What are the main arguments against evolution?

[PaulAndrew83]

A scientist who is Christian has to play the Devil’s Advocate until satisfied that no natural explanation exists.

Yeah but often it is fun poking big gaping nuclear bomb size holes in evolution.

Evolution stuff

Thing is lots of things in evolution have no evidence. Funnily eneogh those always correspond to the things which would be actually evolution (molecules to man) and not something that biologists like to think is evolution(some other change that is not molecules to man).

So if you become a partisan for or against evolution, don’t force yourself to believe that your faith in any way depends upon it. It just doesn’t.

Thats a theological question and while there has yet to be an official ruling about it, you might be shocked a bit by what actually has been said.

Paul

 

[Orogeny]

I am sorry you are wrong. I went to university believing in evolution. My university was Imperial College London. This college is number 1 in europe for for science and technology. When I was there I met other people who have iq’s similar to my own that is 150+ who were also against evolution for scientific reasons. Not all of them were undergraduates either.

It is nice being able to discuss this with someone so much more intelligent that the rest of us. It is a fresh breath of air injected into a stale argument. I look forward to an education on the subject.

What did you get your degree in at the Imperial College? Based on your post, I am guessing that you are not a biologist. A mathemetician perhaps?

When I graduated I no longer accepted evolution as a scientific theory. That was what caused me to come back to the Faith as it were.

What are your top 5 evidences against evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[EasterJoy]

Yeah but often it is fun poking big gaping nuclear bomb size holes in evolution.

Thing is lots of things in evolution have no evidence. Funnily eneogh those always correspond to the things which would be actually evolution (molecules to man) and not something that biologists like to think is evolution(some other change that is not molecules to man).

Thats a theological question and while there has yet to be an official ruling about it, you might be shocked a bit by what actually has been said.

Paul

If attempts to connect the data to evolutionary theory aren’t criticized, one may as well give up on the whole enterprise. Actually, I’m in the camp that thinks the best scientists are their own Devil’s Advocates. Certainly, finding any-sized hole in a theory is fun, particularly if there is a caricature of the theory going around that the general public is willing to accept hook, line, and sinker. I know the snipers aren’t the ones who do most of the actual science, but the most important science always comes out of a willingness to be a sniper. Not out of malice to great scientists that went before, but out of a desire to keeping kicking at the foundations, sniffing out the shaky ones and building on the ones that appear the strongest, then repeating, repeating, repeating.

I would hardly be shocked to find that somebody tried to make evidence that this or that natural mechanism exists into evidence that God doesn’t exist or isn’t what we make him out to be or who knows what else. There are lots of agendas in this dog fight that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with theology, or the desire to be rid of it. The less that kind of agenda infects the discussion, though, the better.

Our faith doesn’t depend on how the answers turn out, after all.
Our science does depend on refusing to abandon our scepticism because some other people are being sceptical on agenda-driven grounds. Scientists who hate sceptics are going to see their science suffer on that account. Scientists who require sceptics to make their case with science, though, are making a perfectly sound objection, even if their motives for making the objection are less than admirable.

 

[Just_Lurking]

See here for an article against evolution by Peter Heck, In addition to the arguments ad hominem and arguments by incredulity, there is also an argument by misrepresentation of the theory of evolution:

Britt concludes that since swine flu is a mutated form of the influenza virus, it proves that viruses evolve to survive, thus confirming Darwin’s theory. The only real problem with Britt’s conclusion is that it is utterly absurd. For Darwin to be affirmed, the swine flu would have to demonstrate some new genetic information that hadn’t been present in the original influenza strain. It doesn’t. No new genetic information is present – just mutated forms of pre-existing material.

However, the theory of evolution predicts exactly the opposite, that every living thing’s genes are just mutated forms of pre-existing material. It is creationism that claims that each “kind” was designed independently, and thus should exhibit genetic information that isn’t just mutated forms of genetic material from other “kinds”.

 

[EasterJoy]

See here for an article against evolution by Peter Heck, In addition to the arguments ad hominem and arguments by incredulity, there is also an argument by misrepresentation of the theory of evolution:

Britt concludes that since swine flu is a mutated form of the influenza virus, it proves that viruses evolve to survive, thus confirming Darwin’s theory. The only real problem with Britt’s conclusion is that it is utterly absurd. For Darwin to be affirmed, the swine flu would have to demonstrate some new genetic information that hadn’t been present in the original influenza strain. It doesn’t. No new genetic information is present – just mutated forms of pre-existing material.

However, the theory of evolution predicts exactly the opposite, that every living thing’s genes are just mutated forms of pre-existing material. It is creationism that claims that each “kind” was designed independently, and thus should exhibit genetic information that isn’t just mutated forms of genetic material from other “kinds”.

I don’t disagree with you entirely, but your last point does not necessarily follow. Creationism does not predict that the genetic information of each animal “should” be entirely novel and independent.

A creationist, rather, would say that there isn’t a reason in the world that a creature created from scratch, but created by the same source, should not show similarities to other creations from the same source. That 2009 Toyotas look a lot like 2008 Toyotas, and even that some of the parts are entirely interchangeable, does not prove that the latter was literally the progenator of the former. That they came from the same designer would be reason enough for the similarities.

 

[budgie2]

I think the main argument is that human beings have a soul whereas animals do not. Therefore there would have to be some type of division in the way that animals and humans were created. It’s possible that at some point during evolution there was a break and God invested a different type of soul into his creation.

I think evolution proves that we were made in the image of animals rather than in the image of God. It drags us down rather than raises us up. What sort of person would want to prove they were related to an ape? Darwin must have had a serious issue with body hair.

I’m not an expert on evolution but I’m a supporter of the theory of Intelligent Design which I’m also not an expert on.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t disagree with you entirely, but your last point does not necessarily follow. Creationism does not predict that the genetic information of each animal “should” be entirely novel and independent.

I guess, technically speaking, that creationism doesn’t predict anything, as it is a religious belief and not a proper scientific theory. But Genesis is clear that man was made in the image and likeness of God, completely unlike the lower animals, so it is very difficult for me to interpret the fact that every gene found in human DNA has clear evolutionary predecessors in non-human DNA as a striking disproof of evolution and the corresponding confirmation of the Biblical theory of the unique creation of mankind, as Peter Heck would have us believe.

A creationist, rather, would say that there isn’t a reason in the world that a creature created from scratch, but created by the same source, should not show similarities to other creations from the same source. That 2009 Toyotas look a lot like 2008 Toyotas, and even that some of the parts are entirely interchangeable, does not prove that the latter was literally the progenator of the former. That they came from the same designer would be reason enough for the similarities.

Automobiles demonstrate the predictive power of the theory of evolution as well. If cars did evolve, then every feature on every new car would have evolutionary traces or predecessors in prior year models. However, this is easily disproved by observing the introduction of completely novel features such as automatic transmissions, power steering, and so on. Thus, automobiles do indeed come from an intelligent designer, and could not possibly have evolved.

 

[Dave59]

transitional forms are found all the time

Paleobiology 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing (‘all
these years of work and I haven’t found any evolution’).

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Some “main arguments against” atheism:

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

 

[Dave59]

That Darwinism leads to genocide as practiced by the Nazis.

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&

chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final Solution
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

 

[budgie2]

It may be that we share similarities in DNA and in other physical features with other animals because we were all created by the same God and therefore there is a consistency in his creation. If you look at God as an artist, all the works by the same artist may have similar techniques and features. This doesn’t mean that God painted over one work of art to create another work of art. He may have used a different canvas. We might be looking at the evolution of God’s thought rather than a physical evolution of one species to another.

I’m not an expert on evolution but I disagree with the theory.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It may be that we share similarities in DNA and in other physical features with other animals because we were all created by the same God and therefore there is a consistency in his creation.

We know that there are similarities in all God’s creatures from grade school biology - (almost) all mammals bear live young, nurse them, and so on. At a general level, you would expect such similarities from both evolution and creationism. However, the theory of evolution makes precise predictions as to the types of similarities that should be expected, and also the type of similarities that should not occur or it will invalidate the theory. Clearly, creationist aren’t prepared to go on record with correspondingly precise predictions for their belief.

The point I was trying to make was that Peter Heck cites some research in biology that finds the precise type of similarity as predicted by evolution, and somehow manages to twist that around so that it becomes, in his mind, a disproof of evolution. Specifically, he fabricates a fact (that “genetic information” did not increase in the influenza virus mutation) and fabricates an aspect of the theory of evolution (that “genetic information” must increase in favorable mutations), and then concludes that evolution is false because his fabricated fact contracts his fabricated theory. Just another creationist argument against evolution.

 

[buffalo]

We know that there are similarities in all God’s creatures from grade school biology - (almost) all mammals bear live young, nurse them, and so on. At a general level, you would expect such similarities from both evolution and creationism. However, the theory of evolution makes precise predictions as to the types of similarities that should be expected, and also the type of similarities that should not occur or it will invalidate the theory. Clearly, creationist aren’t prepared to go on record with correspondingly precise predictions for their belief.

The point I was trying to make was that Peter Heck cites some research in biology that finds the precise type of similarity as predicted by evolution, and somehow manages to twist that around so that it becomes, in his mind, a disproof of evolution. Specifically, he fabricates a fact (that “genetic information” did not increase in the influenza virus mutation) and fabricates an aspect of the theory of evolution (that “genetic information” must increase in favorable mutations), and then concludes that evolution is false because his fabricated fact contracts his fabricated theory. Just another creationist argument against evolution.

Creation is pretty much an account of what happened. Why would you expect it make any predictions?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Creation is pretty much an account of what happened. Why would you expect it make any predictions?

Scientific theories make predictions. Many creationist try to claim that creationism is a scientific theory and therefore advocate that it be taught in science class.

 

[buffalo]

Scientific theories make predictions. Many creationist try to claim that creationism is a scientific theory and therefore advocate that it be taught in science class.

I say it should be taught in mandatory philosophy and metaphysics classes. Science class should teach empirical science only. Evolutionary philosophy, and at this point ID should not.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

What are your top 5 evidences against evolution?

Peace

Tim

Well top 5 would be hard to place.

Now I know even more about certain things edit[than I did when I graduated]. However first of all I would like to point out certain things, behaviors as it were in the evolution camp.
Often something is used to criticize evolution and somebody comes into try and argue with it. But often eneogh the aftermath is the same, it gets parroted around how such a theory is discredited when it isn’t.

Then there is the “you what, disagree with evolution? you must be an idiot then.” attitude often possessed.

To me the best answers to an evolutionist come from probability, cellular biology and genetics.

Probably the best argument the complete absence of information on how life first formed from chemicals according to popular hypothesis. The answer that they might offer, well we did have billions of years. Really? The problem is that even some graphic calculators cannot display the probability of that happening in 4-5 billion years because it would end up smaller than 10 ^ -99.

The thing is we are not even sure what would be the minimum size of a biological structure. Some say its anything from 200-300 proteins. Given the size of them its mind-boggling that somehow they will all manage to join together and become a self-replicating structure that will evolve. Then you got to hope that somehow you manage to escape the chirality problem.

Not only do the proteins(i’m just going to call them all proteins for simplicity) ALL have to have the right chemical formula they also ALL have to have the correct structure/chirality. The presence of proteins with the wrong chirality will make the “lifeform” or whatever not work. Its like trying to put a left handed glove on the right hand.

Anyone who tries to pooh-pooh this by stating that the beginning of life isn’t really part of evolution is just trying to hide the biggest hole in the theory to date.

Paul

 

[Eddie_Mac]

HERE IS THE MISSING LINK! THEY"VE FOUND IT! WE ARE ALL DESCENDED FROM LEMURS!

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

My Creator thought more of me than to make my ancestors from a monkey.

Eddie Mac

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess, technically speaking, that creationism doesn’t predict anything, as it is a religious belief and not a proper scientific theory. But Genesis is clear that man was made in the image and likeness of God, completely unlike the lower animals, so it is very difficult for me to interpret the fact that every gene found in human DNA has clear evolutionary predecessors in non-human DNA as a striking disproof of evolution and the corresponding confirmation of the Biblical theory of the unique creation of mankind, as Peter Heck would have us believe.

Automobiles demonstrate the predictive power of the theory of evolution as well. If cars did evolve, then every feature on every new car would have evolutionary traces or predecessors in prior year models. However, this is easily disproved by observing the introduction of completely novel features such as automatic transmissions, power steering, and so on. Thus, automobiles do indeed come from an intelligent designer, and could not possibly have evolved.

I totally do not get the idea that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive ideas. Even a statistician can predict what a pair of honest dice will do, if you just let him roll them enough times.

Do you know about pre-organization in proteins? I mean, that of the thousands upon thousands of ways a protein could theoretically fold up, that under the conditions in which proteins are produced in vivo, they only fold up one way, and that this does not happen because the molecule randomly jiggles around through every possible orientation, but because the physical properties of the evolving protein puts boundaries on which orientations are likely. It happens in every organism that makes protein at all. There is more than enough in a worm to make your jaw drop and your heart swell. This is one astonishing universe that we live in. It is a wonder we understand the fraction of it that we do.

I have a PhD in chemistry. I have no problem with the awesome possiblity that God knew exactly how we would inevitably result simply from the universe he made following the laws by which he established it. I think God could have done that: not as a one of us winding up a clock, but as one of us could never do it: that is, imagining something incredibly complex and lovely, making it, and getting it to go just as planned the first time. Yet some people would argue that a God who could get something to go just as he planned if he wanted to, yet in so many ways did not plan it as we would have planned it, must not care much if he tinkers only here and there as his pleasure decides.

I honestly think that God only left room for a little non-standard interventions here and there–aka “miracles”–so that we would wake up and realize that our world isn’t the work of a cold clockmaker or an uncaring vacuum. I think God left enough room in all his laws to accomodate his sense of humor, to give us a delighted little poke and say, “WAKE UP!”

Do I have a problem with the idea that God could have used evolution as his chosen way to breathe on clay? No, I don’t. He could have made me from anything, mud or monkey, and it would have done nothing to stain my dignity, compared to what I have done to stain it. God made me. It would be interesting to know how that happened. But proving or disproving one theory or another has nothing to do with the indisputable nature of God’s authorship. On that, evolution has nothing to say.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Anyone who tries to pooh-pooh this by stating that the beginning of life isn’t really part of evolution is just trying to hide the biggest hole in the theory to date.

So as long as God is acknowledged as creating the first lifeform as a miracle, you are okay with the rest of life having evolved from that first created lifeform in the standard scientific manner?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Do you know about pre-organization in proteins? I mean, that of the thousands upon thousands of ways a protein could theoretically fold up, that under the conditions in which proteins are produced in vivo, they only fold up one way, and that this does not happen because the molecule randomly jiggles around through every possible orientation, but because the physical properties of the evolving protein puts boundaries on which orientations are likely. It happens in every organism that makes protein at all. There is more than enough in a worm to make your jaw drop and your heart swell. This is one astonishing universe that we live in. It is a wonder we understand the fraction of it that we do.

My PhD is in computer science. Another thing I find interesting is that the DNA doesn’t code for all the amino acids that occur in the proteins that are produced, but only 22 of them, not including hydroxyproline and selenomethionine. No code in computer science works like that. I guess God is smarter than our computers!

 

[ricmat]

I totally do not get the idea that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive ideas. Even a statistician can predict what a pair of honest dice will do, if you just let him roll them enough times.

Do you know about pre-organization in proteins? I mean, that of the thousands upon thousands of ways a protein could theoretically fold up, that under the conditions in which proteins are produced in vivo, they only fold up one way, and that this does not happen because the molecule randomly jiggles around through every possible orientation, but because the physical properties of the evolving protein puts boundaries on which orientations are likely. It happens in every organism that makes protein at all. There is more than enough in a worm to make your jaw drop and your heart swell. This is one astonishing universe that we live in. It is a wonder we understand the fraction of it that we do.

I have a PhD in chemistry. I have no problem with the awesome possiblity that God knew exactly how we would inevitably result simply from the universe he made following the laws by which he established it. I think God could have done that: not as a one of us winding up a clock, but as one of us could never do it: that is, imagining something incredibly complex and lovely, making it, and getting it to go just as planned the first time. Yet some people would argue that a God who could get something to go just as he planned if he wanted to, yet in so many ways did not plan it as we would have planned it, must not care much if he tinkers only here and there as his pleasure decides.

I honestly think that God only left room for a little non-standard interventions here and there–aka “miracles”–so that we would wake up and realize that our world isn’t the work of a cold clockmaker or an uncaring vacuum. I think God left enough room in all his laws to accomodate his sense of humor, to give us a delighted little poke and say, “WAKE UP!”

Do I have a problem with the idea that God could have used evolution as his chosen way to breathe on clay? No, I don’t. He could have made me from anything, mud or monkey, and it would have done nothing to stain my dignity, compared to what I have done to stain it. God made me. It would be interesting to know how that happened. But proving or disproving one theory or another has nothing to do with the indisputable nature of God’s authorship. On that, evolution has nothing to say.

A very nice post.

I’d just add one comment on the "roll the dice’ comment at the beginning of your post.

When you ask the “random evolutionists” about the probability of e.g. simple life to complex life via random mutations and natural selection, they often respond with “Well, since we’re actually here, the probability was 100%.” I’m not sure where they picked it up, but that argument is nonsense, and it hurts their own cause, and credibility. Which is fine with me