If evolutionary theory is so wrong then why is it used?

If evolutionary theory is so obviously wrong that a layman without any real background in biology or science can falsify the theory, then why do scientists rely upon evolutionary theory so much?

IF evolution so fundamentally flawed that it violates the basic principles of logic and natural laws, then why hasn't science dismissed it?

Does science have some kind of irrational or vested interest in maintaining some theory that - excuse me - is so ****** stupid that only a moron would accept it?

If evolution is so offensive to christianity, then why do the overwhelming majority of christians (including the clergy) accept it?

Can lay people really know more then scientists about science?

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You will likely get the "conspiracy of evildoers" type response, or the "inertia" type response (scientists have a vested interest in following the company line). Both of these are incorrect. Evolution arose out of the evidence, and was clarified and more correctly defined out of the evidence. There is no hidden agenda.

Also, the entire process by which the scientific community works is built around tearing down other's ideas wherever possible! You know that over the last 150 years, countless scientists have tried to find the fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, hoping to be the one who "falsified evolution". He would be the most famous scientist of his generation. Every scientists dream. The fact that no scientist has been able to do more than point out minor areas to be clarified in the details is very telling about the overall correctness of the theory.

Also the fact that other branches of science, like medicine and chemistry actually use the evolutionary principles as base concepts in their own studies and experiments, and the results of those experiments work *because* those evolutionary concepts are correct.

Also of immense importance is that even the leading YEC's have come to accept that EVERYTHING about evolution is true, except that they place a barrier on how far it can actually create change in populations. They accept mutation, selection and the resulting change. Everything about the actual mechanism of evolution is no longer really in dispute, only the effects that can result from these mechanisms.

So, the entire debate should be limited to the whys and wherefores of this degree of change. Those in favor of evolution explaining why they think that the resulting changes can create new species and new "kinds", and those opposed should argue exactly what the scientific barrier is to the mechanisms creating that degree of change.

But no YEC's want to discuss these issues.

I think that you are right when it comes to science not facing the facts in the matter. But like us scientists are people with emotions and views. And they have presented evolution as the best theory available for a non-creation view. Therefore it will remain to stand as a “solid” theory. One reason that it continues to be used is because people, as scientists, are thinking backwards. Instead of looking at the facts and creating a hypothesis from their experiments, they go looking for evidence that can support their preconceived thesis. Now I don’t exclude this problem to Atheist or evolutionist. Christians tend to do the same thing when it comes to preconceived notions. We look for things that support what we believe already. This is not good science. As Christian we should look at evidence and draw a conclusion from what we see. Only this mind set brings people to God. Because I think atheist are tired of bad science on the Christian side. That is why they assume it all to be myths because they heard something from a Christian that turned out to be false on all accounts. Truth is what we need to seek.

But, evolution did not develop out a preconceived idea, but out of an observation of the evidence and the development of an hypothesis accordingly. This has been tested over and over again, and found to be sound. Scientists have attempted to falsify over and over and have not been able to do so. This is good science.

The very basic foundation of science is to base conclusions on evidence, and not allow pre-conceived notions bias one's conclusions.

To charge that scientists are "thinking backwards" is to claim that they are doing the exact opposite of what science really is.

Don't you think somebody would have caught this by now?

Scientists build their careers on presenting evidence to their peers for review. They also build thier careers on picking apart the research of others. There is a lot of competition among scientists for everything from reputations to research funding. IN an academic setting, as most scientists work in, the pressure to publish research is immense. And that research is scrutinized.

Nothing can boost a career like being adept at finding flaws in others' methods and conclusions. Then again, nothing boosts one's career like being able to consistantly present research that withstands the barage of criticism and critique.

For something to become consensus among the majority of scientists, like evolutionary theory is, means that it has had to withstand a lot of detailed analysis.

Scientists in general are not geered to simply agree with one another's conclusions. Part of their very nature is debate and skepticism.

Certainly, there are examples of bad science that manages to get published. What usually happens in those cases is that the other members of the scientific community decend upon shoddy research as a pack of wolves on a sickly moose.

You may as well accuse all lawers as not knowing the law, or doctors as not knowing basic anatomy.

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

First of all the science and their “backward thinking” are related in my last response to those scientists that are trying to prove the thesis of evolution with limited facts. I’m not as arrogant to say all scientists are making bad science. Just simple that some do not follow the scientific model of developing hypothesis.
Second the argument that evolution is right because it has been around for a while is a perfect example of not using scientific thinking to reach a conclusion. The earth was thought flat for many more years than evolution has been thought a hypothesis, but we don’t believe the earth is flat because the facts state otherwise. But have you ever thought about how many years after the facts were presented before people began to see the truth. This is a parallel to the current thesis of evolution. Evolution has been picked apart and has been found lacking. But the change we not come about over night. The history of new discoveries has shown this time and time again. You say that evolution has been probed at, but only found minor flaws. I would then ask you have you looked at some of the cases against macro-evolution. I would say they are much more than minor points of conflict. There are some major problems found in the theory of macro-evolution. Here take a look at a small handful of books on this topic. If you have not read them I would encourage you to take a look. Remember these are just a couple, but there the one’s I have found helpful to me personally. Notice I did not put the author’s credentials for the sack of time. If you would like them give me their name and I will write back and tell you what degrees they have and where they work. It is important to note that these are scientist on the forefront of new hypotheses about evolution and not old books written by Science teacher at your local high school.
“the cosmic origins of life on earth” Christopher Chyba
“The Source” John Clayton
“Forbidden Archeology” Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson
“The origins of species revisited” Bird, W.R.
“Evolution of living Organism” Grasse, Pierre-P
“The Ediacaran Experiment” Gould, Stephens J.
“Darwin’s Black Box” (sorry I forgot the author. I don’t have it with me)
“Understanding Evolution” South Bend, John Clayton
“Evolution: The Challenge of Fossil Record” Gish, Duane T.
“Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” Denton, Michael
“Of Pandas and People” Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon
“The Bone Peddlers” Fix, William R.
“The Extinction of Darwinism” Johanson, Donald and James Shreeve
“In the Beginning” Horgan, John
“The Natural Limits to Biological Change” Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin
“The Dawn of Man” Parker, Steve

Thirdly, notice I said macro-evolution and not micro-evolution. There is a discrete difference between the two. One has been shown by facts as the books above demonstrate and the other, macro-evolution, runs into some problems with science. Take a look at these sources you may find them shocking.

Morgan said:
First of all the science and their ""backward thinking"" are related in my last response to those scientists that are trying to prove the thesis of evolution with limited facts. I’’m not as arrogant to say all scientists are making bad science. Just simple that some do not follow the scientific model of developing hypothesis.


Well, first, scientists are not trying to prove evolution, they have established that it is a valid and working mechanism, they are now just trying to establish more and more of the details about how it works in particular situations. In fact, scientists never try to prove a theory. Once they come up with a hypothesis of how things might work based on the evidence in front of them, they immediately begin trying to FALSIFY it. If it can not be falsified, then it is given more weight and is tested and tested and tested until it is well considered enough to be considered a theory. Like gravity, which is just a theory. I am sure there are scientists who may not follow the scientific methods, but if they don’t their hypotheses will never stand the intense scrutiny of falsification. Evolution is a theory that arose directly from the evidence and was detailed and fine tuned based on hypothesis and testing.

Second the argument that evolution is right because it has been around for a while is a perfect example of not using scientific thinking to reach a conclusion. The earth was thought flat for many more years than evolution has been thought a hypothesis, but we don’’t believe the earth is flat because the facts state otherwise.

No, evolution is not right because it has been around for a long time. It is most likely correct because it has survived the intense scrutiny of many generations of scientists who have attempted to falsify each aspect of it, which of course was not true for flat earthism (which, by the way, was not accepted by most scientists since ancient times). And it is most likely correct because it has been shown to correctly predict events in many areas of science beyond biology. Further, there is no debate anymore even by leading Creationists that the actual mechanisms of evolution are exactly what science indicates. The only remaining debate is over the degree of change this process can produce. We are no longer even fighting over evolution per se, but how much change evolution can bring.



But have you ever thought about how many years after the facts were presented before people began to see the truth. This is a parallel to the current thesis of evolution. Evolution has been picked apart and has been found lacking. But the change we not come about over night. The history of new discoveries has shown this time and time again. You say that evolution has been probed at, but only found minor flaws. I would then ask you have you looked at some of the cases against macro-evolution. I would say they are much more than minor points of conflict. There are some major problems found in the theory of macro-evolution. Here take a look at a small handful of books on this topic. If you have not read them I would encourage you to take a look. Remember these are just a couple, but there the one’’s I have found helpful to me personally. Notice I did not put the author’’s credentials for the sack of time. If you would like them give me their name and I will write back and tell you what degrees they have and where they work. It is important to note that these are scientist on the forefront of new hypotheses about evolution and not old books written by Science teacher at your local high school.



I will not have time, of course, to review each of the list of books that you presented, but I will definitely look at a some of them. The problem I see right at the top is that many of them are hard-core YEC’s who have an agenda to pursue, and one that is not based on furthering scientific knowledge. If what any of them are saying is true, then their conclusions will peer reviewed and found persuasive and will be accepted in the scientific community, which is not averse in the least to overturning established concepts. That happens all the time and the overturning scientists are praised and rewarded. I have not seen any major arguments against evolution stand up to peer review.



It might be helpful if you summarize some of their points for the group. It is very likely that all their points have been heard before and responded to in some way. If not here, then over in the science forum.

Morgan:

I have not yet had a chance to review these books, but hope to in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, you might want to check out the following reviews of a couple of them at the following links. If you have read the book and find it persuasive, it behooves you to at least read the rebuttal before coming to any conclusion. Equally, I would not consider the rebuttal conclusive unless I have also read the book, of course.

For Denton’s book:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

For Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

On this last one, I have read a bit on the subject of "irreducible complexity" and find it lacking. I have not read this review (and there are others linked on the page), but over in the Science forum, there was a very good analogy of a metropolitan city as an "irreducibly complex" system and a discussion why IC just doesn’t hold up.

I think we should take a look at some of these authors, so we know who we are dealing with:

Chyba: seems to believe that life on earth was seeded by comets

Clayton: a former atheist who now claims that modern science does not contradict the Bible.

Bird: is a lawyer and not a scientist. Hey, I am a lawyer as well, maybe I will write a book on the subject!

Gould is a leading evolutionist, and his discussion in this particular book, from what I understand, has been clarified by some more recent discoveries.

And here is AIG’s take on a couple of the others:

"Where do they really stand? Behe has no problem with the idea of man descending from the slime, via fish—so long as it didn't happen ‘by chance.’

Denton, who was an agnostic when he wrote his book, has since moved much closer to theistic evolution, not Genesis creation."

From what I hear, Denton has recanted his conclusions in the books listed.

If evolution didn't work, experiments and observations would eventually reveal this. They haven't so far, so it is the best theory out there.