Many creationists do not even know what evolution means?

Question

Who believes that evolution means the origin of life from nothing (or dirt, etc)???

I asked a question about creation being in a science class.

Many people think evolution is something from nothing.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070928132453AAqw9n7&r=w

matthew p: aye aye aye: the evolution folk don't think anything about it. there's not enough evidence. evolutionary biologists study evolution of one organism into another, not the origin of life. it's a different branch of science

angelpurplewing: you are 'in science' which means you are not a scientist. especially if you say there is no evidence for it.

jesusaves: HIV

oldguy: who said i took a stand against god? the two can go together.

brothermichael: This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

evolution is what came from the single source, not how the single source came about.

ejc: thanks for pointing that out.

Answer 1

Evolution only rests on four things:

1) That all organisms have the capability to reproduce;

2) That genetic mutations can occur;

3) That mutations that don't kill an organism can be transferred through a population according to natural selection forces;

4) And that the changes in allele frequencies in a population can cause speciation.

That's it. That and nothing else. Nothing about life origins. Nothing about the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being.

Edit: Thanks...I meant to add some other comments, but had to leave for the evening. That was simply meant to set straight what the theory of evolution *really* is. I try and try to get creationists to see the simplicity and reality and evidence and fact of it, but they choose to remain willfully ignorant.

You're right. Creation can't be in a science class, because it is not science. Science starts with no presumptions. Creation starts with a whopper of one. Evolution can be tested scientifically; creation can't (unless God were to stand before a crowd and say "Look, see what I can do!").

I would be willing to bet that those creationists that are willing to actually find out what evolution really is won't accept it anyway, since faith is more about passion than reason, and it's tough to reason with those that hold faithfully to illogical beliefs (when you wrestle with pigs, you only get dirty...)

Answer 2

Rejecting (or arguing against) specific details within evolution does not mean rejecting science in its totality but rejecting scientific method does. In my experience many creationists are as ignorant of science and scientific method as they are about what evolution actually is and says. In this way they impicitely reject science by not knowing (or not wanting to know) anything about it, in much the same way that they implicitely reject all other belief systems other than christianity (note that science is not a belief system but christians often claim it is and treat it as such, perhaps because it makes it easier to deal with). Apologies and I don't mean to offend but this is actually quite well illustrated by your emphasising the word THEORY above which probably means you think the use of this word means the theory of evolution is just speculative and can be dismissed as nothing more than a set of ideas. I suggest you have a quick read of the article in the link below in which case you will realise that by emphasising this word you are not pointing out how weak the theory of evolution is, you are just broadcasting your own lack of knowledge.

Answer 3

But isn't ignoring the origination of life something like an Ostrich sticking its head in the ground. And If evolution just ignores the issue why to you take such a hard nosed stand against Christians for believing there is a God.You have no answer to the issue but sure object when someone else suggests a possible answer.

Answer 4

Evolution is a theory, NOT a proven fact. Many things evolve over time, but in this case, evolution has nothing to do with creation. The Bible has stood the test of time, and many events in history correspond to the writings in the Bible. Archaeological findings also substantiate the writings. So, to me, the Bible is 100% believable, starting with the story of creation.

Answer 5

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.
- Carl Sagan

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason
- Benjamin Franklin

Evolution IS hotly debated in scientific circles - not all scientists research into cancer. The evidence for evolution is considerable - evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a model of a set of circumstances or system which fits all known facts.

Creationists habitually blur the theories of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution into one confused muddle because they lack clear thinking and the concept of the vast expanses of time over which these events took place. Their concept is based on a "devine big bang" about 6,000 years ago where everything suddenly popped into existence just because an imaginery being who had existed for billions of years up until then with nothing to play with suddenly got bored and decided to create a toy called the Earth.

Answer 6

"Lawrence Lerner is a Skeptic and a retired professor of condensed matter physics. His recent report, supposedly on US State science teaching, has grabbed news headlines for its grades of all 50 state curricula. One would think that an assessment of ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no, these ‘science teaching’ grades are based solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.

Ten states scored ‘A’, meaning (in Lerner’s opinion) ‘Treatment of evolution is very good or excellent’; the grades drop as evolution is treated less dogmatically, while one state (Kansas) received an ‘F-’ for allegedly ‘removing all references to biological evolution’. As documented below, Lerner’s report contains much in the way of rhetoric and logical fallacies and little of real science of the type that put men on the moon, cures diseases, etc.

Definitions as slippery as eels

It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. Without this, any discussion is meaningless, so this must be addressed before anything else. And this is a major failing with Lerner’s paper — he never defines ‘evolution’ and he doesn’t use the term consistently.

The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

However, many many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

For example, Lerner writes:
‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’

Also, throughout Lerner’s paper are concepts that students should know. However, many of them are simply examples of change over time, so are not disputed by creationists. But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

*All living things reproduce.
*Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
*Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
*There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
*Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

What is the real problem with evolution?

The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution). The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus). Nothing in Lerner’s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single example of functional new information being added. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE.

Equivocation must be exposed for what it is. Once ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics by evolutionists are exposed, most of their ‘scientific’ case for the GTE collapses.

Answer 7

It's sad. They think evolution should be just a simple as creationism is. But it can't be because there's evidence for it and mechanisms that drive it. It's not as simple as some supreme being snapping his fingers to create life, the universe and everything.

how many evolutionists actually know what creationism means??
Six days, he created the universe and everything else, oh and it was GOOD, 7th day he rested..it's that simple..it's that stupid.

Answer 8

Something from nothing was once called spontaneous generation. Until Mendel it was thought that flies grew out of rotting meat.

That wasn't so long ago.

Yes, many creationists are longing for the stupid easy answers.

Evolution and the spans of time it makes you consider, are a bit too much for people who believe in magic boats and men on clouds.

Answer 9

They have NO interest in hearing or learning anything about what the theory of evolution actually says. They want to debate it, but not educate themselves about what it is they're debating.

Answer 10

Why do you think this is just creationists? Evolutionists believe it too. This just shows that it is possible that both are right. The Bible says man was created in God's image not that man was created as he appears today. Think on that one.