Creationists, or anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory, do you disagree with other area's of science ?

Question

as well? I'm sincerely curious if it's only this facet of biology that you are so afraid of, or disagreeing with, whichever. And if so, why dismiss evolution and not, say, mitosis? I'm not trying to attack or anything, I'm seriously curious as to why dismiss a theory (which in science terms is backed by a LOT of fact) but yet you agree with just about everything else.

Answer 1

Well, here's something for the creationlists to chew on....

Gravity is a theory, not a law.  There are discrepancies with this theory.

    * Stars on the outskirts of galaxies are moving faster than they should. Also galaxies within galaxy clusters are moving faster than they should. Dark Matter and MOND have both been proposed as explanations.

    * The expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. Dark Energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data is reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all.[19]

    * The Pioneer spacecraft seems to be slowing down in a way which has yet to be explained. [20]

    * Various spacecraft have experienced greater accelerations during slingshot maneuvers than expected.

    * An apparent frame dragging effect has been measured by Martin Tajmar and others which exceeds that predicted by General Relativity by many orders of magnitude.

Does this in turn mean there is no gravity?

Answer 2

I just refuse to believe to believe that I am descended from a lower life form, you of course are free to believe that you descended from a lower life form, but I sir did not.

Answer 3

The whole "you never saw it happen" argument always baffles me.  Most scientific facts are extrapolations and inferences.  We cannot SEE electrons or protons or even atoms but we know they are there and there is a neat theory called the atomic theory to explain it.

Do creationists really believe that they never have to work out things from evidence that they never saw?  Imagine how boring CSI would be if they were only allowed to accept eye-witness accounts, which ironically are the least trustworthy?  What if I showed someone a picture of New Orleans when they'd never heard about the storm - could they not be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the damage was wind rather than say, a flood or a bomb?  (And I'm not being flippant about that tragedy.)

The fossil record, biogeography and genetic analysis as well as every other pattern in nature, all paint clear pictures of a transition or evolution of life over time and space.  They are so complete and definite that evolution of life is considered a fact, proven beyond all resonable doubt.  It also has a neat theory to explain how and why it occurred based on other known facts that we can see working on life in real time - addition of novel traits via sexual recombination, mutation, polyploidy etc. being acted on by natural selection.

We know that the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection does happen and can explain the fact that life evolved from a common origin.  The only reason it's still a theory is because we can't necessarily say that this is the COMPLETE explanation.  We may well, and probably will, find other relevant factors and processes but at this stage we know for sure that life evolved from a common ancestor and that the known processes of genetic change and natural selection play a huge role in this.

This is the accepted position of biology and comes about by following the scientific method.  The patterns in nature that prove it are re-observable and unambiguous and there are countless repeatable experiments and observations to support the details so there is no validation for the claims of creationists.  It is science and it is a fact and the theory is far stronger than most theories in any scientific field.

There are many facts and observations that discredit a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth as well as all other creation myths.  Not least amongst these is the fact that the two accounts in Genesis contradict one another.  So it's impossible to take literally and just doesn't stand up as reliable historical fact.  I would point out though, that it works as an analogy even with these contradictions.  Jesus and the Jews all used analogous stories to get points across so what's the problem here?

Answer 4

things are accepted and rejected on basis what suits people's lifestyle.

Answer 5

I strongly disagree with evolutionary theory, but that's because I AGREE with science.  I don't disagree with any area of science.  You are blind to see science as being the same as one of its subsidiary theories.

Answer 6

The "theory of evolution" is not so much a study in science as a study in history, done by scientists.  So to not be convinced of the theory of evolution is not being against science.

As for your proof, if your scientific research is as solid as your "it-s agreed that if you travel fast enough...  I read it somewhere...." then you've got a little bit of studying to do.  That "somewhere" just might have been on the internet?

As a Christian, I have read different booklets claiming some scientific discovery or other that "proved" something in the Bible, or something about prophecy, and have found that those "facts" are quite bogus. It seems that as a non-Christian, purporting to put science versus faith (which doesn't make sense to me anyway), you can fall into the same trap of taking for granted that something you read "somewhere" is fact.

As per mutations: Mutations don't reproduce. Developing a resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with either mutations or evolution. It's not like changing from fins to mouth-breathing lungs, or changing from swimming to walking on feet.  No matter how many billions of years you consider, that just didn't happen, unless God decided to make it happen, and I don't believe he did.

EDIT:

I never learned anything in either physics, chemistry, or biology in school that contradicted in any way what I believe today (I could theologically be classified as a fundamentalist, even though I don't like what the term has come to mean today).

Reading some of the answers on the part of non-Christians here, I can't help thinking: If Christians showed that much "depth" of scientific knowledge, they would quicikly be the laughing stock, not only of Yahoo Answers participants but of everyone else as well.  However, I don't judge non-Christians, atheists, or any other belief on the basis of what I read in Yahoo Answers. Much better for everyone to do their onw home-work thoroughly.

Answer 7

Viruses and bacteria do not evolve into anything else but another virus or bacteria, so that is absolutely no proof of evolution. While we're on the conversation of observing things, what - in the last 5,000 years - can it be said of was "observed evolving"?

Using circular logic to explain "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" is useless as a tool of science to prove a tautology that no scientist in the world has a snow ball's chance in h**l of ever proving.

Myself, I'm into technological sciences such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and nano-technology.

Evolution is just bad science. It's as boring as watching paint dry.

Answer 8

Through my experiences, religious people have no problem with science as long as it suits their purposes. Its when science contradicts their beliefs that they get upset and deny it. Yes they are hypocrites. I know someone who would constantly try to use scientific research to back their arguments, but at the same time say that scientists are ignorant thinking we evolved from apes.  

Answer 9

I have no problem with any scientific theory, I actually have taught science. But I do have a problem with thinking science can explain spirit.

Answer 10

my husband seems to be an evolutionist/christian, but then you tell him to go to a doctor and he says they are in the darkages , and you tell him to get some theraphy and he says they are head shrinks.

Answer 11

I am educated and totally support other branches of science.  I am employed in a branch of science.   As you appropriately label evolution, it is only a theory.  It has never been observed and measured, as science teaches us to do.

Answer 12

It is a misconception that scientific theories are always right. Many theories of the past have been discarded in favor of "better" ones. A scientific theory is merely a belief based on a few observations which is held by the majority of scientists. True theories are open to falsification.

The obvious problem with this is that it allows for bias. An interesting question is whether science determines what people believe, or does what people believe determine what is widely accepted as science?

Anyway, to answer your original question, I also disagree with the widely held belief that homosexuality is genetic. Now they've recently found that some men have a gene whereby they are predisposed to be polygamous. I'm very curious to see how this is received by the scientific community.

And I'm not exactly afraid of evolution. I believe that evolution is a fact - micro evolution that is. Macro evolution is however an extrapolation of this. Any mathematician knows that extrapolation always contains errors.

Answer 13

By definition, most of these people cannot believe anything that conflicts with the Bible, so alot of physics goes out the window as well.  Most of them are perfectly willing to say that that laws of science are valid, except God can break them anytime he wants, because he's God, and that the Bible simply gives examples of where God exercised that ability.

Answer 14

They don't know what mitosis is.  If they did they'd disagree with that too.

Answer 15

Their preacher probably didn't cover that in a sermon yet so they don't have an answer.

Robert D: It's easier to accept that you're descended from mud?

Answer 16

They typically only disagree that which they perceive to disagree with their dogma.

Answer 17

I am sure they would soon accept chemotherapy if they needed it and they would deny their god gave them the cancer as well. It would be the devil's fault or maybe Atheists?

LOL

Answer 18

Not afraid.  Things don't just happen in and of themselves.  Something can only come from something greater than itself.  Adaptation is scientific.  Evolution is a joke.  Science is the study of God's creation.  I love biology.

Answer 19

When anything doesnt agree with scripture, we will always go with scripture... Mans law says that it is ok to lie and to lust and to hate and to covet things....Gods law (scripture) says other wise.

If science or anything else does not agree with scripture...Gods word always over rides it.

dont give me a thumbs down just because you dont agree with me. You asked my opinion and I gave you an honest one.

Answer 20

I dont disagree with science. I dont see why I should. And I dont see why you bracket creationists as rejecting science in general when its only ToE that they have a problem with.

Let me put it this way... the evidence being provided for evolution do not match up to the claim of evolution.

I covered this issue here

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 21

time travel. i disagree with that. lol.

(unless of course by time travel your travelling to a parallel universe to a specific point in that time)

but i've never heard someone claim time travel to be anything more than an idea.

I don't really disagree with evolution though. It's just not something I wanna around and tell the world about. I could really care less where I came from.