Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

[Skomatth]

I have some trouble understanding evolution, but admittedly I have never studied it in depth. In order to understand better, I am going to post some objection of creation scientists which I hope someone can try to refute from the evolutionist perspective. Do not construe this post as my acceptance of creationism, which I do not adhere to, but merely as an attempt to better understand evolution.

The ten objections along with their brief explanations are found http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=813053

Here are the objections in short:

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.


4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

I only posted the five I'm interested in hearing answers to since the rest are rather goofy.

[GodsPetMonkey]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

All species are transitory. The transitory species idea was one sf the first anti-evolution to come out, but it fails to take into account that evolution is an ongoing and continuing process, it doesn't pause.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Natural selection is not the ONLY way of advancement (its like these creationists are stuck in the 1850's!). It's part of a much more complex picture.

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Life from non-life, etc is not something I'm going to touch, for personal belief reasons, but I will say this, their attempts to use the laws of thermodynamics to disprove it are incorrect (this is also known as the entropy argument).

As for humans coming from animals... what’s their point? Are they affronted by the idea that they are just another kind of animal?

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Fossils tend not to come out of the ground in good condition, there are not that many great dinosaur skeletons.
I don’t know much more about them, these kinds of skeletons are extremely rare, its inevitable that some science reporters, and over eager scientists will make something out of nothing.

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

Wow, the species of animals on the evolutionary path from ape to human are apes? Now that's a leap of logic. Next you know people will claim we are primates!

[Steppe Merc]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

False. What is transitional anyway? You can see evolution in action everyday, and natrual selection. Ever breed horses or dogs, or hear about different strands of bacteria that are resitant to medicine? That's natrual selection.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Higher order? Whatever that means, they obviously don't understand natrual selection.
Say you start out with a bird species. Somehow, two seperate groups of the bird get seperated from each other. One on one island, the other on another, never mixing. Now, one island only has big seeds. The birds with small beaks would die off and starve, since they can't eat the seeds. The birds who through genetic mutation have larger beaks survive, and reproduce. The other island of birds continues to eat the same small seeds. Over time, the bird groups will become seperate species, as more and more mutations occur that would favor their environment. Evolution is very slow, and can result in evauntaully large changes, but it would take a very long time, and it would only look like large changes from viewing the whole process.

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Bull. Humans are animals, and we have genetic links to our relations.

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Oh, like these idiots are clear? Real scientists acknoledge them. So what are they? Fakes? They certaintly aren't human, or ape.

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

What idiots. Humans didn't evolve from today's apes per se. They evolved from a common ancestor. The some apes went one way, evauntually forming today's apes, while other apes went another, evautnaully evolving into today's humans. If they had any real proof, they would list the species, and why they believe they are apes or monkeys. And what about the other ones that they say aren't apes or monkeys?

[A.Saturnus]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Every species is a transitional link in its own right. Of course, we do not have records for ALL transitions that ever occurred. All fossil records are based on unlikely circumstances so only a very tiny part of all creatures that ever lived are to be found as fossils. You cannot conclude from that that there is no evidence for evolution. A wide spectrum of findings support the theory of evolution.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

In the contrary, it is very capable of advancing organisms. That's what selection is all about. However, the concept of higher-order organisms is very vague. Organisms get adapted to their surroundings, evolution knows no direction.

[/QUOTE]3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

No. The first lifeforms where very primitive chemical structures, it's unintelligible why it should be impossible fro them to have resulted from non-living structures. In fact, we know structures today that stand between life and non-life. Humans are only animals adapted to a certain biological niche. There's nothing in humans that isn't also in gradation present in some other animals. The claim that matter resulted from nothing is not part of evolution theory.

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Any evidence to back up this claim? What we know is that these bones are older than creationists say is possible and they are bones of hominids. Inconsistency in the geneology of humans - which is only a tiny part of evolution BTW - are far from surprising, given the scarceness of these findings.

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[QUOTE]

There are all primates, just like humans, only more primitive. Like our closest kin, the chimpansees. When precisely is something "part human"?

It seems to me that these objections go mostly along the line of "it can't be, it isn't so and it mustn't be". No real arguments. Saying that it's all impossible and all evolutionists are dirty liars is hardly scientifical.

[Steppe Merc]

But saying all creationists are dirty liars or misinformed is true.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, they have made 'life' from 'non-life'. I think somebody's actually made nucleotide chains by electrocuting seawater with massive amounts of static electrical charge (like repeated lightning strikes).

Creationism is a religious outlook. Creation science is neither: creationism, nor science, and it's where those claims really break down. God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.

The thing I find funny is if they would just calm down, and quit taking Genesis (one of two creation stories contained therin, btw, which was right?) they'd actually see that Genesis mirrors the more complete picture of what we've come to know about cosmology and evolution, which is now thought to be quantitized (rapid bursts of species diversification, with large stagnant periods in between).

[Templar Knight]

God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.

lmao

[Quietus]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Forget the fossils. Genes already support this.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Mutation and evolution is random. Do you think there are coconuts that didn't float in the ocean? The only coconuts that survived are the ones that can float. Natural selection.

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Life is a human definition. It's just a natural phenomenon special to this planet. But that doesn't mean there aren't other "natural phenomenon" in other pockets of the universe.

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Forget the bones, there's a lot of genetic evidence. That's horribly obsolete. Mixed genetic material is just being passed from one generation to another. Whichever product that survive will reproduce again, etc.

A lot of people complain about same-sex marriage. Don't fret, it's natural. Guess what, they can't reproduce. That's nature to you. Female-Female, and Male-Male cannot reproduce. We humans are the most sophisticated machines the world.

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

There are many theories, but they all involve branching out. A lot of animals that existed before are extinct. That doesn't mean they didn't live. We are all related.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

You cannot conclude from that that there is no evidence for evolution. A wide spectrum of findings support the theory of evolution.

Micro yes Macro no

Every species is a transitional link in its own right.

Do we have a clue as to where man came from? Are we evolved from the apes?

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Mutation and evolution is random. Do you think there are coconuts that didn't float in the ocean? The only coconuts that survived are the ones that can float. Natural selection.

Were thost that floated more advanced?

I dont think we have a clue as to how we got to be here only educated guesses and creationism is as good a guess as any.

[hrvojej]

The points you ask about have already been addressed wel by others, so I'll just reiterate a few of them, and expand a bit on what has already been said.

One cannot view evolution as a dogma, or evolutionary thinking as a dogmatic one. Species did not evolve in the "God created this, and then God created that" fashion. It's a continuous process that usually takes many many generations of (more or less) gradual change, and the changes between generations (gene pools between generations, to be precise) are predominantly minuscule.

The creationist thinking in this matter reminds me of the arrow paradox. If you shoot an arrow, it travels from point A to point B. If at any given point in time you look at the arrow in a freeze frame manner, it's actually standing still. Now, you could claim that the arrow is not moving at all, since every time you get to look at it it's standing still, but does that mean that it's not really moving at all? It's the same thing with evolution and fossil record. What you get are the random snapshots ages apart, and just because you cannot see the whole picture in excruciating detail, does not mean it wasn't there. Besides, even if you could get a specimen from every generation, you'd still be in the dark about the actual change, since it's all about populations and not individual organisms. In other words, you'd have to sample an entire population of organisms, take into account what traits are heritable, which organisms and in what exent are going to transfer their genetic material to the next generation, which populations interbred or will interbreed at some point in future, etc. etc. You cannot take two random specimens that are separated by millions of years and exclaim that the link isn't there, and at the same time refuse to apply any deductive thinking in the process to boot.

Another pitfall of creationist thinking (and early evolutionists too to an extent), is impying that evolutionary change is goal-oriented. "It all lead to the evolution of humans" or "Evolution is progressive in that it creates 'higher' beings from 'lower' ones" are statements that show profound misunderstanding of evolution, biology, and natural sciences in general. There is no goal behind it, no intention, and no dogma either. Certain organisms just outreproduce their peers due to the set of everchanging circumstances that are acting upon the population at a given point in time - they did not intend to or want to or meant to do it.

And humans vs. animals etc. are just arbitrary categories we use to sort out things we observe. There are more issues with semantics than with anything else here. If we didn't call them that with those same words, or categorize them in this fashion, it wouldn't mean they were not there. Sure, we use some overarching characteristics to help us sort everything out, but system is not and was never meant to be absolute. It just helps us think - if I say "fish", you'll have a general idea of what I'm talking about. Just because early amphibians cannot quite be described by the image I invoke in you when I say "fish" does not mean they are impossible or unreal. Also, for reference on life vs. non-life, see also classic early experiments by Oparin and Haldane (and other things as well, like basic descriptions of subcellular life-forms, ribozymes (nuceliec acid enzymes that can reproduce themselves))....

[hrvojej]

I dont think we have a clue as to how we got to be here only educated guesses and creationism is as good a guess as any.

Creationism is not science. Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.

[Byzantine Prince]

Creationism is not science. Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.

He voted for Bush, I don't think anything logical will sway him into the obvious truth.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Creationism is not science.

Neither is evolution.

[Byzantine Prince]

ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh’n, və lsh’n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

Biology is a science!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He voted for Bush, I don't think anything logical will sway him into the obvious truth.

There you go again MR Troll. First off I didnt vote for Bush. Secondly I believe in micro evolution . As far as macro evolution goes I dont see any more proof that its correct anymore than I do that creationist are correct. Im not picking either of them as the gospel truth. I feel the truth lies somewhere in between. You shouldnt speak on things you have absolutley no knowledge of.

Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.

I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.

[hrvojej]

Neither is evolution.

On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.

You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.

[hrvojej]

I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.

If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.

[hrvojej]

You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.

So, if I am a theoretical biologist by occupation, or an atomic physicist for that matter, that means that I'm the same as a magician or a priest when it comes to my expertise's relatedness to science?

You cannot apply scientific method to creationism. It is not science because it does not play by the book. End of story.

[Don Corleone]

Technically speaking, calculus is a language not a science. It takes abstract concepts and gives them verbal and written form.

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.

Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.

[hrvojej]

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

There are zealots in biology as well as in any other occupation. Some people religiously believe that evolution is true, and it has become their creed in effect. When the scientific things start to get viewed as being the dogma, which they do sometimes and by some, they lose credibility in terms of scientific thinking.

It is not wrong to ask questions, and challenge the logic behind conclusions. In fact, it furthers our understanding of the issues to do so, even though not all questions necessarily have (satisfactory) answers (for now). However, when the answer to every question is "God", and it's that even before you have asked anything, that resoning cannot be claimed to be scientific, nor does it have place in the science classrooms.

[hrvojej]

Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.

If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well, since "proofs" as this word is colloquially used are nonexistant in science. There are no absolute truths in science, and one should not look for them there, nor should one expect to find them there either, no matter how 'exact' the discipline is. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of the absolute, but rather thinking in terms of the probability then. There are no scientific disciplines that are exact to the point of the absolute.

[Papewaio]

Creationism fails when the rigours of scientific theory/validation/methodolgy is applied.

The theory of evolution is itself evolving.

[Don Corleone]

Hey, I agree with you Hvorej. I'm actually think quantum evolution has a lot to offer in terms of explaining the shortcomings of evolution. I see nothing in it that precludes some divine force acting behind it, yet nothing that requires it either.

All I'm saying is you have to agree that dogmatism has a way of creeping into any system of beliefs, including science. I'm an electrical engineer, and trust me, most of the problems we can't solve today are because we think we can't because somebody said so. I imagine it's much the same in other disciplines.

[hrvojej]

All I'm saying is you have to agree that dogmatism has a way of creeping into any system of beliefs, including science.

Very true, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Skomatth]

hrvojej your first post in this thread was very hepful to me, thank you.

I was wondering if you could expand more on the proposed mechanism by which evolution occurs. I am familiar with the example of the proto-chicken and the egg. Is this pretty much all there is to it?

[|OCS|Virus]

everyone else seems to have stated the obvious reasons that that article shows just why creation scientists that don't believe in evelution are, quite wrong. Granted if they had given the answere that "God put the fully evolved humans here" I would be more inclined to say that is mearly a difference of opinion. But when they try to scientificly prove the fact that we didn't evolve is obserd. Were do they propose we came from then? Or am I to assume that they think we were indeed put here by god? I didn't see any mention of that in the link. Anybody know were they think we DID come from?

[ichi]

Creationism is a religious outlook. Creation science is neither: creationism, nor science, and it's where those claims really break down. God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.

two of the funniest things you've ever said Don

As far as macro evolution goes I dont see any more proof that its correct anymore than I do that creationist are correct.

There is a relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny.

If one looks at the developmental stages of mammals, for example, one sees the embryo starts out quite undistinguishable from other mammals but as it grows into a fetus it shows more and more differentiation until it is recognizable as the species it is.

This is due to the information that has been stored in the genetic code through billions of years of evolution. Clear and convincing evidence, stuff that is subject to confirmation through the scientific method.

Creationism involves faith, faith in untestable things. That's the difference between science/fact and theory/myth.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well,

I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.