Why is Darwin's theory so controversial?

Answer 1

One thing that is important to note is that the theory of evolution is no longer controversial within the scientific community, but only in the public domain. To scientists, the experts who have researched and tested the more-than-just-a-theory for 150 years, it is an accepted fact on which all of biology is predicated. While scientists debate the fine details of evolution and the evolutionary history of earth (which is completely natural and unsurprising in the scientific community), no serious scientist doubts the validity of the theory as a whole.

The reason it is controversial in the public domain is simple: it contradicts some people's religious beliefs regarding creation. While the United States is officially a secular country, the majority of people are Christian. Many, but not all, Christians believe evolution detracts from God's role in creating life, while many others have managed to reconcile their beliefs with modern science. But even in the face of overwhelming evidence, some still insist upon special creation and the literal truth of Genesis. These people are known as creationists.

The main controversy with evolution regards how it should be incorporated into public school curriculum. Some think it should be eliminated, while others think it should be taught alongside and have equal standing with the "theory" of Biblical creation. While the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in the science class has been banned by Supreme Court in US public schools, some school boards and teachers still manage to circumvent the law, and evolution is often not taught effectively.

AnswerIt is controversial because in The Bible it says the Earth was created in 6 days. People who take the Bible literally have trouble also believing all the evidence for a process that took much longer. Some people of faith believe in Theistic Evolution which suggests the Creator directed the course of evolution. In other words, God used evolution to create man. Imagine watching the creation of the universe in fast forward. Theistic Evolution is a compromise, but it doesn't suit everyone. AnswerThe greatest controversy stems from religious text explaining that we were created in a very short period of time compared to evolution which takes millennia. Another cause for controversy is the desire for many people to believe that we have been created (by God for example) to be what/who we are. The implication of evolution is that humans can be better that what we are, and also that our ancestors were weaker than what we are.

To draw a parallel of a scientific theory - At the time when we realized that Earth was revolving around the Sun, religious leaders understood this to mean that Earth was not the center of the universe. After a lot of controversy and arguing between the religious leaders and scientists, the evidence was presented to prove the theory, and there was no longer a dispute.

AnswerThe reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that scientific facts counter it. This applies in every field either directly or indirectly related to the theory.

Scientific laws such as the Law of Biogenesis (Life only comes from life) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the so-called Law of Entropy) run directly counter to it. These laws are some of the best known and widely demonstrated laws of science and they have no known scientifically verified exception.

The addition of millions of years, even billions, does not strengthen the case for evolution. It has been likened to the case of a salesman who, though making a loss on every sale, thought he could break even by drastically increasing his volume. Genetics amply demonstrates that evolution is not possible. Harmful mutations build up and helpful ones can be lost. No mechanism for new information to be written into the genetic code of an organism exists in nature. Natural selection acts upon the existing genetic make-up of an organism or species. It cannot create new information necessary for one species to change into another.

AnswerAlso, if one gets into real science evolution has elements of controversy among the scientific community regarding various elements which are central to it. One could also say it is controversial because the facts contradict it:

Regarding Dating and Dating Methods

'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.'

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometricdating.'....

'It is obvious that 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 quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). 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.(animal breeding)(Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84.

'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. '

A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,p.974.

'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.'

Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3.

AnswerEvolution is controversial because some people believe it runs counter to their personal religious teachings. Among scientists, evolution is not controversial at all. Scientists debate things like what factors play a greater role in evolution, or how fast can species change, but not that evolution itself has occurred.

What is the evidence evolution has occurred? The fact organisms can be arranged into a nested hierarchy is evidence for common ancestry. "Race circles" are obviously related neighboring species that can interbreed, where further separated groups cannot. Ancient common viral genetic insertions are also evidence for common ancestry, as are shared broken genes such as L-gulonolactone oxidase. The fossil record, to which I will return, is yet more excellent evidence for evolution. Also, evolution has been observed. Simply type "observed examples of speciation" into Google.

As for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this applies to closed systems. Our beloved earth is anything but a closed system. There is a huge fusion reactor in our sky, not all that far away, that bathes earth's surface in rich, warm energy, every day. If local entropy could not be reversed, it would be impossible for people to build houses, for snowflakes to form (self organization of matter), or for crystals to grow. A moment's thought reveals what is ridiculously wrong with the assertion that entropy prohibits evolution. Babies could not grow into adults, except by (apparently) violating entropy.

As for nuclear isotope decay rates undergoing change, we only wish that might be true. Because if it WERE true, we could solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Instead, we have conducted many thousands of experiments, just to make certain heat, pressure, cold, vacuum, acids, bases, nor any conceivable chemical catalyst might alter nuclear decay rates. Instead, what we find are that the rates are the same now as the were when we first began measuring them at the turn of the 20th century.

None of these things are controversial from a scientific standpoint. The only controversy is whether or not one's personal religious beliefs are offended. Scientists from all of the world's major religions are perfectly content with reconciling evolution with their religious views.

Finally we come to the fossil record, with stromatolites dating back several billion years. Some 650 million years ago we notice the first multicellular organisms, all of which are marine flora and fauna. By the Ordovician earth's oceans teem with life, including jawed fishes, but there is no life on land. In the Silurian simple vascular plants and insects invade the land. In the Devonian we find the first amphibians, which bear uncanny resemblance to earlier sarcopterygian lungfish. By the Permian we have pelycosaurs--primitive sail-backed reptiles. A mass extinction marks the close of the Permian.

You just don't get this kind of multidisciplinary congruence without being onto something. Evolution is that thing. It is abundantly clear and obvious it has occurred. There is considerable scientific evidence in support of Darwin's theory of evolution, and there is no well supported scientific alternative to it. The controversy is simply a mental block towards facing reality.

Answer

Possibly because it clashes with beliefs which are notsimply to be dropped because man says they've discovered something to the contrary. Since many believe man was out on the earth as we are now, without having to change in appearance or instincts and such, and these beliefs normally accompany believing in The Creator, it's only natural it'll be highly controversial when someone says otherwise because it is a very sensitive subject to delve into and counter.

Answer 2

It should be noted that these are only controversies arising in the public zone; there is no controversy at all in the scientific fields of study related to evolution.

1. The "evolution is not scientific" controversy:

Some groups attempt to claim that either scientific evidence opposes or disproves evolution, or that evolution breaches laws of physics or chemistry.

They mostly involve

• Criticism of circular reasoning (for example, the quite incorrect idea that fossil dating relies on strata age, and that strata-dating relies on fossil age, which means each follows from the other);
• Mathematical extrapolation from the present (for example, the moon is currently moving away at a given rate; extrapolating would mean it was only a few inches from earth some millions of years ago);
• The misinterpratation of geological, cosmological, and physical knowledge (various ideas that would make evidence related to time and composition incorrect if they were true);
• Misapplication of physical laws (for example, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, while the earth and its inhabitants are open systems).

2. The "evolution implies illogic" controversy:

Some groups associate the biological theory of evolution with philosophical or social ideas of evolution, and then (quite correctly) show that the related idea is impossible or flawed using evidence and consistent logic. However, they then use the simple connection that if one idea is bad, so is the other - despite the obvious limitation on that chain of thought.

3. The "evolution is evil/sin/the work of Satan" controversy:

Because of the religious hype surrounding evolution in the public arena, evolution has been likened to some as the work of the devil or inherently evil. They then protest that it is taught to children in schools, that it is permitted in research labs which deal with anthropolgy, and generally that it is allowed to exist. This is normally only a problem when the complaining group is misinformed about science as a whole, and hence very rare.

4. The "evolution is only one point of view" controversy:

Used by some political and religious groups as well, they argue that evolution does not have universal support and is actually just one of many alternative views. The obvious result is that other ideas should be taught alongside it; crationism is one such "science".

Answer 3

There are two reason why Darwin's Theory of Evolution are controversial. 1; people don't want to believe that they evolved from apes. 2; the theory of evolution contradicts most religious beliefs of how we came to be. Instead of the first humans having been created looking just like us, the first human-like creature was evolved from something that crawled from the sea.

Answer 4

Answer:Religious adherents find the idea of evolution controversial because it suggests a method other than divine creation for the existence of complex life. Within the scientific community, the process of evolution has been accepted as fact for nearly a century and a half.

The modern theory of evolution is only controversial among creationists and a tiny minority of other scientists. The global biological community achieved consensus that evolution happens as described in the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Alternate Answer:"Also there are so many missing links. Between man and the apes, is one example."

Between Homo sapiens and Neandertal is a gap, and every time we discover a new hominid species it creates yet another gap. Between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis exists yet another gap, and so on. The smoother and more continuous the hominid timeline, the more gaps it comes to possess.

"Whoever the creator is, HE (SHE or IT) has created the universe according to a plan. This shows that HE (SHE or IT) is very intelligent. So he (she or it) can as well create many things together resembling or not resembling each other, at the same time. How can we surely say that HE created them one after another through each other."

The details of this plan remain obscure, apparently only revealed through the efforts of scientists rather than via the prayer and divination of monks, prophets, or holy men.

"Since two thousand years history is being studied through literature, art and poetry but no one has seen any living organism giving birth to another organism."

I have personally watched one organism give birth to another, when my wife gave birth to our daughter. A blessed event, to be sure. Perhaps the author intended to mean no species has been observed to give birth to another. Indeed, we would not expect this--evolution would be demolished if such a thing were observed. Evolution suggests species beget after their own kind, with only very minor modifications. Preferential survival of those with inheritable traits produces gradual deviations within phenotypes.

I put the second, "alternate" answer in quotes, and interjected comments to help explain just WHY Darwin's theory remains controversial. It is due in large measure to a decided lack of understanding among the general public as to what the theory is. I attribute this to a poor job of education--secondary school instructors too frequently are afraid to adequately teach simple evolutionary concepts to their students.

One does not have to believe in the theory of evolution, any more than one is compelled to believe in the theory of gravity. But one should understand the theory before attempting to attack it. Otherwise one ends up tilting at windmills.

Answer 5

99.9% of scientists accept the theory of evolution by natural selection. The controversy is basically religious in nature. Some religious ideologues can not accept that their holy books are not scientifically valid in their creation myths. This is about all there is to that so called controversy.

Answer 6

Literalistic religious ideology basically. Some religions have trouble accepting the modern world.

It is no longer Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Remember, this is the modern world and evolutionary theory has been refined somewhat since Darwin's day. Google the modern synthesis.

Answer 7

The theory of evolution through random mutations is controversial because it may be understood as implying that life is an accident, that perceived beauty and wisdom are ultimately purposeless, and that our instinctive yearning for the Eternal is just an electrical impulse in our brain. We thus would have no soul, no true hope, and no One to pray to.

The account of Creation, on the other hand, teaches us that God exists, that our lives and the world are meaningful, and that the created things may be assumed to contain vast wisdom in their beautiful and purposeful design. (In recent decades, this wisdom has indeed been partially revealed, through increasingly powerful microscopes.)

Answer 8

The Theory of Evolution is controversial because at last it provided an alternative explanation, based on empirical evidence, for the existence of life as we know it.

The theory of evolution is no longer controversial within the scientific community, where it is accepted as a sound explanation for the observed facts. However, it is controversial among those who fear that scientific knowledge means the end of universal faith in the existence of a Creator. Towards this end, they raise appeals to emotion, such as proposing that beauty is not real unless it was created by a supernatural being, or that it is beneath human dignity to be descended from more primitive species. Some go as far as to propose pseudo-scientific rebuttals of the science.

Answer 9

It isn't controversial. Almost all scientists and the majority of the people of the world accept it and use it in the creation of crops, animals and medical drugs. The United States and Turkey lag the world in this understanding so the "controversy" seems to be a cultural factoid in those countries.