Why do so many scientists fall for the theory of Evolution?

Answer 1

AnswerThe reason is because scientists fail to realize the lack of proof Evolution requires. Evolution has existed for over 150 years, and scientist haven't even found a single piece of proof that supports the theory of Evolution! There are no fossils of Transitional Forms (An animal that is in the form of being in between evolving into another animal. E.g. An ape turning into a human etc.) that have been discovered to support the theory of Evolution.

But ultimately, Darwinism was devised to go against the Biblical account of creation. Scientist are not falling for the theory of Evolution, but are simply pretending to believe it just to have an excuse for rejecting Christianity. Deep down in their hearts they know that it is absolutely absurd that nothing can make something, and gradually over many millions and billions of years become even more complex life forms. Famous Atheists such as Richard Dawkins claim that 'Evolution is already proved, and needs no further evidence to prove it', yet if we flip through history we will never see any piece of evidence that proves the theory of Evolution to be right. In the end, Evolution is just a theory that will never proved and never can. I mean, how could a painting just suddenly appear out of nowhere? Everything needs a creator. That's not that hard to understand, its just natural.

So in conclusion, most scientists support Evolution to object against Christianity (and some scientists are vulnerable enough to believe it).

AnswerNot all scientists 'fall for' the theory of evolution. They just continue to believe in it despite their acknowledgment of its falsity. Fortunately some are honest enough to admit what the data really shows.

As a paleontologist by profession the fossil record was evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould's area of expertise. Although revered as a great scientist Gould has received some criticism from fellow believers in evolution for his candid comments about the nature of the fossil record. He referred to the fossil record in relation to evolution in the following way:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is (here Gould is quoting Darwin) extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. (end of quote)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.

Gould's commitment to Darwinian evolution would not allow him to abandon it. However what the evidence shows is clear from these statements of Gould, no matter what he makes of them.

Note also what Dr. Colin Patterson

, who later rejected evolution due its lack of evidence stated:

Dr. Colin Patterson, then senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London also referred to Gould's comments and agreed. Paterson had been asked why he did not provide illustrations of transitional forms in his book entitled 'Evolution'.

Patterson replied: "...I fully agree with you comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transitions, but where would he get the information from? I could not honestly provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding or genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism is derived.' I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.'

Personal Letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, to Luther D Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigmaby Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

Interestingly, Patterson later rejected evolution due to its lack of supporting evidence.

AnswerScientists don't "fall for" the theory of evolution, they accept it because it has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny. Professor Stephen Jay Gould says "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."