Why do creationists deny and protest evolution for lack of proof?

Question

One has proof (evolution), one doesn't (creationism).

Answer 1

'Follow your instincts.' People love to give advice like this. They urge each other to listen to the 'still, small voice inside'. This would be easy if there were only one voice to listen to. The task is harder when you appear to have an entire choir singing different messages from various parts of your psyche. It is not even as if they are singing in harmony. One part of you now is pushing you to move in a particular direction. Another clearly wants you to do the opposite. You cannot use your intellect alone to decide what to do, for you have to follow your heart now. But you can at least use your brain to work out which part of your heart to follow


zxzxzxzxzxzxzxz xzxzxzxzx zxzxzxzxz

Answer 2

Evolution is evident thoughout the Universe. Observable without question. Example: Virus and Bacteria evolve. The flu bug evolves and changes every year. Insects become immune to sprays that people use to try to kill them. These are simple examples that anyone can verify with a little reading. The Creationists have only faith to sustain their belief. Since science can show that the earth has been here for millions of years and man for many thousands of years, then the two things are difficult to fit together. A person should not be so adament in their beliefs on either side of this issue. The truth is never this black and white, and will end up being somewhere in between the two radical thoughts. It is somewhat dangerous to think that man has evolved enough to know these truths at this point in his evolution.

Answer 3

Let's just say that lack of proof goes both ways. There are facts that are indisputable, which both sides can explain away to make their case. We all see them. But to say there is absolute proof of evolution is impossible. Have you ever heard any scientist say evolution is total fact? You will never hear that, ever. It just isn't so. We can't see it happen. We can't even model it. But man can sure mess with what God started. Just take a look at today's science as proof of that. When creationist claim that evolution has no facts, we are referring about witnessing species change from one form to another that is completely different. The basic claim of evolution. How convenient that there are no transitional forms or common ancestors around to confirm evolution's claims. I can say that Jesus was here. Witnessed by many. Men and women went to their graves for the simple reason that they wouldn't recant it. That's pure fact. I can bet you people wouldn't do that for a belief in evolution. But then again, why would you for something as dead as a belief in evolution.

Answer 4

I think your backwards. Where's the proof of evolution? If you believe the science then you should be a creationist. The law of averages reigns supreme. The odds of intelligent life evolving from a two proteins fusing in a pool of primodial ooze is roughly the same as a tornado moving through a junk yard and leaving a fully funtional 747 passenger jet in it's wake. Approximately 165,000,000,000,000 to 1.

The probability factor says there is intelligent design behind all this. What everyone calls "evolution" is actually "adaptation". There has never been a specie that evolved into another specie. What was a chimpanzee 10,000 years ago is still a chimpanzee today. All living things adapt to thier environment, sometimes dramatically, but they are not a different species. Darwin himself realized this before died.

Answer 5

Probably for the same reason evolutionists deny and protest creationism. Evolution is only a theory. The universe and nature is evidence of order and intelligence. The fossil record offers no definitive proof of the existence of transitional species.

Answer 6

The whole idea of "proof" is misleading. Scientists talk about evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. None for Creation (unless you count scripture, which mean nothing to a scientific publication). So it is not scientifically reasonable to prefer creationism over evolution.

This whole debate is similar to that which opposed the Church and Copernicus / Galileo. The Church establishment saw problems with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun in that it took away the idea of earth as the center of creation and the Church found all sorts of way to combat evidence that became undeniable with time.
As far as the scientific community is concerned, the debate is already over. Fundamentalists want to keep it alive for similar reasons. They don't like the idea of man being integrated to the animal realm, because that belies the idea that God made man first in His image, etc...
Fundamentalism is an idea that is antiquated at best. The way this should work is theologians should not go around trying to resolve scientific questions, and scientists stay away from metaphysics. When people break that rule, there is bound to be conflict.

Answer 7

both are right. The bible was written by man to explain the history of man. The time table they use in the bible is not how modern scientist interpret it. Its basically an outline but not an exact science of time it occurred. Measurements and so forth have changed since the writing of the old testament.
In my opinion, people who don't want to believe in it are people who feel very religious and devout to their faith and do not want to accept any other reasons for why and how man became modern man. Its in the bible therefore its true. Others I met have had no formal or advanced education in the area of science and don't want to believe it, no matter what. Family also has a lot to do with it as well. The stubborn belief that if their family was raised on believing this idea, it has to be true.
These are the people who will never open their eyes. God created man and science is showing us how it really happened.

Answer 8

Their faith is stronger than their reasoning power.

If there was no evolution, we would all be identical. We are not and there is evolution.

Something from nothing is creationism ... magic. Something from something is evolution.

They believe the Bible is fact. It is really symbolic.

The first chapter of The Bible is about creationism. The second chapter is about evolution.

Man created God because he did not want to die. He then tries to kill those who worship the same God in a different way.

Homo erectus, an earlier race of humans has long been extinct. That will surely be our fate.

Less than 2% of things that have lived on the earth are still alive.

Answer 9

Put it this way BOTH have holes. And until the hole can be filled (and proven) they both stand on shakey ground.
Good points have been brought up by creationists...such as....if in the beginning there was nothing and space was black - where did everything come from? Getting something from nothing is kinda magical.
Where/why/how did life come to be. We can't make "that spark" in the lab yet. And if we could prove that it came from lightening and a combination of gases(which all have to be proven as to where they came from in the first placd........and that life originated in the sea, why did some of it leave the sea and the rest of the sea creatures remained in the sea?
On the creationist end.....do you believe in magic? That is what you is talking about.

Answer 10

What I think is absurd are those creationists who deny that there's ANY proof for evolution at all. You could drag them to a museum, show them all sorts of dinosaur bones, woolly-mammoth hides, extinct insects trapped in amber, examine chimpanzee DNA under a microscope, core samples, Carbon 14 analysis, etc.--and they will still state unblinkingly that there's no evidence for evolution. Not that there's evidence, but it's of questionable validity, mind you, but a flat-out DENIAL of any proof whatsoever. Kinda like the adult version of plugging your ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"...

Answer 11

One man's proof is another man's hogwash. The problem is that both sides proceed from the wrong premise for accepting the possibility the other side is at least plausible, namely that their own side is right. If my take on the orgin(s) of life, the universe and everything is right, then yours is wrong, therefore it can't be proven right. I think the only truly capable judge of which is correct or at least plausible based on proffered supporting evidence would be an agnostic or, more generally, a sceptic, i.e. someone who says "I don't know, but show me what you consider to be proof and let me think about it".