Why can't people accept Evolution as the explanation of the origins of life?
82794
The concept of evolution as an explanation for the origins of life is flawed. The theory of evolution explains the origins of species, but not the origins of life. A lump of premordial goo, no matter how well it could adapt to its environment, lacks DNA. The first cell must have had DNA to reproduce. Therefore, the first cell must have been created; that would not conflict with neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Bible. (Doesn't it say something like, "God created man from earth"? Anything organic is made from earth.)\n\nAnd that's why both the Bible and the Theory of Evolution are correct.
253662
It is not hypocritical to reject the big bang but use a computer, because they stem from two different areas of science. However, a rejection of evolution is usually based on an ignorant knee-jerk reaction based on an inaccurate assumption of what evolution means. Many scientists believe in god AND evolution. It is people too insecure in their faith to actually study it, learn its history, and learn a more accurate view of what the Bible says (rather than what they are told it says by extremists with an agenda) who reject evolution whole cloth. They are afraid that if they accepted something as a mere physical fact that went against a spiritually immature literal translation of their holy book (you know, the same kind of literal translation that causes people to fly into buildings) that their faith would be corrupted. They don't have the inner strength of mind or character to think about their religion's teachings on a deeper spiritual level rather than a literal/physical one, so they are unable to realize the difference between spiritual and physical reality and accept those differences. They'd rather cover their eyes through ill informed denial than allow themselves to consider for even a moment something that might cause them to challenge their faith.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
925227
I completely agree with you, I never understand why people can't consider the idea of God planning evolution, a combination of the two just like you said.\n\nThe people who disagree are the ones who consider the Bible to be the absolute truth when it comes to God and creation, even the Atheists are doing it. The Bible is not a history book, even Christian Fundamentalists have interpreted creation in the Bible differently. If you remember that it's not 100% facts and keep an open mind, then people would understand.
159591
Do you mean "Is evolution in contradiction to Genesis (the Biblical version)?"?  If so, they are not in competition.  You can believe in creation and evolution.  Evolution is the change in alelle frequency in a population over time.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  That is a matter for abiogenisists to worry about.  Evolution works no matter what the origin of life actually is.
1018241
How life came into existance and how the different species have evolved or undergone changes has been the subject of constant analysis as well as  conjecture by mankind. Most religions have tried to theorize that all creation is the work of God. Modern science however does not 'see' the hand of God for creation to occur and believes that the different forms of life evolved from the primordial soup, made up of oxygen, nitrogen, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen etc (simple molecules) dissolved in water and catalysed by lightening. Further evolution to higher forms of life was a natural process of selection which is exemplified best by the 'Dashawatar' analogy of the Hindus, amongst  all the prevailing religious theories. At which precise moment the advent of different species began, including that of humans, and where it will stop are all matters of conjectures (in the absence of scientific answers), feeding the various religious and non-religious dogmas.
434086
Evolution has not been disproven, and probably never will be.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to confuse the general public.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the
1034540
That's just it, it is a theory only and there is NO real proof. And every so often they change and adapt things in this theory when some scientific fact or discovery comes along and begins to expose it. People did not come from monkeys. A piece or two pieces of nothing did not explode and create everything. And evolution disproves itself. It teaches that the strongest species survives. So if that is so why is man still here? Man isn't the strongest species, but he does think. But the original theories say the strongest not the one that can think. So as I said it disproves itself. So now the only logical and factual explanation for existence is GOD!!!
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
1091281
I can understand where your coming from but before you make any conclusions on evolution take a look at this website.  It has all you need to know about evolution vs. creationism.  http://www.talkorigins.org/.  The reason so many people believe in evolution is that every field of natural science supports it independently from geology, biology, genetics etc. and it makes a lot of sense once you sit down and really analyze the fact.  Unfortunately there is much misinformation out there so I urge you to read the information on the website and then make up you mind on evolution.  Personally I feel that evolution and religion can co-exist.  I feel that its a shame religious leaders exploit controversial topics in order to rally their base.  The true teachings of religion are of acceptance and forgiveness and any dogmatic interpretations of the bible (or any religious text) only serve to weaken message.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
1099264
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
987774
It's the best scientifically tested explaination that we have.  Believe me, scientists aren't so eager to fall into line as you might think.  If someone could get recognition by scientifically disproving the theory of evolution to any great extent, it will be done.
530502
Ok, your question is very interesting and i think many people are thinking that you are jocking or crazy. Ok I will explain you some points:\n\n1.Fracis Crick, co-descovered ot the DNA structure says" The ADN structure could not have evolutioned in the earth in only 300 million of years, is very structured and developed to have been evolutioned in the eart in so short time."\n\n2.Probably the most certain theory about the origin of the life and the species in the earth is the Creation theory. This theory dont have contradictions and is very complete and let us explain everything about the origin of the life in the earth.\n\n3.There are a lot of evidence that the brain from the monk until the brain of the sinhantropus neede 15 million of years, but the brain with the homo sapiens appeared only 1 million of years after. This so Big Jump is impossible and the expert are not agree about what happened.\n\n4. The conlcutio is: We are aliens, because our DNA and our life is not from here, a Super Natural being created us, and this Being is our God. Now from the scriptures we can find many references about this Super Natural Being in the Bible and to him we should to feel respect because he has been with us from the fundation of the world.\n\n5.For this reason I think we are aleins and many reincarnation theories think that we have been in other lives in other planes and here is only one more that the planets where we can learn. For example, The asteroid belt, is considered by some clandestinity groups like a planet that was destroyed between the war between two races that are living in this planet today and they are having the same problems like there. Hopefully the eart will not finish like Traya de Maldek.\n\n6.Many conspiration theories says that the earth have a alien reaces from Z-Reticuli, and they are sharing technology with the American Goverment and it´s probably is a fact, but may be are rummors, the time will show us the true.\n\n7.And Like a Christian I think our Lord Jesus Christ is the most super natural being, our Master and opur Love, our example to Live and may be we will understand everything anbout this world because may be, like a old friend said me one day "The true is a Mirror Broken in thousand Pieces"