Creation vs. Evolution; WHO should we believe?

Question

You might think this question should be phrased, “What” not “who” (should we believe.) I know that the "What" question has been posted. This question is different and my purpose is simple; to find out WHO is a more reliable source of information… so...

WHO should we be most inclined to believe…
…Scientists or Bible-Belt fundamentalists?

Answer 1

This is an interesting an elucidating question, because it focuses on the validity of opinion, not the argument itself. It is the same proven premise in law concerning witness-reliability and expert testimony.
We must always ask validating questions such as:
Is this testimony believable?
Who makes these statements?
What is their motivation?
Where do they get their information?
When did they make these conclusions?
Why would they say these things?
Can we test these opinions?
Have any of these opinions been verified by other reliable sources?

Like good investigative journalists or jurors, we must assemble the answers to all those questions before we trust an opinion. In short, WHO should we believe?

In the matter of creationism (or its new euphemistic pseudonym, “intelligent design”) we have two basic opposing groups: A VAST majority of educated scientists and laymen from all walks of life, every culture and race who are pro-evolution, Versus, a tiny minority of the world’s population; particularly Christian fundamentalists in the Southern USA. (an area also known as “the bible belt”)

In the case for evolution, we have one-hundred percent of all real scientists. By “real” scientists, I mean, people who are trained in critical thinking, scientific method, (mathematics, physics, biology, medicine etc,) and have received degrees from bonified educational institutions. Real scientists earn their living performing scientific experiments, making observations and predictions. Real scientist publish their theories and findings in peer reviewed journals for examination by other scientists.

Scientists start with wondering, make hypotheses, design experiments, make observations and record their results in a form that others can test through empirical procedures. They do not make conclusions until they have enough facts to support them. Even when they have a plausible theory, they still call it a “theory,” indicating that; as a group, scientists are open-minded to changing their opinions in light of new facts.

Then their conclusions must pass rigorous peer review by other educated trained scientists. After that, these conclusions are further tested for validity by producing new products, procedures and techniques. Other scientists actively try to disprove theories. A theory must stand up to repeated assaults on its validity through manifold experiments. After a theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, through multiple scientific disciplines, by many scientists, then we can safely regard any such “theory” as a fact.

For a scientific theory to be considered a “fact” it must have a record of producing repeatable, verifiable, predictions and observations. It doesn’t matter if that theory is about quantum theory, relativity or the big-bang. We can place our trust in those who’s only cause is discovering facts. That those facts produce consistently positive results that everyone can see makes their testimony even more believable.

The discovery of DNA does much more than just provide irrefutable evidence in murder cases. It proves irrefutably that our ancestors and ALL SPECIES of life evolved.

According to ALL real scientists, and every educated layman, evolution is a fact. There is abundant modern evidence for evolution, all of which has been thoroughly tested MANY times.

Then, there are the creationists…
They start with a conclusion; namely, that we and everything we see were “created” by a mysterious invisible being. That conclusion came, not from any scientific observation, but rather from ancient superstitious beliefs. The Christian mythology of creation was invented before literacy or the printing press, even before civilization. The current Christian creation myths are only slightly more recent. They are a direct plagiarization of ancient Pagan mythologies regarding the Sun and its seasonal movements and come from nearly two thousand years ago.

All the creationist’s arguments, are simply that; arguments. They are not supported by evidence of any kind, nor do they come from any useful, modern, or even reliable source of information. They are strictly anecdotal such as “stories of hellfire.”

In some cases, creationists fabricate false evidence like those artless fake footprints at the creation museum in Texas. There are some creationists who also deny the holocaust too.

Check out televangelist talk-show genius, Reverend Ricky. He tells us that “Hitler was a evolutionist,” presumably to insinuate that those who believe in evolution are like Hitler.

Rev. Ricky is a prime example of a creationist that refuses to hear facts. His argument is also a good example of an ad-hominim attack. (attacking the person, not the subject)

Not coincidentally, his attack is based on a lie. You can see his retardation here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1604234020658296238

In other cases, famous creationists or their followers use illegal and unethical tactics to silence critics; Kent Hovind being a perfect example. This kind of activity always piques the interest of a jury or judge.
Falsifying evidence is “perjury;” the legal term for “lying to a jury.”
Silencing opposing witnesses indicates fraud or guilt.
Using anecdotal or “hearsay” evidence is also a sign of lying.

Creationists make “scientific looking” displays, complete with unscientific commentary and videos. It is difficult to believe that they could waste twenty-seven million dollars producing such excrement. But if you don’t believe me, check out this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2503168616799366379

Famous Creationist Kent Hovind is not above theater either. He likes to recount the tale of his personal visit to hell… no, I’m not kidding. He even got someone to produce a mini-movie of the event with some really good makeup effects, probably left-over from a high budget Hollywood horror flick. The demon is really cool!

You can see the dramatic recreation of Hovind’s visit to hell here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1517855145808055538&q=southern+baptist&total=321&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

This may seem prejudicial, because it is. Many of the Creationists I have heard speak, are morons. Really. Just listen to them. If you have an ironic sense of humor and can tolerate it, listen to twenty or so Creationists video clips on You Tube. Here are a couple…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403390162861460305&q=creationist+rant&total=74&start=0&num=10&so=3&type=search&plindex=8

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5802555842945762219

Their grammar, malapropisms and “down-home” dialects always smack of stupidity and ignorance, no matter what kind of suit they wear or haircut they have. It isn’t surprising that Creationists cluster in the deep South, home of bigotry, slavery, lynch-mobs and incest. Texas seems to be a stronghold of creationism. Not surprisingly, the modern world’s most infamous dictator claims to hail from there too. Here he is displaying his “faith” to a Southern Baptist congregation via closed-circuit link…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2651443750341919427&q=southern+baptist&total=332&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

Now THAT is frightening! Association with criminals is never a good sign.

Furthermore, all creationists get their information based on a single literary work that is full of contradictions and demonstrable fiction.

The best argument for “Who” to believe comes from this man, at the grand opening of the “Creation Museum”.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2503168616799366379

For me, and any other literate individual who can think, the choice of “who” to believe is obvious.

When people rationalize without reason, argue without facts, misinterpret data, contradict facts, ignore evidence, falsify evidence, have little or no scientific education or present anecdotal hearsay as evidence, we can be sure their ideas are bogus.

When thousands of unbiased trained scientists ALL agree, that opinion is trustworthy.

Answer 2

I still find it laughable that people consider gaps in knowledge as irrefutable evidence that the theory of evolution is so flawed it should be dismissed, whilst bowing and scraping to an entity whose existence can only be proved on a "the bible says so" basis.

No single body of evidence exists that can fully explain the origins of life, the universe and everything, and whilst the speed of light remains an insurmountable obstacle, it is impossible to gain much more insight into the early universe other than probabilities based on mathematical equations.

The evolution of various life forms can be pretty much proven over certain periods and in certain circumstances - certainly species wide adaptations have been well documented. The gaps in our knowledge may be simply filled in, filled in with entirely new and unconsidered "proof" - or remain gaps in the future. That's why we keep looking.

The dolt who asked why there are still monkeys really ought not to bother with this sort of question without understanding it. Although it was good for a giggle.

Interestingly, in law, the amount of evidence required for a reasonably held belief is considerably less than the amount of evidence required for a final decision (beyond all reasonable doubt). I know which one I'd rather be convicted on the strength of - or should we go back to burning heretics and witches, too?

Answer 3

You should believe whoever gives you the most rational and properly referenced answer to the question of evolution.

Thus you should not base your opinion on your inclination but on a sound and rational process - something that appears to be disappearing from our society these days as people become less able to discriminate between logic, fact, conspiracy and misinformation.

I struggle to argue against the weight of evidence from 200-300 years of documented science from many diverse fields when this is pitted against a single book with little or no provable content or sources.

I guess it all comes down to a matter of faith rather than science for some people.

**EDIT**
To those who say that evolution is not proven, I would say that there is great weight of evidence that tends to support this, rather than any other, theory. How much evidence is required to make a theory proven?

PS. I also see no problem in being a Christian and a scientist.

Answer 4

"Could it not be that the people who believe in god creating the universe just left off a couple of zeros?" If only their mistakes were so superficial. But no, they believe most scientific fields are wrong. And that is why I think evolution is the closest to the truth. Because there are mountains of evidence to back it up, and none for the creation story.

Answer 5

It is not a question of belief. Scientists do not ask anyone to believe their personal testimonies or beliefs. They present evidence, and argue from that evidence. And the evidence that can be presented of evolution is mountainous, from biology, anatomy, comparative anatomy, zoology, especially comparative genetics, and from palaeontology.
Creationists have nothing to present at all except desperate straw man and god-of-the-gaps arguments, completely lacking in sound logic.

The answer below is an excellent example. I HAVE read Genesis, have you? Anyone actually reading it with an open mind can see it is a confabulation of two different and contradictory creation myths.

And the monkey question is classic straw-man. Evolution does not say that monkeys evolved into man. We share a common ancestor with modern monkeys. Far from being a smart question that stumps evolutionists, that old saw just reveals your own ignorance of evolution!

Answer 6

Trick question!
99.9% of everybody with a deeply held opinion is wrong in some way, regardless of them wearing a crucifix or a white coat. Dawkins only gets away with it by ignoring his fundamentally flawed approach, that all scientists who got it wrong should be forgotten about as science is much better now. Whereas any churchman who gets anything wrong must be held up and pilloried. Fair balance - not!

The other "trick " to your question, leaving aside individual error, is suggesting that either side has got it right. Why believe either? They are almost certainly both wrong, history would suggest.

The truth (as nearly as we will ever understand it) may well lie between them, that a prime mover (which we call God) created a universe of matter with set characteristics and then set it going, using random mutation and evolution as the toolset to deal with that tiny fragment of creation that we refer to as "life".

Cheers, Steve.
PS I will answer the trick question anyway. The process of competition and random mutation we refer to as "Evolution" is proven enough to be acceptable as the nearest approach to truth, so on that one follow the scientists.

Answer 7

Believe none, because no one really understand the nature of things. Believe me, there are enough people around who have a higher IQ than Dawkins. Biologists are not the one's who can settle this issue. You have to look at a much smaller or detailed level to get an idea about the place where we live. Read David Deutsch's Fabric of reality.

Answer 8

Monkeys fill a niche, why shouldn't there be monkeys...?Just a different branch that.

And believe what you choose. People spend so much time trying to sway others to their side in this matter, it's a waste of time. There are flaws in both, at some point you yourself have to come to your own conclusion.

Answer 9

I don't see why you can't believe both. Why coulnd't things have been created and then gone on to evolve? People who believe in evolution don't know how we got here- that can be explained by creation. The two theories can coexist.

Answer 10

It is a personal chioce, but facts are facts, and I don't see any facts to support the Adam and Eve theory. I find it i laughable that people do believe thats how we came to be, but hey each to their own. Scientists

Answer 11

I won't tell you what I believe in, but here is my advice...
Don't be a sheep- look into both. Research and read articles on both points of view; you'll learn a lot! And when you've done that, I think you'll have a pretty good guess as to whom you should believe.