Can evolution be considered credible "science"?

Question

When you consider historical claims such as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and then have frauds like Haekel modify drawings and add fish gills to embryos to justify his fuhrer's "ethnic cleansing". When vestigal organs once claimed as useless (such as the appendix) are later found to have a legitimate function. When "apemen" such as Nebraska man (pig tooth), Piltdown man (hoax based on human skullcap and orangutan's jaw), and Ramapithecus (extinct orangutan) are presented as missing links. Makes me wonder what else evolutionists are trying to pass as reliable science.

Answer 1

Surpirsing that everyone answering in defence of evolution hasn't given you a clear cut answer but instead replied with a "dont even get me started"

Clearly if you cant spell can you explain to me, how in the world, you would be able to defend your position?

Answer 2

So you read some book by Phillip Johnson or Jonathan Wells. Congratulations. All you've proven is that you consciously select biased literature to reassure your preexisting beliefs.

Sexually-reproducing parents produce offspring who resemble them, but are not clones. Furthermore, offspring will occasionally show a random difference apparently not inherited from either parent. Hence variation in successive generations. An observed fact. All theories start out as a hypothesis, or set of hypotheses, intended to explain observed facts. When the hypothesis is able to make predictions about unobserved phenomena that are later observed, it is considered a scientific theory. The theory of natural selection says that some variations will give organisms a reproductive edge against others in its generation. Since heredity is an observed fact, this variation will become more prevalent in future generations. That's the only "leap of faith" required. It's not a difficult pill to swallow, and it's really rather obvious. Now, we understand the mechanism is genetic, and that random differences are random mutations in a sequence of DNA (which is the only means of variation in asexually-reproducing species).

Answer 3

You cannot denegrate a philosophy or theory based on random hoaxes. Do we toss out the Christian faith simply because some overly zealous believers planted "relics" where they ought not to be?

I am a Christian biology teacher and have spent years of my life studying both sides of the issue.

Yes, evolution is a valid science with thousands of dedicated scientists who have devoted much time and effort to study it.
Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater here: The ideas of natural selection, DNA similarities and embryology are indeed well-tested and validified.

There are many fossils in collections today that are legitimate and have not been glued together!

Please spend some time reading books about fossils, glaciers, and natural selection. Those are good topics to get you started. You may be surprised to see that the great flood is involved in some of this.

Be discerning when it comes to your sources. When you read an internet article debunking "hoaxes" are these actual scientists, or are they people writing opinions based on other people's writing? (Search for Primary Sources only.)

Answer 4

Actually carbon-14 dating is quite accurate as long as the samples aren't contaminated. In the example of sea shells, a "wet" site can transfer carbon from the water into the sample.

As for evolution, regardless of the hoaxes perpetrated by a few, there is still enough evidence to support it. One can actually see evolution in process with bacteria. In just the past few decades, many bacteria have evolved to become drug resistant.

Answer 5

Yes. Creationists discovered none of these. It was the scientists who evaluated the evidence critically and rejected it.

The fact that Haekel died in 1919 indicates the he was not trying to support Nazi efforts. Thank you for showing that you have no interest in the truth. You are a typical Creationist.

Answer 6

Evolution is a scientific theory. Science is to be understood, not to be believed in. There is no such thing as "credible science". If you have enough evidence, you can overturn any scientific theory.

Answer 7

You probably don't understand evoulution. This is how it works:
Evolution doesn't claim that animals can change from one to another. It also doesn't claim that a single living cell just popped into existence. It happens in easy stages. Maybe just 2 molecules came together by chance, at first, and they worked better than the loose ones, so they stayed that way. Then, maybe a million years later, a third one bumped into them, and that worked better, so it stayed. That's natural selection. It may be chance that brings them together, but once they were together, it's not chance anymore. So the key proteins were formed, bit by bit. When one combination produced life, it was only a little step- but it worked better, so it kept on, and made copies of its self. Then came mutations. You may say that almost all mutations are bad. But those bad ones die. If one in a thousand mutations makes something better, than that's what survives. It just keeps going, getting better, because the worse ones either die or are less competitive.

Answer 8

Can Creationists be considered credible "christians" when they continually misrepresent and lie?

Nebraska man was never presented as a "missing link" by scientists - it was drawn as an ape by a newspaper artist! etc etc etc. All uncovered by scientists (ie "evolutionists").

Answer 9

Do you really want to me to list all the frauds committed in the name of "Christianity?" Just as a few bad Christians doesn't make all Christians bad, a few bad scientist isn't a reason to toss out the whole theory. Further, it was other SCIENTIST in the field that discovered those frauds. Science, by its very nature, roots out deception.

Answer 10

The next time you hear about a flu vaccine, you should go and tell the doctors how that doesn't work because evolution has false science. I am guessing those doctors will laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

Answer 11

You've done some homework and that's nice.

For your next assignment, look up Karl Popper and the scientific method. You may find that "science" as we know it didn't exist when all of the things you mentioned occurred.

But I still give you an A for effort. Keep asking questions!