Creation V.S. Evolution?

Question

I always hear people say that there isn’t enough proof to support evolution. Well, how much proof is out there that supports creationism?
And no bible quotes please, I have heard enough of those.

Answer 1

The only "evidence" I've heard of creationism have been attempts to disprove evolution.

Answer 2

The problem is that many people are just exposed to the tip of the iceberg regarding creation and evolution. When one really dives into the topic of creation and looks beyond the tip they find out that it is full of scientific proof and evidence. The opposite is true for evolution. When a person really dives into it they find that it is noting more than a shaky and an unproven theory. All it takes is an open mind willing to look under the surface of common presumptions. This is the way and the only way to find the true story, finding out the truth yourself because what people give you is just the tip of an iceberg.

I recently heard of a program called "Out of Thin Air" coming up Sept. 28 (see www.thinairevent.com) that is supposed to discuss this issue. Sounds like something worth listening to.

Answer 3

I am a Christian and don't support that Creation OR Macro
Evolution be taught in science! The controversy can
be reviewed, but both views are more philosophy than
science, otherwise there would not be so much attention
to those here on the religion and spirituality section!
Macro evolution is too highly regarded for what it
really is in science and needs to be taught more
truthfully in the classroom. It is given way much more
credit than it deserves as science. I have no
problem with micro evolution - there is evidence for
that - no conflicts - let philosophy be in philosophy class
for crying out loud!

Answer 4

Why don't you try to update the question? How would you like to say. "I.D. vs. macroevolution"?

The problem in your question is that the term 'evolution' may mean different things to different people. All creationists accept variation within a species (e.g. the various breeds of dogs).

The problem is that evolutionists have used data from microevolution to EXTRAPOLATE macroevolution. And secondly, there is a problem with semantics: in Darwin's days, a theory meant theoretical; today, a scientific theory is something completely different. At what point did Darwin's theoretical theory become a scientific theory?

Answer 5

I once heard it put best this way by a scientist:

To believe that evolution alone could give us the world we have today is the same as believing a hurricane blowing through a junk yard full of airplane parts could blow together a complete, finished airplane.

Evolution happens, as someone above stated, it can be seen all around us as viruses mutate and take on new forms. But to say that evolution contradicts creation is not necessarily so. The circumstances through which we started required so much “chance” that I, for one, am not above believing a divine hand gave us a little nudge to get us started.

Answer 6

Looking at it from a completely scientific standpoint, there is lots and lots of evidence for evolution. It is one of the strongest theories there are. To not accept it is about the same as not accepting circuit theory of electricity. Creationism has no basis in science or scientific evidence, therefor it is not in the scientific discussion.

Answer 7

How about the idea that creation and evolution both carry truths with them that need to blend and the false notions in each need to fade away? I think this makes more sense than being totally at odds with each other because both things DO make a lot of sense each in their own various ways.

This book helps to reconcile those things:

http://www.urantia.org/papers/toc.html

I think proof of a lot of things is still to be discovered and that the search is unfinished.

Answer 8

Great question, Paul. It seems to me that most christians have absolutely no idea what SCIENCE is all about... never mind evolution.

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There are a few important things that people should know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA does NOT evolve... it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest'... a term invented by a British newspaperman... NOT a scientist... is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of 'natural election'. It implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share... killing off the weaker members of your own kind. But what 'natural selection REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... the ability of an animal to run slightly faster than his neighbor, so that it's the neighbor that gets caught and eaten by the predator... not him... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time)... NOT the organisms themselves. The foolish cartoon-version of evolution that christian/creationist puppet-masters describe to their flocks is pretty much one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.... lies such as "Evolutionists claim that an ape gave birth to the first human."

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.


I notice that kaboodle goes on a rant about 'macroevolution'. NEWS FLASH: microevolution and macroevolution are NOT scientific terms... there is only 'evolution'. Those terms were invented by creationists so that they could acknowledge the most OBVIOUS features of evolution... so as to not appear TOTALLY stupid... yet still have enough wiggle-room to bamboozle their constituency with lies, misdirection and pseudoecience.

.

Answer 9

What more proof of evolution do people need than watching it happen? We can observe evolution. There is no question that it is a fact of nature.

Answer 10

Look at the evolution of the motor car and draw your own conclutions.