Question for those who don't accept evolutionary theory: BESIDES religion, what are you biggest objections?

Question

I know, I know, this question assumes a lot, that most people who don't accept evolutionary theory do so because of incompatible religious beliefs, and if that isn't the case and never has been, if you feel you object on a purely secular basis, great, this question is for you (and for those who can put aside their religious objections and speak only in secular terms):

What are you objections to evolutionary theory? What are some of the problems you see? What are some issues that you think haven't yet been resolved or cannot possibly be resolved?

(NOTE: I will not consider answers which argue "It's just a theory".)
http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html

Seriously? No one is answering? This is disappointing.

Apostle Jeff, I appreciate your answer. Would you be willing to elaborate? For instance, what would you consider "evidence of evolution"? What do you think of all that is already claimed to be "evidence of evolution"?

Moo, who's confusing evolution with God? I'm fairly certain that I'm not.

Thundercatt, thank you as well. Just a few questions to you:

Are you aware that evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of all life, that origin hypotheses such as "abiogenesis" have been proposed and studied?

What are your reactions to the proposed explanations for the Cambrian Explosion that have been asserted?

Do you know what a False Dichotomy is?

Thundercatt, I'd prefer that you didn't plagiarize from http://trueorigin.org/ and instead formulate your own thoughts on the matter

Do you know what a False Dichotomy is?

Answer 1

Here are a couple objections ...

1) Naturalistic processes have failed to explain how non-living chemicals could somehow self assemble into the first living cell.

2) The fossil record does not confirm the claims of Darwinian transition.The sudden appearance of radically new life forms in the Cambrian explosion, devoid of prior transitions has turned Darwins tree of life upside down and cannot be explained.

3) The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.


The amount of faith needed to maintain belief in evolution on this scale is not warranted by the hard evidence of science. On top of that there is no credible explanation of how the universe came into being in the first place!

With out God we are saying:

Nothing produces everything

Non life produces life

Randomness produces fine tuning

Chaos produces information

Unconsciousness produces consciousness

Non-reason produces reason

None of which makes sense!

The most reasonable explanation is that there is an intelligence behind it all!

Edit:

Orgin of life was not in Darwins orginal theory. But it was not long before people began to speculate on how life began. Darwin himself did, in a letter to his botanist friend Joseph Hooker in 1871, he wrote:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

There are of course other ideas on how life began like life from other planets but I limited myself to the two basic theories.

Answer 2

From the little I know of evolution...it seems like a good theory. I admit that I have not studied too much about it, I understand adaption and natural selection...I have a hard time grasping the splitting of species. But again, I haven't spent much time looking into it. I don't accept the evolutionary theory as much as some do, I would not attempt to defend it or promote it. And the reason I have for this is as I said above, I just haven't studied it all that much.

Bottom line is, if evolution is true or not...that isn't as interesting to me as how life began in the first place.

Answer 3

I think Moo has a little arrow pointing to Apostle Jeff's post.

Edit: Why is it when people wish to disprove Evolution, they always attack Darwin's very first attempt at formulating a hypothesis, ignoring all the work that has been done to verify some parts (and disprove others), add to, expand and fine tune it to the point we are at today.

Arguing that the entire ToE of today is wrong because Darwin made some mistakes/omissions is like claiming that Ferrari's can't exist because the guy who invented the wheel didn't think to put a tire on it...

Answer 4

One argument is the fossil record. According to Darwin, each change in species was made in very small steps. If a complete change was made in the low, low number of ten steps, there should be nine fossils in transitions for every fully formed fossil of a living being. Well, err, where are they?

Another question to consider is this: Darwin said that his theory would fall apart if it can be shown that a transition cannot be made in very small steps. Well, Darwin has certainly been blown apart by the book "Darwin's Black Box" written by Michael Behe.

Note that, when Darwin came up with his theory, cells were considered to be tiny blobs of carboniferous matter, like bits of Jello. This is what scientists believed at that time. With that in mind, it's easy to convince yourself and other people that these little blobs can be pushed around a warm pool and develop into cells. Today, biochemists realize how complicated a cell is but old ideas are hard to dismiss.
Just imagine if you went to school and the teacher, professor or scientist told the class that the lessons they have been teaching for years are a lot of nonsense. That's the reason why anyone who tries to contradict Darwin's theory doesn't even get a chance to present his/her case. Now that you're using a computer search for the story of Robert V. Gentry's attempt to do so.

Finally (for now) check out the first and second law of thermodynamics and you'll see how they contradict the crazy stuff they teach in schools. Albert Einstein said that these laws are firm and true.

Answer 5

i have said this time and again,but will reiterate on your behalf.
in the known universe a commonly accepted law prevails and that law states that things tend towards disorder.
this is an easily proved fact .for instance a simple experiment.fill a jar 1/4 with red marbles and 1/4 white marbles(any 2 colors will work ) be careful to layer the marbles into two distinct sections.place a lid on the jar and begin shaking ,.... e-mail me when they go back in order ,or if they go into a more complex order such as 1\8 white 1\4 red ,and 1\8white. i'll be waiting to hear back from you.
now all jokes aside ,how is it that a bunch of bacteria and amoeba and such somehow organized into life forms as complex as man?
i submit that this is impossible without divine intervention.
and furthermore i challenge anyone to prove me wrong.this is important because you will save my soul from belief of a divine entity.

Answer 6

Well asked - you managed to attract a coupla really 'intelligent' fundie comments out into the blinding light of LogicReason.
My personal favourite is:
"My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that there is absolutely no evidence."

There are hundreds of individually researched papers and books and essays supporting evolution - there is one book based in Bronze Age superstition and myth supporting Creationism/Intelligent Design/GODDIDIT.
Mmm; which one could possibly be the more correct?
I wonder.

I especially love how 'they' parade their intelligence - they make me feel really, REALLY smart and that’s not easy cos I don’t mind admitting I’m not that smart.
.

Answer 7

i believe in evolution 100% dad told me all about it.

i am sorry no one is answering....but of course, unequivocally, all would believe if not for their religious indoctrination.

we would be still be debating the heliocentric solar system today if the church wanted us to be.

Answer 8

how could animals like Giraffes evolve if you study the giraffe you will find that their hearts have to be powerful enough to pump blood up its neck. their hearts are very powerful. but that causes a problem when they put their heads down to get a drink of water, their heart never stops pumping blood so some how the animal has to lower the blood flow to its brain when it puts its head down or their heads will explode. well the animal does this effectively they do have something that slows the flow of blood something in their brain directs the blood to this sponge like thing that soaks up the extra blood then when the animal puts its head back up it uses the blood from the sponge. OK so how would the giraffe live without all of this in place all at once. if you took any one part of this system away the giraffe will die.

Answer 9

^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

You're confusing evolution with God

Answer 10

My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that there is absolutely no evidence.