0
How is it possible for creationists and evolutionists to view the evidence but come to very different conclusions?
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.
What else can I help you with?
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.
Why do some believe creationists are so dumb?
Perceptions of intelligence are subjective and influenced by personal beliefs and biases. Some may view creationists as "dumb" because they disagree with scientific evidence and principles. It is important to approach differing beliefs with respect and understanding.
Why are creationists upset with Darwin's theory?
His theory doesn't fit with their ideas. They usually use the Bible to answer questions that science already has or is working on. These are questions that are not scientific questions but ones that are best debated and answered by philosophy.
Why do evolutionists insist evolution is real?
Evolution is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence from multiple fields such as paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy. It provides a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and has predictive power in guiding research and understanding the natural world. Scientists accept evolution based on the strength of this evidence and its explanatory power.
What do evolutionists say about evolution?
Evolutionists study and accept the scientific theory of evolution, which explains how organisms change over time through natural selection and genetic variation. They believe that all living organisms share a common ancestor and that evolution is driven by processes such as mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Evolutionists view the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and molecular evidence as supporting evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How many conclusions can an argument have?
An argument can have one or multiple conclusions, depending on the complexity of the reasoning and the evidence presented.
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
True or false Conclusions related to historical events are limited to evaluating the existing evidence?
True. Conclusions related to historical events are based on evaluating existing evidence such as documents, artifacts, and eyewitness accounts. These conclusions are subject to change as new evidence is discovered or alternative interpretations are considered.
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.
