Question by mark777: Why do people claim that only Christians refuse to accept the theory of evolution?
Klaus Dose (biochemist and Darwnist) – “At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field [of chemical and molecular evolution] either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Robert Shapiro (research scientist and origins expert) – strongly argues that all current theories are “bankrupt.”
Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) – “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”
for good measure…
Charles Darwin – “To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest possible degree.”
My purpose in quoting Darwin is not to point out that he doesn’t beleive in evolution (obviously this would refute his entire life study) but to show the absurdity of the premise. The other quotes are not meant to say these scientists are no longer evolutionists, but to show that at least they have the intellectual honesty to say that the theory of evolution is not proven “fact” as it is stated so freely, but that there only hope is that future research “may” authenticate their beliefs. However, as is freely admitted by many scientists, we are far removed from the time of Darwin, with millions of examples in the fossil record, and we are no closer to proving intermediate life forms ever existed.
Timeponderer: Lack of morals? Do you really have to attack my character just because I quote the words of a scientist who expresses doubts? You are right, these quotes do pertain to the origins of life. However, since evolution is unable to answer the question of how a single cell can form from random chance, are we supposed to believe that it is that much easier for the cell to evolve into a more advanced form, just because someone postulates that it would? Since you are a paleontologist, what does the fossill record really tell us? Do we really have any links between species? Isn’t it true that the phylogenetic trees contain more imaginary lines than they do actual connecting lines? Is it not true that especially physicists are jumping off the evolutionary ship due to the impossible odds that doom the entire theory of evolution? (second law of thermodynamics). Please, if I have turned you against me by my questions that is your choice-you don’t know my character.
Timeponderer: If you noticed in my first addition, I did not quote Darwin for the purpose of saying that he did not believe in evolution but to show the doubts that he expressed would only be vindicated with later research. If Darwin knew the octopus performed much the same miraculous vision process 500 million years earlier than man, almost as soon as science says multicellular life appeared in the seas, could it be possible that the theory of natural selection would need to be refined?The origin of life is the basis of the controversy between evolution and Intelligent Design. If evolution cannot explain where the first cell came from, then where do we turn? Second Law of Thermodynamics is propaganda? So is gravity propaganda too? I only mentioned that as a side to the incalculable odds of evolution ever taking place. The herbivorous rat becomes a carnivorous hyena, then becomes a herbivorous cow that enters the ocean to be a carnivorous whale? Where is the fossil evidence?
John: I really don’t know why you brought up the definition of a theory to debate my question. As you defined it, a theory is an explanation based on facts – that doesn’t make the explanation fact. Some origin scientists say that life came here from some other planet, based upon the same facts – not all evolutionists believe this. Intelligent Design is also a theory that is based upon the same facts that evolution tries to explain. From what I have studied, the evidence points more to design and purpose, not randomness and meaninglessness.
The fossil record is not abundant with intermediate forms. The fossil record shows examples of life that appears suddenly and disappears suddenly – complex and fully functioning species.
I want to clarify that microevolution is something that can be observed and tested. However, macroevolution is a huge jump that cannot be tested through experimentaion or observation and therefore doesn’t even fall under the true definition of science.
Answer by johngrobmyer
No one I know of claim only Christians dismiss Evolution. But as for the scientists you listed, most of those quotes are taken out of context, and the scientists themselves do not dismiss all of evolution. Evolution is a theory in science, which means by definition it is changing as we find new knowledge. But that doesn’t mean that what we do have isn’t rooted in hard facts, and most scientists in their respected fields accept evolution as a whole.
Edited because of your reply: Evolution isn’t a “fact” that is true, but that is only because of the definition of a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Fact. Just because evolution is a “Theory” doesn’t mean it is just an idea that is yet to be proven or “absurd” as you like to use. Here is the definition of a Scientific Theory:
“As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).”
The only people who like to throw around the word “theory” in the context of it isn’t “fact”, are the people who refuse to look at the definition of the two.
As for the intermediate fossils, I don’t know what to tell you except to research more. Literally thousands of intermediate fossils have been found. Will we find everyone? Probably not, but that doesn’t change, nor does it diminish, the credibility of evolution. I like to use this example, think of the fossil record as a timeline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 represents a complete fossil record. Just because we are only at this stage: 1 2 3 ? 5 6 7 8 9, the lack of the number 4 doesn’t change the progression any. In the future we may have to change a few details as science progresses, that is the nature of science, but it will not change the well founded ideas we have now.
Add your own answer in the comments!