Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[rusra02]

The following is a quote from genetic scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig:
"My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."​

 

[johnhanks]

The following is a quote from genetic scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig:
"My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."​

Lönnig, like all creation-professing scientists, is first and foremost a bible-believing Christian. Like the rest, he has given his biblical beliefs priority over scientific evidence.

The quote you have cited above merely restates your own favourite argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig Has spent his career working to disprove evolution and writing books to propagate his Ideas.
He is as biased on the matter as you can get.
He has little if any support from Scientists working in the field.

 

[rusra02]

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig Has spent his career working to disprove evolution and writing books to propagate his Ideas.
He is as biased on the matter as you can get.
He has little if any support from Scientists working in the field.

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

What logic against evolution? Have you read his work? If there is logic against evolution it isn't in those pages.

edit night folks

 

[Iti oj]

how about you post some of his arguments? then we can go piece by piece and show you?

 

[darkendless]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

Why did you start this thread if you intended to dismiss everything except what you already believe?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

We are not the ones who stood him up to be shot down.
You are.

At a scientific level evolution is established.
At a religious level It is now accepted by a majority of mainstream religions.

All the arguments are well known, and I for one have no wish to read or repeat them again.

 

[johnhanks]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us some of the "fallacies of evolution" you think Lönnig has exposed.

 

[rusra02]

Why did you start this thread if you intended to dismiss everything except what you already believe?

Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

[darkendless]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

I'm not. You seem to be looking for an excuse to attack everyone who has something to say against your source which, as has been said, contains bias and is highly unreliable.

The point being is there any reason to have this debate when it is unlikely you'll take in anything anyone says?

 

[Iti oj]

I'm not. You seem to be looking for an excuse to attack everyone who has something to say against your source which, as has been said, contains bias and is highly unreliable.

The point being is there any reason to have this debate when it is unlikely you'll take in anything anyone says?

or the fact that he ignored the two poster who offered to read and debunk the arguments if he were to post them

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The following is a quote from genetic scientist Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig:
"My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator."​

QUESTION: Why does his single opinion matter more to you than the opinion held by 99.9% of qualified biologists?

 

[johnhanks]

As I suspected, since evolutionists cannot attack the logic against evolution, they attack those who expose the fallacies of evolution. A common tactic of propagandists.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us some of the "fallacies of evolution" you think Lönnig has exposed.

Well, if you won't, I will. Here is a piece of Lönnig's work, purporting to debunk the widely-quoted evidence for evolution provided by the absurdly circuitous route taken in mammals by the recurrent laryngeal nerve. First, he asks

why did natural selection not get rid of this "worst design" and improve it during the millions of generations and mutations from fish to the giraffe onwards? Would such mutations really be impossible?

Yes, they pretty well would, as they would involve a successful re-routing in one lucky step, with no deleterious consequences on the way.

Not content with this asininity, Lönnig continues:

2. The fact is that even in humans in 0.3 to 1% of the population the right recurrent laryngeal nerve is indeed shortened and the route abbreviated in connection with a retromorphosis of the forth aortic arch. (“An unusual anomaly … is the so-called ‘non-recurrent’ laryngeal nerve. In this condition, which has a frequency of between 0.3 – 1%, only the right side is affected and it is always associated with an abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery ...")

Why, asks Lönnig, has natural selection not favoured such anomalies so as to eliminate the recurrent nature of the laryngeal nerve? Because, he says, such shortenings are always deleterious - in other words, the nerve is "meant" to be that long. What he overlooks here is that the shortening of the nerve never occurs without some other damaging effect - such as the abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery referred to in the quote.

If you want a further critique of Dr. Lönnig's prowess, you can find one here.

So, rusra, back to you: if you have more "fallacies of evolution" that you think Dr. Lönnig has exposed, please elucidate them for us.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the thread title question:

They don't really.

 

[FearGod]

a scientific program that make sense to me,those are scientists and not priests,but any scientist that comes to disprove the evolutionists claim then he is a priest and not scientist,it seems that good scientists should be only atheists.

[youtube]v7DV4foC2lk[/youtube]
God Doesn't Throw Dice - YouTube

 

[LuisDantas]

Disproving evolutionism is roughly as possible as disproving gravity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Some scientists reject evolution because they're not looking at evolution scientifically. Anybody who takes an honest and scientific look at evolutionary biology will understand that it is a sound scientific model that accurately describes the change of populations over time. Only an inability to understand the concepts or an unwillingness to accept them would result in any other conclusion.

 

[WyattDerp]

You know, since he doesn't really use the scientific method, he's not "a scientist" in the stuff I see here. Maybe he did other scientific work, but this ain't it.

This is like asking why the olympic sprinter got drug addicted and fat, and couldn't sprint anymore.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

a scientific program that make sense to me,those are scientists and not priests,but any scientist that comes to disprove the evolutionists claim then he is a priest and not scientist,it seems that good scientists should be only atheists.

You do realize that there are literally millions of theistic scientists who accept evolution, including the science departments of each and every single one of the world's most prestigious religious Universities, right?