Does science support evolution?

Question

From Science Digest: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

A former evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Secular scientist Richard Milton said, "Darwinism has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts."

I can keep going and going and going...

Just the answers I was expecting. And I'm called "closed minded" because I'm a Christian. Open mindedness is something lacking from both sides of the issue.

Answer 1

For evolution to become real one evolutionist believer must take the word of an evolutionist scientist. And then they have to dismiss or ignore the thought that the evolutionist scientist could make a mistake in labeling their finds/proofs which are clouded with their own belief system. I could find a bone and say, "Hey, this is the missing link!", and use "scientific terms" to back it up...it actually misleads people all the time. An uneducated of course wouldn't understand scientific terms and so so they just have to take the word of the evolutionist scientist. And then yrs. later, with more advance technology, they would eventually find out that the find/proof is actually a bone of a man with a decease that it disfugured his bones...it happened on Lucy. I was making a point, it was just so hard to explain.

Answer 2

and going, and going and going.....

...but all you'll prove is that there are scientists who believe that current science is still as of yet incomplete in it's explanation of how life comes to be from matter--a claim that I don't know that any creditable scientist would deny. (Actually, Darwinism, per se, has given way to more modern ideas of evolutionary biology and organic chemistry--hence the pointlessness of "intelligent design's" most unimpressive attacks on Darwins theories. If they want to really try and disprove modern science, they should grapple with modern evolutionary biologists like Dawkins and try to discredit his oppinions.)

That science is not "absolutist" in it's positions on anything is to be expected--it is NOT a religion, therefore it only claims to know anything about things which can be verified through direct observation via the scientific method. And indeed science has made many advancements in various fields since man's earliest attempts at scientific inquiry-- the next time you go to a doctor, or use a computer you might actually remind yourself of that fact!

Incidentally, one of the leading doctors in the field of cancer research, still openly refutes the existance of HIV and AIDS--guess that shows that lots of otherwise "impressively credited" scientists and researchers hold views which do not concur with the overall concensus of other experts in the same fields.

You raise a good point but, I still think that you are not looking at the bigger picture. Keep looking and perhaps one day you'll see what I mean.....

Answer 3

Evolution is not about how life starts but about how life changes as conditions change. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Evolution, like all scientific theories, is based on evidence.

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared abruptly." — Newsweek, 1987.

Answer 4

Runs about like you'd figure. It took guts for those folk to take the position their intellects and the evidence demanded they take.

It doesn't mean evolution isn't so, but it means a lot of people who know a lot more than any atheist on RS believe the theory might be seriously flawed and mightn't offer a plausible explanation.

Answer 5

True... Is it so hard to believe in God? But you can believe that matter formed life into existence out of nothing? I guess when there is evidence it must be true.. but I will tell you evidence and a proven fact are two different things. Evidence is proof..it doesn't mean it is true but there is proof that it is. A fact is something you know absolutely and you can state it without any doubts. And this is not true for evolution because there are too many flaws. If I were you i'd give evidence to support your claims because I can bet you without a doubt that non believers won't believe a word you say unless of course you have evidence!!

Answer 6

Why do creationists think that copying and pasting slabs of text from creationist websites to Yahoo answers constitutes a legitimate question?

If you bothered to read the text you stole unattributed from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#3
you would have noticed the "Science Digest" article was published in 1979.

You would also notice the rather strange dearth of modern biologists on the list of "scientists" supporting so called "creation science". Err, Francis Bacon? I doubt he had much to say about evolutionary theory given that he died two centuries before Darwin.

Yes I know you can keep going and going. My computer has copy and paste functions, too.

However, if you copy and paste ignorant bilge, it's still ignorant bilge.

Answer 7

MICROEVOLUTION, YES... but evolution on a scale sufficient to prove "natural selection" has already been statistically proven "very unlikely." Favorable estimates (those most supportive of the claims) put the affirmative probability for natural selection at well below 1%. A variety of conservative estimates place the probability at << 10^(-100), so the probability that we got here by natural selection is so low that most calculators are incapable of distinguishing it from zero.

While that fact alone does not constitute a rigorous (dis)proof, it raises sufficient question that many scientists who formerly believed natural selection was viable are starting to have serious doubts about it.

Answer 8

There are about 500 000 scientists in the US that are involved in the fields of biological and natural sciences. 99.8% of them support evolution.

Answer 9

I blame Liberty University and these other stupid Christian colleges for these 'scientists.' Evolution IS science. I don't consider any scientist in biology who doesn't believe in evolution a scientist.

Answer 10

I like Project Steve better. There's like 4 times as many scientists who are named Steve who accept evolution than scientists who don't accept evolution.

But nice rant.