0
Creation
Whether you believe God created the world or the universe is the result of the Big Bang, ask questions here about the creation of the beautiful and wondrous earth we live on.
2,055 Questions
Why is microevolution claimed by creationists and evolutionary scientists?
Microevolution is evolution that has taken place within a species to such a limited extent that the result is not yet an entirely new species.
Many creationists are willing to accept the reality of microevolution because, even in large mammals, the timeframe for microevolution is so short that we can readily see that it has occurred. To a creationist, there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, where evolution has already continued until the change is so apparent that a new species must be defined. If they accept the fact of macroevolution, then they must accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth.
Of course, scientists, or if one prefers 'evolutionists', accept that microevolution is the first step on the path to macroevolution, and they accept that this is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Not all instances of microevolution continue on to macroevolution and the creation of new species. In some cases, a limited adaptation is all that is necessary for the species to survive in an altered environment. In other cases, the adaptation is to slow or too late, and the species becomes extinct before it can adapt.
AnswerBoth accept that there are changes within species because they are easily observed. Creationists, while acknowledging it is not evolution, see adaptations within a group which do not lead to any new genetic material and do not in any way discredit the creation of kinds by God. They accept it because of the clear scientific evidence that changes within species occur while those involving the addition of new genetic material needed for 'macroevolution' have not been proven despite the claims of some.
Which scientist is most often associated with the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin is most often associated with the theory of evolution. His work on natural selection, as outlined in his book "On the Origin of Species," revolutionized our understanding of how species change over time.
How is the evolution theory only limited as a theory?
The word 'theory' means it is an explanatory framework for some set of observational data. As to your question: while there is an overwhelming amount of observational data supporting the general tenets of evolutionary theory, and it is now impossible to rationally reject these tenets, it will technically always remain an explanatory model - a theory.
What do creationists say are some of the main problems with the theory of evolution?
Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.
These point to Divine Creation:
- The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
- The vastness of our minds and emotions.
- The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
- The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Also:
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 organs or 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.
See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy
And: Evidence of a young Earth
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. The only way around this is to assume that helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving at above the escape velocity, of 24,200 miles per hour. The usual speed of helium atoms is only 5,630 mph. A few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere.
This is an unsolved problem, concerning which the atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker stated: "There appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere." Another scientist, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem "… will not go away, and it is unsolved."
Also see:
God's wisdom seen in His creations
A naturalist who proposed the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, proposed the theory of evolution through his book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Darwin's theory suggested that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection, where those with advantageous traits survive and reproduce. His work revolutionized the field of biology and our understanding of the diversity of life on Earth.
Darwins' Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says that species either adapt and evolve via an accumulation of sequential minor variations, or become extinct.
The Gaia hypothesis says that the planet's biomass self-regulates the conditions on the planet to make its physical environment (in particular temperature and chemistry of the atmosphere) on the planet consistently hospitable to the species which constitute its 'life'. For example, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, the biomass of photosynthetic organisms increases and thus removes more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Gaia has attracted considerable debate and should, at this stage, be considered a hypothesis rather than a proven theory.
The two concepts are parallel in that they explain the ability of an 'organism' to adapt to the changing environment. However, one is concerned with biological processes, while the other is concerned with macro-physics. They neither contradict nor support each other.
Gregor Mendel's experiment with pea plants was one of the first genetic experiments. Genetics play a very important role in evolution, for if there were not genes, nothing would evolve. Since things evolve by selection (or what genes get 'selected' to be passed down to the next gereration), Gregor polinated one plant with another plant of the same species with different features, and he got a plant that had similar features to the previous plants. Thus, he speculated that traits from parent plants would be expressed in their offspring because of genes.
Who developed the theroy of evolution?
Charles Darwin is widely credited with developing the theory of evolution through natural selection. His landmark book, "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, presented evidence for how species change over time through a process of adaptation to their environment.
What is it called if you believe in a higher power but also believe in evolution?
It is called being religious (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc according to which higher power you believe in) while, at the same time, accepting the facts of science. Many Christians, for example, do just that - believe in evolution.
For more information about religion and evolution, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Which scientist was the creationist of organic evolution?
This is an interesting question. I think I know the answer to this: Carl Linnaeus. He was the first scientist to realize that he could not establlish any system of biological classification that did not include humans in the taxon of apes.
Opinions about creation of human beings?
Human beings are the present result of a long history of evolutionary changes stretching back into the past for millions of years. The first representative in that long history of change that can be regarded as people not just another species of ape, would probably be Australopithecines about 2 million years ago. These developed into homo sapiens (the thinking man) some 400,000 to 250,000 years ago, probably in Africa. From Africa we spread throughout the world. The whole process was driven by the evolutionary processes as described by Charles Darwin in his "Origin of Species."
What is your reaction in the evolution of life?
The evolution of life is a fascinating and complex process that highlights the incredible diversity and adaptability of living organisms. It showcases how species have changed and diversified to survive and thrive in various environments over millions of years. Studying evolution provides valuable insights into the interconnectedness of all life on Earth.
What is the significance of evolution?
The significance of the process of evolution is that it led to life as we know it. Wheter or not we believe that evolution was guided by God or some other deity, without evolution there would only be the simple organisms that first developed on Earth over a billion years ago.
Scientific explanation for the creation of the earth?
At present there is no acceptable theory as to how the earth was formed. The main band wagon at present is The Big Bang theory. However this theory is so full of holes that the scientists have set it aside to try and come up with something else. So I suggest that we turn to a higher power which has always existed, that is the power of a God who organized matter to come together and form the earth. This next suggestion will have the skeptics flapping around all over the place.
Because all matter has intelligence, and a God would certainly have more intelligence than matter, then that of a lower intelligence would have to obey that of a higher intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the lesser intelligence obeyed the higher to come together to form itself into an earth.
What is the connection between the theory of evolution and creationism?
Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation. The Theory of Evolution is at the heart of biology and other natural sciences.
As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the eighteenth century onwards, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture. This includes 'Old-Earth Creationism', which is inconsistent with most interpretations of the Book of Genesis, but superficially capable of harmonisation with science.
Wikipedia tells us that when scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, young Earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research or its underlying scientific theories or its methodology. Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science, flood geology and intelligent design, as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics. Creationists commonly reject the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the Solar System and the origin of the Universe
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.
Who made the theory of evolution?
The popular view is that Charles Darwin originated the Theory of Evolution. In fact, he was the first to explain in detail just how evolution of species occurs.
One of the early pioneers of evolutionary theory is Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, who suspected as early as 1795 that what we call species are various degenerations of the same type. There were probably other pioneers even before 1795, and certainly there were several working on the concept well before Darwin published his The Origin of Species.
Why do creationism and evolutionism of human nature meet a a certain point?
They don't. Creationism is an ideology that crosses many cultures and religions and has many unsupported statements about human nature; most of it dead wrong and some of it just common sense observation.
The theory of evolution by natural selection has a richly supported by the evidence vies of human nature and how humans acquired such natures.
Is evolution the same as creationism?
No
Answer 2
No.
Creationism is faith, based on the Creation-story of Genesis and praises the biblical god as creator of all the Universe, all Earth and all life (in 6 days).
Evolution is a theory of science (biology). The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection, first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Evolution is part of natural science and explains the histories and diversifications of all of Earth's organisms. Evolution does not have to do with the origin of the Universe or the Planet Earth, which creationism may mention in its origins-explanations. (The origins of the Universe and the Solar System and Earth are explained by another branch of natural science - Cosmology and Astronomy).
The Theory of Evolution states that life has changed since its beginnings (abiogenesis) by Natural Selection. The main unit of Evolution is the gene. Populations genetically diverge until they are so separate they are distinguishable and may become reproductively isolated. This is an instance of speciation, the origin of species.
Evolution relies upon observation of the world to explain the world (genetics, palaeontology, comparative morphology are all used as evidence to construct the picture of evolution).
Creationism relies on the writings of biblical texts to explain the world. There is no material evidence to support the claims of creationism as creationism is faith based.
Indeed there are many contrasts between Evolution and Creationism. They both explain the same thing (life and how it came to be as it is today), but Evolution is logical and fact-collecting, a real process seen in the world today and (via fossils) in the distant past whereas Creationism is a comforting faith-based story with no backing evidence of events described in the creation story of Genesis.
Is it surprising that science supports a young earth?
It would be very surprising if science supports a young earth, but if science really did support this I would advocate acceptance of the evidence. However, the scientific evidence is that the world is approximately 4.54 billion years old. That is young compared to the age of the universe, but old compared to some religious views.
There are, of course, those who would like science to support a young earth. Phillip E. Johnson, was a professor of law, and therefore unlikely to have had a strong understanding of the earth sciences, but his strong religious beliefs caused him to found the 'intelligent design' movement that makes claims in support of a young earth.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Because the universe displays too much design, order and clear intent to be the product of purely naturalistic forces driven by chance.
It is mathematically and physically impossible for nothing to explode (the current size given to whatever exploded at the Big Bang is that it was so small it actually represented nothing) and then create all we observe scientifically, including the periodic elements, DNA, the laws of physics and our ability to think abstractly.
It takes a transcendent creator with a mind and thoughts to inject the design, order and reason into our universe. If you think that no thought, reason or order went into the universe then you need to wonder why you can think and reason and even type words in order! There is information all around us and in us and that took intelligence to do the programming and express that information!
What is one thing that does not support the theory of evolution?
Answer 1
Nothing objective, only emotional beliefs and fantasy.
Answer 2
While there are plenty of open questions remaining in biology, not a single observation in biology to date conflicts with the central tenets of evolutionary theory: common descent and natural selection.
What are some arguments about evolution?
Answer:
Lets look at some of the arguments against evolution:
Argument 1:There is no evidence for evolution There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.
Response: Fossils show a pattern of change over the ages. Just like a police show on TV you don't have to fnd every footprint of the criminal from the crime to his lair to be able to figure out who did it and how.
A far as the number of scientists supporting creationism, very few scientists support it.Argument 2: History is too shortCreationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be
- billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
- many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
- a lot more sodium chloride in the sea
- a lot more sea-floor sediment
Response: The argument is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. All the evidence from astronomy, archeology, geology and physics goes against this. There are even ruins of civilizations that precede the supposed creation event.Argument 3: An Example of Unexplained Development: The Compound Eye The eye that enables organisms to see is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. The Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms".
Response: Almost any organ could have been chosen. Science has identified a history of eye development from light sensitive spots on clams to the present eye. The process of evolution is that individuals with small improvements survive to pass on the improved traits. It's not chance.Argument 4: The Biblical Accounting is Just an Allegory The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages".
Response: This reverses all the other arguments. The Earth could be old, the changes could have been painfully slow.Argument 5: Evolution has no Purpose (There is no "Why?") For what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation.
Response: The point everyone can agree with about evolution - there is no purpose except survival of the species. There is no goal of perfection. Apparently Creationists are only happy if there is a reason and everything fills its part in "The Plan"
How does roproductive isolation relate to evolution?
If two sub-populations of a species become reproductively isolated, it means that adaptation or genetic drift can make the two populations diverge genetically. If, as a result of this divergence, upon reintroduction, members of the two sub-populations no longer reproduce successfully, the two sub-populations have become different species.
What are theories of the origin of earth?
It was long thought that the earth and all the planets in our solar ssystem were formed as the sun itself was formed. However, young stars consist almost entirely of hydrogen, and this early theory would not account for the quantity of heavy elements in the earth's crust and atmosphere. In fact, an average star like the sun does not produce very heavy elements at all.
Cosmology explains how the earth was formed. At some stage, a supernova star exploded in the neighbourhood of our sun - within a few million light years from here. Supernovas are formed as giant stars die and are not entirely uncommon. And giant stars, because of their far greater mass, are able to convert their hydrogen into heavy elements before finally dying. Conversion of hydrogen into heavy elements is also well known to nuclear physicists. So, our supernova exploded and sent an enormous amount of heavy elements out into empty space. A very small part of this was captured in orbit around our sun, where it eventually concentrated into the various planets and other bodies that orbit the sun. One of these was, of course, the earth.
