Why do some people believe evolution to be a theory and not true?

Answer 1

Evolution is a fact. In the present day, evolution, as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) is no longer a theory. It is in abiogenesis that evolution cannot shed light, and it offers only theory. There is no direct evidence of the mechanism by which life began, and only possible explanations are offered by science for life arising from non-life.

As regards the long tenure of life on earth, evolution explains all the facts and discoveries. It was created to tie all we know together, and it is the only scientific thing that makes sense. The only scientific thing. Nothing scientific competes with it.

Another reason some decry evolution is because it is taught in public schools - and creation is not. These folks want "equal time" for creation, and, because they can't get it by way of law (owing to separation of church and state), they are trying to make and end run and attack the science on which evolution is based. And at the same time they are trying to prop up creation as "scientific" so they can create a "wedge" to get it presented in public schools.

Links are posted to related articles put up by our friends at Wikipedia, where knowledge is free.

Answer

Some believe that evolution is contradicted by many known facts of science, there are thus many who don't regard it as either proven or as fact, for purely scientific reasons. Many other evolutionists also acknowledge the many flaws in it, unlike the Law of Gravity which has no known exceptions.

Major problems with evolution as far as science itself is concerned relate to the fact that it contradicts known scientific Laws, such as the Law of Biogenesis, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Genetics also poses a number of problems for evolution as do the fields of biochemistry, geology, and astronomy. The fossil record is also another major problem area with only a handful of doubtful transitional forms, quite contrary to what would be expected if the theory were an accurate scientific description of life on earth.

Many people are also only taught the "evolution is a fact" doctrine and so they come out of the school system as dutiful believers in it, totally unaware of the great mass of scientific evidence which contradicts it. So, quite naturally, they repeat that it is a scientific fact. Although stating this does not actually make it so - no matter how sincere is either one's belief in it - or how profound is one's ignorance of the contradictory data.

Answer 2

Science considers evolution to be a theory, not just a hypothesis, because it is the best explanation for the facts. The theory of relativity is another scientific theory, as is the theory of the conservation of matter and energy.

Some people who do not understand scientific usage of the word "theory" assumes that evolution is "only" a theory because there are no facts to support it. And, of course, some people with strong religious convictions believe that religion and evolution may be incompatible and therefore consider evolution as anything but true, eagerly accepting spurious evidence that supposedly disproves the reality of evolution.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."
3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.
4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).
5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.
6) Evolving of new species has not been witnessed during known history.
7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.
8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.
9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.
10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).
12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).
13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.
14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.
15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)
16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation