0
There is no simple answer to such a question. It incorporates many aspects of psychology and sociology, and a true answer would vary slightly between individuals.
Generally speaking, people believe Creationism in some form because they are indoctrinated with it at an early age, and it becomes one of their core beliefs. Later, when presented with a scientific answer to existence, they simply cannot defy their core beliefs, regardless of how credible they may find the alternatives. Often, in such cases, individuals end up believing multiple, conflicting items, or blatantly refusing to discuss any similar topic, in an attempt to avoid the inner conflict that would ensue.
Another reason people may choose to disbelieve the theory of evolution is ignorance; if one has never been presented with information, or has only been presented with information in a one-sided or biased manner, one's conclusions will be made according to the information at hand, and, as in the instance of early indoctrination, one may simply refuse to question one's core beliefs. An example of this is the way science has progressed; 400 years ago, there was no explanation for our existence more viable than creation by a supreme being[s], so most cultures had some adaptation of such a theory. As technology and science progressed, evidence for an alternative theory was discovered.
A third reason why one might choose to believe in having been created by a supreme being[s] rather than having emerged from a long string of cosmic accidents and biological mutations is fear. Being the creation of a supreme being[s] provides comfort and a sense of importance, in a way that few can derive from the knowledge of having been the result of a series of chemical coincidences. No matter how overwhelming evidence to the contrary may be, people fear the implications of having no grand purpose, and therefore choose to disbelieve, ignore, and shun the idea.
The answer to that question is extremely complicated. This involves an understanding of human psychology, of the development of both religion and science through the ages.
In very simple and general terms: people identify themselves by memes and ideologies because it gives them a firmer stance in a social context. We like to believe what people around us believe, because it makes for more socially robust groups. It's a form of peer pressure. We can identify with such memes to such an extent that we're no longer able to separate ourselves from what we believe: those beliefs become basic tenets that may not be questioned.
Answer:
The Jewish answer is that we have an unbroken national tradition of 3300 years to the Revelation at Sinai. God states that He created the universe (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:10). Not to mention, that Evolutionists have not put forth any putative proofs that would undermine the Jewish tradition.
God's creation of the universe explains the vast wisdom found within it.
Answer:
The scientific answer is that we know that the the universe began almost 14 billion years ago. We, at least, can admit that we don't know how at this time. Ours is not a tradition but truths that have been pursued and changed with time and with addition facts. There are now findings in archeological digs in Israel that show the fact that man used fire in homes more than 500,000 years ago. The central ideas of evolution are that life has a history. It has changed over time and that different species share common ancestors.
As lineages evolve and split and modifications are inherited, their evolutionary paths diverge. This produces a branching pattern of evolutionary relationships. We call this phylogeny or the "tree of life".
The tree is supported by evidence, but it is not flawless. As scientists gather more data, they may revise these. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs and that required some adjustments.
Check the link below for more information:
Well, if you're asking personal opinions, I don't believe the biblical creation myth actually happened. There is overwhelming evidence from fossils, genetics, cosmology, geology, anatomy, botany, animal breeding, plant husbandry and computer simulations that all interworks consistently that evolution by natural selection has happened and continues to happen. If you're asking why some people believe in creation rather than evolution, it's probably a mixture of upbringing and human psychology that makes people tend to want to believe in supernatural explanations. If someone believes in these things very strongly, then they use "creative" interpretation of reality to make it fit in with their beliefs.
Creation makes more sense scientifically! You don't have to choose between science and God. When you put things in order in your mind and blend the two, things make so much more sense! Creation agrees with The Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it has said some things about science that scientists once rejected, but advances in technology lifted the veil off their eyes so they could see that science always had agreed with the Bible; it was just our lack of knowledge that made the Bible appear incorrect. You don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution. If I took an alarm clock and broke it into pieces, then put those pieces in a bag, and shook that bag for millions of years, what are the chances when I pull those pieces out of the bag I will have a fully functioning alarm clock? And tons and tons of these amazingly lucky incidents had to have happened for everything to come out of nothing.
Some believe in evolution over creation because they have the mistaken impression that one must accept either one or the other. Others believe scientific evidence shows that evolution is correct. While others believe the complexities of the physical universe - macro and micro - require a Creator who is also the lawgiver and intelligent designer of all physical matter.
- You should believe in creation not evolution, if you believe that your faith would be undermined by acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.
- You should believe in creation if you believe that the Bible must be accepted as literally true.
- And you should believe in creation, not evolution, if you believe that the only evidence for the existence of God is the world he may have created.
For more information on creation and evolution, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
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.)
- 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
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
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
- 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.)
- 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.
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
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
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
As a child, I had never heard of evolution, but was taught about creation almost incessantly, as no doubt were many others. Some of us are unable to let go of childhood beliefs, and so will always believe in a single, special act of creation, while others will look at science on its merits and accept evolution as a proven fact. So, I have believed in a special act of creation, but no more.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the change in hereditary features over time?
I believe that the word you are looking for is "adaptation". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Correct
How many people believe in Creation?
In the United States, most people educated up to High School graduation or less, believe in creation in preference to evolution. In the rest of the Western world, the overwhelming majority of all people believe in the Theory of Evolution.In 1996, the National Science Board put the question, "Believe that humans as we know them today evolved from earlier species of animals" as part of a survey of Science and Engineering Indicators for the United States. The proportions of people who replied 'Yes', by education level:Graduate/professional over 70%Baccalaureate about 60%H.S. graduate about 41%Less than H.S. about 29%The Data360 organisation provides more recent statistics for the population as a whole, in the United States and selected other countries, who believe in evolution:USA ........ 39.7%Britain .... 73.4%France ... 79.5%Denmark 82.2%Summary">SummaryIn the United States, most adults who completed their education in High School believe in special creation. Most Americans educated beyond High School believe in evolution, as do most adults in other Western countries.
How many people believe in the theory of evolution?
When the evolutionary theory was first proposed, people didn't believe it. Often, religion and evolution contradict themselves and even today, there are many people who favor creationism over evolution.
What is the various Christian and secular viewpoints with regard to evolution and creation?
The Catholic Church accepts the fact of evolution with the proviso that their god was the prime mover. The Anglican Church accepts evolution but is not fully sure of its cause. Some Evangelical churches do not understand evolution and fully believe that their god created everything 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. The secular viewpoint is that creation is one of the religious ideas thought up about 3,000 years after people had first learned to farm, knew nothing of the workings of the universe and had no idea about bacteria or viruses. Evolution, of course, says nothing about the origin of life, as creation does, just its path over the past 3 billion+ years.
Why did homo sapiens become so intelligent?
Its an opinion but most people believe in evolution (changing over time) but I believe in creation.
Do Christians believe in evolution?
Christians believe the creation of GOD and evolutionists don't believe God, they accept the theory of Darwin. Actually, Christians do NOT believe in evolution. They believe that God created the Earth and everything in it, including man, which thus makes them NOT believe in evolution. You can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. People who say they are Christians but believe in evolution and not true Christians if they won't accept that God created the world and everything in. Most Christian are Liberal or Combanation Christians so do not take the Creation stories as being the way it happen just that God created the world and everything in it and the humans have a special place in creation, however can believe that evolution is the way God did it as well as the Big Bang. Also when the creation stories in Genesis were written people did not have an understanding of science and so could not understand evolution even if it was explained to them as they had no scientific understanding so a way had to be given to them to explain the most important things about Creation God did it and humans have a special place. This is why it is the way it is and God does have a guiding hand in evolution but evolution does happen the Catholic Church says you can believe in evolution but warns people not to abuse evolution to do evil like the Nazis did. Proper Christians don't believe evolution. evolution is the process of a DNA strand adding genetic information to better suit an environment However some Christians such as me believe in the process natural selection which excludes evolution. natural selection has it that in the beginning there were only several species of each animal, and then the different species mate they produce different sorts of offsprings depending on their genetic material. thus the explanation as to how every kind of animal could have one day boarded Noahs ark without causing it to explode. Some modem Christians do now believe in evolution. Perhaps the "6 days" the earth was made in was over thousands of years, and it was Gods happening along with the rest of science. It's unfair to say you are not a true Christian if you believe evolution. Creationists on the other hand are trying to bend the bible around science to suit. Which may not be correct to interprete the bible in that sense as this wasent writen to abide by the laws of science.
Why should people believe in evolution?
People should not " believe in " evolution but accept that evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. The also need to consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains much about evolution, as one of the most well supported explanatory theories in science. Then they would, if they are intellectually honest, come to accept not only the fact of evolution but the theory of evolution by natural selection. " Believe in " is a term one uses when one can provide no supporting evidence for one's concepts and this does not include evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Go here and learn. talkorigins.org
What is the difference between god's creation and evolution?
God's creation is the belief that a divine being created the universe and all living things in their current form. Evolution, on the other hand, is the scientific theory that species change over time through processes such as natural selection. Some people believe in both concepts, seeing evolution as the mechanism through which God created life.
What is a difference between the theory of organic evolution and that of special creation?
The theory of organic evolution posits that species change over time through the process of natural selection, while special creation holds that species were individually created by a divine being and do not change over time. Evolution is supported by extensive scientific evidence, while special creation is a belief based on religious or philosophical perspectives.
How do naturalistic evolution and special creation differ in regard to this change?
Evolution means changes over time to fit and live in the environment. Special creation means the beliefs that a divine being caused all of creation as in the Book of Genesis. It is a literal translation and not based on scientific facts.
Do you believe that evolution and atheism are inseparable?
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Evolution is the change in organisms over time. They are two different subject and many of those that accept evolution also believe in deities, so...
Why should you follow Evolution?
No one 'wants' you to follow evolution. It is simply the scientific process by which humans and other living creatures developed over many millions of years. If you choose to believe a non-scientific alternative, that is fine, however scientists have irrefutable evidence that evolution really did happen.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
