0
How is it possible for creationists and evolutionists to view the evidence but come to very different conclusions?
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
It comes down to preconceptions:
Creationists already believe they know how the world came to be, so the evidence must be made to fit this preconception.
Prior to Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, there was no preconception in favour of evolutionary development, in fact Darwin was scoffed at by officers on HMS Beagle for his strong religious convictions. So, the evidence did not have to fit any preconception, but instead scientists made sense of what they saw by developing theories of evolution.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoThe same question could be applied to endless other questions on almost any topic. It may be due to a number of factors:
- Preconceived opinion; what you want the answer to be
- Having the evidence presented differently, depending upon the bias of the source
- Peer pressure; societal influence
- Financial incentive (such as a writer who will not be published if he/she abandons the expected paradigm)
See also:
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do evolutionists think that humans have stopped evolving?
Some evolutionary biologists do, but we have rather strong evidence that humans have not stopped evolving since becoming human. Two pieces of evidence that are recent in evolutionary time are the sickle cell trait and the lactose tolerance traits in some humans. There are some others being tested now. Remember, evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms. How could that ever stop? Only extinction could stop it. PS It is not " evolutionists. "
Is there or will there be yet to be found evidence to convince the creationist about evolution?
They have the evidence yet they will never be convinced while under the influence of a ideology that lies to them. To them evolution is not only false it is evil and their view of evolution is so skewed by this ideological nonsense that there is little hope for this generation of creationists, though we may save some of their children. Most religions made peace with evolution a long time ago, but creationists, being literalistic, must have every word of the bible be true as if one thing is not true then all is not true. Dichotomous thinking such as this is the mark if the unintelligent and uneducated.
Describe how DNA evidence might be used to confirm scientists' conclusions about any relationship between birds and seals?
DNA evidence might be used to confirm scientists' conclusions about any relationships between any animal and how closely related they are.
What evidence indicates that electrons move around the nucleus in definite pathways?
the evidence is that when you look through microscopes you can see the different atoms and see the parts of them
Why do some Creationists insist on bashing the findings of Evolution Scientists instead of presenting their own evidence on Creation?
Creationism is based on an unprovable and untestable belief in the origin of the universe. Since it has no evidence in a scientific sense whatsoever, creationists are left with only rhetorical tools (e.g. science-bashing).Sensible creationists understand that faith and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive but also that faith and science are working on different aspects of human existence. Unfortunately, these creationists are the minority of creationists.Further CommentIt seems to be regarded as a fairly normal part of scientific endeavor for scientists to be critical of each others work. This goes on all the time in every field of scientific endeavor. It is a normal and natural part of scientific rigor and scientific progress. I have seen evolutionists scathing in their criticism of other evolutionists for various reasons where they believed it was warranted. Creation scientists are also rather self-critical and peer-review their work as do evolutionists. As for presenting their own evidence - they regularly do. It just doesn't get the publicity since it is not a mainstream opinion.AnswerHowever, whist evolutionists argue over the minutiae they do not debate the actual existence of macro evolution reasoning there is overwhelmingly evidence for such. Believing they can win over this by default creationists have tended historically to present little hitherto unexplained "abnormalities" to contradict evolutionists. Such as the existence of the eye or the whale and recently the flagella of microorganisms citing "irreducible complexity". But these phenomena have been explained time and again in the due course of the ongoing evolution of science itself. Interestingly, while belief in evolution, or "transmutation" as it was called, was widespread back in Darwin's grandfather's day amongst natural philosophers; Natural Selection itself was not accepted until the discovery of the mechanism and the formulation of the laws of inheritance... after Darwin's death.The impossibility of explaining the structure of genomes without evolution is given as the most recent compelling evidence for its existence. Such scientists having no real interest in the subject until now.AnswerThe assumption behind the question is flawed in that creation scientists regularly present their own evidence on creation. Included in this is pointing out the implications of discoveries in mainstream science which have a direct bearing on this issue. In addition creation scientists are continuously involved in scientific research and presenting their own scientific findings. A recent example of this is the recent publishing of a book by John Hartnett of the University of Western Australia on astronomy and the 'big bang', providing an explanation of the issue of 'astronomical time' and the age of the universe from a creationist perspective.Dr. Damadian holds the patent as the inventor of the MRI scan, a great breakthrough in medical technology and diagnosis.Dr John Baumgartner is a world leader in the field of plate techtonics and 'rapid subduction' modeling.Need for ClarityCreationists also regularly point our the misuse of common terminology when driven by an agenda which seeks to prove or assumes evolution, contrary to the facts of science. This is a purely natural thing to do and is regularly done in mainstream science.Genetics is one field where creationists point out how science demonstrates the impossibility of evolution. Mendel began the science of modern genetics and showed how characteristics, although they remained hidden for some generations were always there in the 'gene pool' but remained unexpressed. More recent work has demonstrated that no new genetic information can arise spontaneously to make the many changes required to take place.Genetics also demonstrates that there is a definite limit to change and also the fact that mutations and recombination do not create new traits although they may damage or alter the way existing characteristics are expressed to confer a selection advantage. Such is the case with blind cave fish who have 'lost' the ability to express the genes for eyes which they do not need.Creationists in particular point out the misuse of terminology such as natural selection to 'prove' evolution when all it shows is that organisms change in response to their environment in accord with previously existing genetic information within the 'gene pool' of that organism. The classic example of the peppered moths (although of course now shown to be a fraudulent experiment) still were and remain peppered moths.Summary:Creationists do both criticism, where warranted, and presentation of new evidence as this is discovered. They also seek to be scientifically rigorous in the use of terminology.Further summary:Cladistitians who study the changes in genes would of course disagree with the above "clarification" and will cite gene duplication as further evidence of common ancestry of of all creatures.The "only changing in response" argument against Natural Selection (using capital letters to avoid semantic obfuscation) was refuted upon the rediscovery of Mendel's work and also the discovery of the role of the nucleus and reproductive cells in the organism late in the nineteenth century.A tendency to the conservation of energy explains the natural selection of blind cave fish in such an environment and it is understood that the permanent expression of such is reflected in the genes over a much longer period of time. As in the case of mitochondrial genes.As usual the debate centres over the age of the Earth in the final analysis. Time is the critical factor here. Incidental, abstracted scientists tend to be the apologists for creationism in the mainstream. Such as Lord Kelvin in refuting the "soft sciences" of biology and geology when he had no idea of how the sun even functioned in producing heat.Read more >> Options >>http://www.answers.com?initiator=FFANShttp://www.answers.com/main/images/hook-bottomL.gif)">http://www.answers.com/main/images/hook-bottomL.gif); width: 70px; height: 29px; margin-left: 25px; position: relative; top: -15px">
Is the Evolutionists' sole purpose is to debunk the Creationists or is it the other way around?
Evolutionists believe that scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Creationists believe the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Biblical story of creation and, therefore, fight against its acceptance. Scientists, even those who accept the existence of God and the validity of the Bible, believe that a scientific theory must be supported by evidence. It's not a case of anyone debunking anyone. Scientists and Creationists alike start off with personal beliefs: scientists in science and creationists in the Biblical account of creation. Neither is without bias and both attempt to find evidence that supports their core beliefs.
How are scientific evidence and scientific conclusions related?
Scientific conclusions are based on scientific evidence.
Which sentence best describes the difference between the statement?
they are being presented to difference audiences apex
Why is it important that scientists conclusions are based on evidence?
They rely on there conclusions based on observations.
What should you do if you you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question?
If you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question, weigh the evidence for both conclusions and pick the one you think is most convincing.
What should you do if you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question?
If you find evidence that supports opposing conclusions based on your research question, weigh the evidence for both conclusions and pick the one you think is most convincing.
How do evolutionists try to use the classification system to reinforce their worldview?
Evolutionists use the classification system to show the hierarchical relationships between organisms, highlighting the shared ancestry and evolutionary history among different species. By showcasing how organisms are grouped based on their shared characteristics, evolutionists argue that this classification system provides evidence for common descent and the process of evolution.
When you reach conclusions based on evidence?
When reaching conclusions based on evidence, it is important to consider the reliability and quality of the evidence, as well as any potential biases that may be present. It is also crucial to follow a systematic and logical process of analysis to ensure that the conclusions are well-founded and supported by the evidence. Communication of the conclusions should be clear and transparent, highlighting the key findings and the reasoning behind them.
What might creationists believe?
Creationists believe that God created the universe. Some creationists prefer to theorize that Evolution took place and was guided by God. Other creationists believe that God created the universe, this Earth, and living things directly, without recourse to billions of years.See also:Is there evidence for Creation?Can you show that God exists?Seeing God's wisdom
What should you do if in the process of gathering information about a research question you find evidence that supports two opposing conclusions?
Weigh the evidence for both conclusions and decide which has the most merit
Why are conclusions important in the field of science?
Conclusions are a take away from the experiment and are effective strategies to "sum up" the evidence.
Is 50% size population satisfactory to provide evidence and draw conclusions Justify your answer?
These should be based on some evidence but all to often people draw conclusions based on prejudices.
