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
Evolution involves the process of change in living organisms over time, resulting in genetic variations that lead to adaptation to their environment. This process occurs through mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow, leading to the formation of new species and biodiversity.
Who were the scientists that proposed the theories of evolution?
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as stated in his Life, written by his son, suspected as early as 1795 that what we call species are various degenerations of the same type. He was cautious in drawing conclusions and did not believe that existing species are now undergoing change.
Lamarck held that species, including man, are descended from other species, publishing his views in 1801, enlarging on them in 1809, in his Philosophie Zoologique, and again in 1815.
Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. In this seminal work, he described his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
Who was the 1st Pearson born on earth?
Cain was the first to be born on earth according to scripture. Adam and Eve were organised from the dust of the earth. That Eve was made from a rib of Adam is only symbolic of their relationship, that they will stand side by side in all things.
How does meiosis aid in evolution?
Meiosis aids in evolution by introducing genetic variation through processes like crossing over and independent assortment, which lead to the production of genetically diverse offspring. This genetic diversity provides the raw material for natural selection to act upon, allowing for the adaptation of populations to changing environments over time.
What do creationists today say are some of the main problems with Darwin's theory of evolution?
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.
What are the main differences between evolution and creation?
Creationists: believe that God created the universe as described in the Bible's book of Genesis. The world was created in six ordinary days. Animals and plants were created pretty much in the form we find them today. Most fossils formed rapidly as a result of a worldwide flood.
Evolutionists: believe that the universe formed from a "big bang" billions of years ago. Life formed from non-life. From the first simple life-form(s), every other living thing on earth has evolved. Evolutionists do not believe there was a worldwide flood; they believe that fossils formed slowly from local events
Responsive evolution occurs when two or more species evolve in response to each other's presence to increase their chances of survival. An example of this is the co-evolution between flowers and pollinators, where flowers evolve to attract specific pollinators, and the pollinators evolve to efficiently collect nectar from these flowers. This mutual adaptation benefits both species and enhances their respective survival and reproduction.
What is the basic idea behind Creationism?
Like evolutionism, creationism has its presuppositions. The first and most determinative is that almighty God created the universe and everything in it in the beginning. Followers of Young-earth creationism hold that this was done roughly 6000 years ago. Old-earth creationists hold that the long ages of the evolutionary time-scale can be accommodated into the Bible record in Genesis. They thus take the accounts non-literally.
Young-earth creationists hold that science does not conflict with their position. They thus point to and use the same data as do other scientists but interpret it differently. Astronomer Russell Humphreys points out that there is actually, when all the evidence is considered, much more evidence for a young than an old earth. Thus a central idea in creationism is the matter of the age of the earth, with criticism of old-age views a significant part of their activity, but by no means the only one.
Old-earth creationists do not have any conflict over the age of the earth, although they hold that God created all things.
How did the evolution process first start?
Evolution exists outside of the living world. Businesses and Corporations adapt to survive and evolve as well to meet new challenges and opportunities.
What are facts about creationism?
In creation God created the heavens and the earth. Some people believe in evolution but think about it. Do you believe earth was made because of random disorders or because something bigger than us with power created it?
What is competition in evolution?
Where two species compete for a scarce resource such as food, that species which is better able to adapt and evolve will succeed, while the less adaptable species will decline and possibly become locally extinct.
What are arguments for Intelligent Design?
Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligent design puts forth the intricacy of the bacteria flagellum & the finely tuned universe, as evidence for an intelligent designer.
1: The argument for the bacteria flagellum goes something like this: 'The bacteria flagellum is extremely intricate and works like a designed machine. If you were to remove any of the parts, it ceases to function completely, therefore God did it.'
- Rebuttal: Dr. Ken Miller removed not only one part, but 40 parts, and was still left with a bacteria that functioned. End of story.
2: The argument for the finely tuned universe goes something like this: (a) 'The universe is so finely tuned that the odds of it being the way it is, are almost improbable, therefore God did it. (b) And if any of the known laws/constants were to be wiped out, life as we know it would not exist. Therefore, the universe is finely tuned for life, therefore God did it.'
- Rebuttal (a): The chances of the universe being the way it is 1 in 1 (100%), because it already happened. Thus assessing the improbability of such event is simply pointless. People who make these sort of arguments aren't familiar with 'Statistical Thermodynamics.' Any configuration is almost infinitely improbable, but no matter how improbable, it still must exist in a state.
- Rebuttal (b):The "finely tuned for life" argument: Ignoring the fact that 99% of the universe would kill life instantly... let's pick a random example: There are more black holes in the universe than there are people, so with the intelligent design logic, we can conclude that the universe was fine-tuned for black holes.
Intelligent design summary: This looks complicated, therefore God did it.
This is why real scientists don't take intelligent design seriously.
Arguments in favour of Intelligent Design are offered by religiously biased persons (including scientists, like Michael Behe). Proponents of Intelligent Design offer arguments to discredit the Theory of Evolution. There are often no arguments in favour of Intelligent Design in this case. It seems assumed by the Intelligent Design proponents that by dismantling Darwinism, the automatic truth would then have to be Design.
There are no arguments for Intelligent Design offered by scientists who are not religiously biased. These scientists realise and accept that Evolution is a magnificent theory with very much evidence to show its veracity. Thus they continue to explore Evolution as the explanation for all of life's diversity.
Аnother answer:
- We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers, then withers and dies.
- Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility.
- Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
- Then right now nothing would exist. For
- If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed literally nothing at all. But
- From nothing nothing comes. So
- The universe could not have begun.
- But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built in possibility not to be. But
- If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
- There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
- Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
- This absolutely necessary being is God.
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the was these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist displays an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. For example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design. Not chance. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. Design comes from only a mind, a designer. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent designer.
Rebuttal: This argument is not scientific, but religious/philosophical. As you can see in the examples given previously, all the "scientific" explanations provided by creationists/intelligent design supporters (and the two groups are one and the same) do not hold up scientifically. Intelligent design organizations do not do research, and do not practice actual science.
This is a purely religious explanation, and not based on science or research . Intelligent design claims that the universe is well ordered, everything in its place and ideally designed. The banana was designed to fit in the human hand, for instance.
Science shows us that there is much redundancy, nonsense and many mistakes in nature, our world and in ourselves. Our genetic code contains much DNA that codes for nothing, as well as for cancers and disease. Our own bodies have major design flaws that can best be understood as adaptations, over time, of structures for new uses to which they are not entirely suited.
So either the universe was not designed, or the designer was not a very good one.
The trial that pitted Creationists against Evoulutionists in 1925?
The trial was known as the Scopes Monkey Trial and took place in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. It involved John Scopes, a high school teacher who was accused of teaching evolution in violation of state law. The trial garnered national attention and highlighted the debate between creationism and evolution in American society.
Over what time period have the hottest 10 years on earth occurred?
The hottest 10 years on Earth have occurred since 2005, with the majority falling between 2010 and 2020. This trend is attributed to ongoing climate change driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
What is the origin of the Theory of Evolution?
Evidence of evolution began to be recognised as far back as the eighteenth century, but naturists could not yet identify an explanation for this evidence. Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet (1744-1829) was an early advocate of evolution and believed that it proceeded in accordance with natural laws.
Thus Charles Darwin (1809-1892) was not the first to study evolution, but he was the first to recognise the role of natural selection in evolution. He had studied medicine, before dropping out and studying taxidermy, then natural history. His father enrolled Charles to study theology, hoping he would become a clergyman. Charles Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection after observing the evidence for evolution during his voyage in HMS Beagle. The captain of the Beagle was already aware of evolutionary theories that were already beginning to shock Christian believers in Europe, and had hoped that by having a naturalist on board he might obtain geological evidence to refute the them. During the voyage, from 1831 to 1836, Darwin travelled hundreds of miles inland, from country to country, trying to interpret the fauna, flora and geological formations. He then spent a further twenty years gathering and investigating evidence before publishing his conclusions.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says that species evolved over time in response to changes in the natural environment, and is seen by scientists as the best explanation for the facts. Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.
The English naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace also invented the theory of natural selection, independent of Charles Darwin. However, he believed that natural selection did not apply to humans, because our evolution was divinely guided. In the years since, paleoanthropologists have found ample evidence that human evolution did occur as the result of natural selection, just as the evolution of all other species did.
No. Evolution is accepted as legitimate evidence-supported science by virtually 100% of professional biologists, by 95% of scientists in general, and almost every National or International Academy of Science on the planet has issued one or more statements confirming evolution is legitimate science well supported by all available evidence.
Everything you need to know about evolution?
The study of evolution is a lifetime occupation for many scientists, but what most people need to know is that evolution is the process of change by which primitive early species developed into more complex ones. It is the process by which all life forms, that we know today, emerged.
How long did the evolution take?
The process of evolution has been ongoing for billions of years, with life forms gradually changing and adapting to their environments over time. The exact duration can vary depending on the specific species or traits being considered.
What are the Christian scientists views on earth's creation?
Christian Scientists generally believe in a spiritual interpretation of creation as described in the Bible. They see creation as an expression of God's continuous presence and divine order, focusing on the spiritual significance of creation rather than a literal interpretation of the timeline or process. They emphasize the idea of God's creation as harmonious, whole, and perfect.
What is the creationism theory?
There are only two ways the earth could have come to be. Either Something, something(s) or someone created it, or it got accidentally made.
Creationism is a belief which states that God created the universe in 6 normal days. The belief uses the bible as a source of information (evidence).
There are many debates between creationists and evolutionists, but they are both pure faiths. Both sides have evidence, but no proof so they are both still classified as theory or a faith.
I am a Christian myself and I believe that Jesus is my saviour, but I still respect others beliefs and opinions.(:
Evolution is driven by natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. These processes act on the variation within a population, leading to changes in traits over generations. Ultimately, evolution is a result of organisms adapting to their environments to increase their chances of survival and reproduction.
Evolution can be just a noun derived from the verb 'to evolve'. It means to develop, to change...
There is an evolution of everything in this sense; evolution of language, evolution of one's knowledge of a book's characters as one progresses through a book, evolution of a garden as one plants more things, evolution of this answer as I progress through writing it, evolution of the sort of questions asked on WikiAnswers...
However, the questioner most probably desires an explanation of biological evolution. This is known as the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism. It was made famous by its hypothesiser Charles Darwin. Since its hypothesis state it is now the greatest underlying theory of biology.
It explains, along with its mechanism of Natural Selection, how organisms change over time. Gene frequencies change in populations of eukaryotes, genes are shuffled at eukaryotic meiosis and prokaryote genomes change by mutation. All these mechanisms bring about phenotypic change. Change is inevitable with the, not 100% faithful replicators, nucleic acids enclosed within the outer membranes of organisms.
Change can be selected by Natural Selection. Not all phenotypes are suited to environments and those nonsuited are eliminated by Natural Selection and this further modifies gene frequencies in populations (in eukaryotes), giving more continuous scope for evolution.
Evolution is traced via comparative genetics and genomics, comparative anatomy, comparative biochemistry and the fossil record.
According to the Theory of Evolution, life started in the oceans. Bacteria like cells first appeared and eventually branched into myriads of other forms, prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Photosynthesis evolved and multicellularity evolved. Protists radiated, as did plants and animals. Plants took over the land as simple mosses and liverworts that were gametophyte-dominant. Gradually the gametophyte was reduced to a few cells in pollen grains of angiosperms and the sporophyte generation evolved fully dominant instead.
Animals evolved from simple nerve-less and heartless organisms as sponges, eventually giving rise to both radiate and bilateral animals and among the latter, diploblastic and triploblastic lineages. On-substrate movement brought about cephalisation and as a result directionality was procured.
From wormlike creatures with notochords (the larvae of urochordates), evolved fish and from lungfish and coelocanths evolved amphibians and from amphibians evolved reptiles and from reptiles evolved mammals and dinosaurs and from dinosaurs evolved birds. Among mammals, humans evolved from apes. It is incorrect to say that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees evolved not FROM one another but WITH one another. Both arose from a common ancestor, a Pan-Homo common ancestor.
What is Young Earth creationism?
== == Young Earth Creationism is one of two streams into which Creationism can be divided (the other being Old Earth Creationism which also accepts a divine creator, but agrees with mainstream science that the scientific evidence points to the world being immensely old and that species have evolved through the process of evolution).
Young Earth Creationism is a world-view that interprets scientific evidence based on a literal or semi-literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis and thus teaches that the world is only about 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists believe that living things were created by God much as we know them today and that the various species have diversified within the genetic pool of their original kind.
There are many arguments against evolution. These are often propounded by people of a number of religions, proponents of the pretending-to-be-unreligious Intelligent Design movement, people who do not understand evolution and have not been properly taught about it and, no doubt, people who pick up arguments against evolution from people who give them the idea that evolution is something to be against and the anti-evolution arguments themselves have scientific merit.
Evolution is a theory. Richard Dawkins wants to call it a fact. It is a fact. Dawkins proposes the word theorum for evolution. I like the phrase 'body of fact' or 'megafact' which is a word I now coin.
Evolution has much evidence to support it. But it is an origins-theory. It explains the origins of species. The realm of Bibles and religions came about before Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and seemed to claim originofspecies-explanation as its own. Origins-explanations are dear to people simply by being origins-explanations. They are even dearer if they are ruled by a beloved omnipotent omniphilic religious entity such as a god.
Thus the ungodguided appearance of evolution offended those who knew the godguided creation stories. Since then, offended people have been, offendedly, ejaculating many arguments against evolution. Some stray into the scientific as opposed to religious realm, perhaps since the offendeds first noticed sciences inability to build explanation and scientific theory out of supernaturalism.
Arguments against evolution include:
The Bible says that God created life, and separately (in six days).
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Life cannot evolve from 'pond-scum'.
There is not a single transitional form.
Earth is too young to support the theorised lengthy periods of evolution.
Evolution is 'just a theory'.
Evolution leads to atheism, immorality, suicide, misery..... Just look at atheists like Hitler.
Evolution is a religion as it must be 'believed' in.
To my knowledge, many religious people, fundamentalists who believe literally that everything was created in 6 days are so religious, so convicted that they won't even listen to scientists or even a more (to them) harmless passer-by who happens to have read something about evolution. They go near nothing that remotely challenges creationism or suggests a godlessness for the Universe.
They may be interested in science, but their knowledge can only be peripheral and basic as they (if they exclude evolution from consideration) often reject continental drift, old-earth geology (which is all of geology), abiogenesis, the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-Modern organisms and the big bang standard model of the origin of the Universe. Perhaps some even refuse to consider stellar processes such as nucleosynthesis. How can this lead to a full appreciation of what science has and can work out about the Universe. What sort of science-knowledge is this?
Richard Dawkins points out that denouncing of evolution may not come directly from thinking evolution is unlogical but from a moral-holding (god-ruled morals no doubt) opinion of 'ungodguidedness is immoral'. Still, science finds supernaturalism (as said above) untenable and so these offended fundamentalists, creationists or religionists have to attack evolution with science. All their anti-evolution arguments are untenable, useless and invalid. Is it their peripheral appreciation and knowledge of all of science that makes this so?
Below is an explanation of why all the arguments I listed above are invalid.
The Bible does say that God created all life. To a comparative religion studier, this would be referred to a creation myth. Science rejects God because he is undetectable and supernatural and needs faith to think he exists, possibly a concession that such an object does not exist on the part of the religious. Also, the lengthy time-periods of geology and the fossil record do not support a 6 day creation.
The violation of the second law of thermodynamics is not so. If biological processes that involved reproduction and growth and generation-progression violated this law then no organism would ever get beyond the zygote stage.
Humans did not evolve FROM today's apes, nor specifically from chimpanzees (closest relative to humans). Humans evolved WITH chimpanzees. Life evolves by common ancestry. There was a Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time a Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time an Orangutan-Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor. Humans evolved from a single twig of the ape branch of the tree of life. Evolution does not proceed as a complete transformation of one species into another (like all chimpanzees suddenly becoming humans or giving birth to humans) leaving a disappearance of the 'parent' species behind.
'Pond-scum' or Kent Hovind's disparaging 'lightening on mud' or (with regards to the big bang) 'all the dirt in the Universe) are statements of absolute unscientificness. There is no such thing as scum or dirt in science. Science talks about elements and gives them names (such as oxygen and carbon and nitrogen and silicon). Life is formed from elements. Cells are formed from elements. Life can evolve once a nucleic acid is enclosed/delimited/contained in a membrane. That is all that needed to happen.
There are indeed transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. There are lineages alive today that give clues as to transitions, like hoatzins, platypuses, lungfish and coelocanths, hippopotamuses, Australopithecus and welwitschias (which give clues as to the origins of angiosperms).
Earth-age is a matter of geology. But evolution theory needs it since evolutionary processes take a long time. Earth is not 6000 years old as the Bible-literalists claim. Earth is 4 600 million years old. The uranium dating mechanism that was used to measure this is no doubt inaccurate by a few hundred million years. This is about 1% of the total magnitude of the age and is thus negligable. Earth is very very old. The way of measuring Earth as 6000 years old was done by examining ages of humans in the Old Testament. This presumes that humans have existed for the entireness of Earth's history. However to measure something's age it is better to measure the age of what that something is made of (rock in Earth's case). One cannot measure something peripheral (like human-age, humans just being on the surface). If measuring age were done like this, the age of a wad of cheese would be measured by the age of the mould growing on that cheese or a person's age would be measured by measuring the length of time they'd been wearing that morning's shirt.
The 'just a theory' argument shows lack of understanding of 'theory'. Theories are all-incorporating explanations that tie together many facts. Hypotheses are promoted to theories only when confirmed by convincing evidence. It is appropriate to say 'just a hypothesis' of something of course. And of course that would be inappropriate for evolution, which is a theory and not a hypothesis. Hypothesis is almost synonymous with guess. Theory is almost synonymous with fact.
Evolution suggests ungodguidedness perhaps. I admit that religion exists as a comfort for humans in a frightening universe. However, if evolution is the truth we must not shy away from it obviously. Then we have a true explanation of the biological world's diversity! To think there is a god is faith and so regardless of what science you accept god can still be imagined for comfort. To the thinking person and the common sensical person, atheism may well abound in their thoughts and knowledge of the universe anyway, regardless of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Is evolution depressing? Mindless mutations locked into existence nonrandomly by selection or eliminated? Look at the beauty of life's biodiversity. One must not fail in the imagination just because a process is mindless. Evolution has great power. Theodosius Dobzhansky said 'Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of evolution'. The 'Origin of Species' has the words 'Out of the war of Nature' and out of this emerges Darwin's evolved 'forms most beautiful'. There is constant action and colour and wonder in the world of life, of animals, plants, genetics, ecosystems and the beautiful biosphere as a whole. Why would anyone be sad about that. All life has a life-force just like you, selected by Natural Selection. Can all life appreciate life as much as we do?
Does evolution (as the Theory of Evolution) lead to Hitler-persons and their vicious killings of fellow humans? I'm sure many people will agree that Hitler was a horrible git (we could always be ruder and about Hitler is the place to be so) no matter how you slice it. Hitler's horribleness surely has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an innocent description of life-adaptation and change and diversification. If Hitler produced atrocities after having heard of evolution, it must be remembered that Hitler was horrible and ghastly no matter how you slice it. Maybe the Hitler argument is simply used by serious anti-evolutionists trying to incite moral outrage. Notice that it is not against the mechanisms of gene frequencies and mutation and Natural Selection and species diversification. It is just against a theory which says nothing of God and morality and Bible-said statements and thus regards it as immoral/ungodly.
Finally, evolution is not a religion. It is a science. When it is said 'Scientists BELIEVE that Earth is 4 600 million years old' or 'Scientists believe that endosymbiosis took place' or 'It is believed that all life has a common ancestor', that word BELIEVED means 'thought sensible and logical' and 'is thought a good account of what occurs in reality', 'is thought a good description of the world'. It is not religious at all as it is based on evidence and logic and common sense and knowledge and not faith.
All arguments against evolution arise from faith-based contempt for nonfaithful, nonreligious science-explanation. All of them are completely invalid.
Evolution remains a perfect fully-supported theory, which explains the origins and diversifications of 'Darwin's forms most beautiful', the beauty of life....
