?)" As for Copernicus, sure. He did learn in a non secular college. regrettably the church went directly to restrict all of his books and did not include heliocentrism until into the 18th and nineteenth century "Dr. Rodney Stark, Professor of sociology and comparative religions on the Univ. of Washington researched finest scientists from 1543 to 1680 and found that of the right fifty two, one replaced right into a skeptic, one a pantheist and 50 have been Christians, 30 of whom could desire to be characterised as non secular through fact of their zeal." even even with the undeniable fact that technological know-how replaced into primitive and maximum of the human beings did not have info that refutes the Bible. Wow... "Small ask your self for they have got here across in bacteria a recommendations-boggling array of state-of-the-paintings machines and computers mild years earlier than our very own. So scientists publicly deny clever layout exists, yet verify evolution, which they be attentive to to be fake through fact to admit layout and deny evolution is to commit academic and occupation suicide" So he admitted it while it replaced into public suicide? properly then he isn't clever sufficient to be a scientist. "So if a molecular biologist believes evolution is fake and so do Christians why do you nonetheless argue it extremely is actual, and say Christians deny technological know-how while we needless to say back it up?" to not burst your bubble, yet your info does not prepare that. The Bible helps creationism, and additionally you back what the Bible says. very nearly all scientists have faith in evolution, your info is one individual. you have not have been given any debate skills Franshuda- the reality you have not have been given any source tells me some thing. besides that, do you be attentive to what share scientists there are? That replaced into possibly a hundred. a hundred out of hundreds of thousands of scientists. super!!

Answer 10

As a physicist, how do biologists get off preaching natural selection as FACT with no evidence supporting the MILLIONS OR BILLIONS of POSITIVE mutations required since statistically almost all significant mutations either:

1. Leave the organism sterile

-or-

2. Kill the organism


FACT:
MOST mutations HARM the organism rather than benefit it.

The U.S. National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health has this statement in its web page:

"A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a beneficial mutation could result in a protein that protects the organism from a new strain of bacteria." http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders?show=all

OK, duckie, natural selection MUST happen one organism at a time... unless some external "event" changes the DNA of an entire population exactly the same way all at once. (Incredibly unlikely) Natural selection exhibits when a child is somehow "better adapted" than its parents... THAT IS A SINGLE ORGANISM CHANGE. It is not a change in a population, but 1 generation. Natural selection theorizes that billions of these minor positive mutations happened in successive generations.

I did not say an organism evolves or DNA evolves. I didn't use any form of the word "evolve." I was discussing specifically POSITIVE MUTATIONS, of the type REQUIRED BY THE MILLION for natural selection to be true. I included a paragraph and posted a link for the page where it was found at NIH on the relative frequency of positive and negative mutations.

"Changes in the gene pool of populations" are of necessity micro-evolution which is a valid scientific FACT. Changes aka mutations WHICH CREATE NEW POPULATIONS are necessary for natural selection to be true, otherwise all living things would represent variations within a single species (or whatever group of species were "created spontaneously" since only "natural selection" is able to create a NEW SPECIES, "drift" cannot). That is where Darwin's natural selection fails. The incredible statistical IMprobability has literally pages of leading zeros before the first significant figure. I have seen estimates with orders of magnitude between 1E-10,000 and 1E-100,000,000. (That is a decimal followed by 9,999 zeros to 99,999,999 zeros before the first non-zero digit)

... The paragraph I cited from NIH confirms the "one generation/organism at a time nature of NS. The second sentence is essentially a defining statement for natural selection: "These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help AN ORGANISM and its FUTURE GENERATIONS better adapt to changes in their environment." (Only those mutations which are inheritable work for NS, since a sterile organism (as is often the case with mutant or hybrid organisms) or a mutation which cannot be inherited do not impact future generations.)