Do creationists have a problem with evolution itself, or the fossil record on which it is based?

Question

The fossil record is the set of data on which the theory of evolution is based. There are gaps in the fossil record.

When creationists say that evolution has gaps do they really mean the fossil record has gaps?

If I'm wrong and they mean that the theory of evolution has gaps, where are those gaps?

(I'm not trying to attack anybody, I just think the terminology should be clarified for the sake of clarifying the debate as a whole.)

Answer 1

Actually Darwin put it together looking at finch beaks.

The fossil record is a prediction made by Darwin's theory that turned out right. But it wasn't necessary to see the truth of the idea. Had all species turned out to have appeared at once as Creationism predicts, evolution would have been abandoned. As it is, a tested prediction is strong evidence that it is right.

The same could be said for all DNA sequencing. It easily could have been problematic if it turned out that things weren't closely related on the molecular level.

Answer 2

From what I've seen, it depends on the creationist. A *very* few, more knowledgeable creationists can actually discuss the fossil record and point out cases where supposed "gaps" exist. They can discuss the different theories for why evolution researchers think the fossil record is the way it is and add their own, reasonably informed opinions. But those creationists are really very few and far in between.

Most other creationists don't really understand evolution in the first place, or they may have read a book by someone in the above category, but usually haven't bothered to even find out or consider the answers that evolution researchers have to the creationist objections. Most have never heard the term "punctuated equilibria" let alone have a clue as to what it means. To these people, "gaps" could mean anything, because to be honest, they really don't know what they're talking about.

Answer 3

I am a Christian, but I think the theory of evolution is pretty sound. I love fossils and collect them - plus I was an archaeology and anthropology major in college at one point. There are gaps in the chain we can trace from early apes to early man and we are constantly getting new information which changes the landscape of what we know - same with transitions leading to currently existing species - and some species we have not been able to trace back to any previous ancestors yet. I'm guessing this is most likely what is meant by gaps in the fossil record in the articles you may have read. I think the whole creationism thing is off the track as currently posited, but it is a theory many fervently believe. To date neither theory has been definitively proved or disproved. Time will tell - literally in this case!

As for how I resolve this with my religion, well I don't think everything in the Bible is literally true (gasps of horror) and I think some of it is prejudiced propaganda - i.e., lies (fainting, calls for pitchforks and torches). There is excellent evidence to back up what I say, plus I have it on good authority that this is the case. Some of the Bible is allegory, some of it has been changed or added over time. I do believe in God as the creator, and I have theories - maybe God works on a different time scale than us. I figure someday maybe I will find out the real details from the source if I'm good and fortunate! In the meantime, it's interesting trying to figure things out.

Answer 4

good question, Vishal...
Actually, they have a problem with both... since they disown evolution, then obviously fossil record is rejected by them as it does two things: disproves young earth theory and proves evolution. So, it is really a question of rejecting the latter as it proves the former. While I heard creationists mention gaps in the fossil record as an argument which does not support evolution, they much more often mention supposed lack of transitional fossils as their crowning argument. However, the basic problem here, as I see it, is neither the presence of gaps in the fossil records, nor the presence of fossils. The problem lies in the fact that a lot (but by no means all) of Creationists are Literalists, i.e., they take the bible as the *literal* word of god. Therefore anybody who does not believe earth is thousands of years old is attacking the very foundation of their faith.
While details of the evolutionary process are still being worked out, these are details and a part of accepted scientific process. Their insistence on rejecting evolution out of hand is neither supported by science, or makes sense in the light of evidence we have gathered so far.
Here is an interesting read for you:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/evolution+doubt+after+fossils+find/661772

Answer 5

The fossil record does not supply any uninterrupted series of transitional forms between phyla or classes or even families of animals or plants ---even though about 90% of the families of all animals are represented in the fossil record! One of the outstanding characteristics of the entire fossil record, is the systematic presence of non-transitioned gaps throughout. Just trees that remain trees, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings.

Darwin himself wrote, before the different phyla appeared there must have been “vast periods” during which “the world swarmed with living creatures” In the fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed and raring to go at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin ofSpecies that “several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” He called this a “serious” problem which “at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained”

Further research since that time has shown it to be a valid argument against Darwin's theory!

Answer 6

Creationists have an issue with a theory based on something with so many gaps in it. To them, it is like a house on a faulty foundation. They fossil record is just there. No one can refute that. What they refute is that it is "proof" of evolutionary theory.


UPDATE: I think the biggest issue creationists seem to have is the absence of God in all of it. This seems rather silly to me, though. In this point of our history, mankind is not able to scientifically approach God. So, it should only make sense that the God question is not mentioned in scientific study of Evolutionary theory.

Answer 7

As a Christian , I don't have a problem with a fossil record because the calender time is from when Adam fell. The Bible does not record the time Adam walk in the Garden with the Lord. Again I don't have a problem with the time, I have a problem with coming from monkey's or fish, mice. It is harder for me to believe that than an almighty creator was in charge.

Answer 8

My disagreement is in the fossil records, we do not know how God created the world and everything in it, so is it possible that God USED evolution to create? Science is altogether to quick to discount the possibility of a creator, without even considering the possibilities. Why?

Answer 9

Charles Darwin failed miserably in his quest to validate his argument on Evolution. God created the Heaven and Earth as the Holy Bible declares (Genesis 1:1). Don't put faith in theories. Have faith in God. Charles Darwin did not use good logic in his famous book, "The Origin of Species." W.R. Thompson, a Canadian entomologist(entomology-study of insects) of international repute, wrote in his introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origen, "Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others. Chapter 4 of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases; "may have been," "is supposed to," perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," 'it is probable," "will generally tend," "may" "will generally tend," 'If," 'if...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not. Of Darwin's speculative arguments Thompson wrote, "....Personal convictions, simple possibilities, are presented as if they were proofs, or at least valid arguments in favor of the theory....The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation (change of one species to another) has been given." Source: Thompson, W.R., Introduction to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, E.P. Dutton and Co., New York. Have faith dear friends in God, not theories. Genesis 1:1 Isaiah 45:18 Colossians 1:16 Hebrews 11:1-6 Genesis 2:1-3 Exodus 20:8-11 Psalm 14:1

Answer 10

I believe that it is in the presentation. If it where presented as a function of creation it would be accepted as fact. After all some have taken to talking of a form of creation that try,s to explain it as such.