Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[Me Myself]

And yet, supporters of Evolution point to scientists as authorities, those you say do not "mean squat". Which is it to be?- BTW, here are the reasons a geologist rejects the ToE: "I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.
Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles." - Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka.​

You are very confused.

Even if design was evidenced, that does not mean there was no evolution.

Evolution explains how life developed, but there is currently no explanation for how life began.

Do you understand the difference between began and developed?

Like, a man life begins after a male and a female human have sex. Then a human life develops, and this developing doesnt negate the begining.

If you evidenced that a toddler doesnt need his parents to have sex to keep growing, you would not be evidencing that there was no need of sex for the toddler to be born in the first place.

 

[rusra02]

In any large group of people you are going to find a few who hold unusual opinions. This is only to be expected. The question then is are they right to hold these minority views.

I don't need to igore them, nor do I need to launch ad hominem attacks at them. But the mere fact that these people exist is not sufficient evidence against evolution, nor is it evidence at all.

All I can do is examine their arguments against evolution.

So I put the question back to you rusra02. Why do you think Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig rejects evolution? Do you think his arguments are valid, sound, and scientific? If so just present what you thing is his best argument (or arguments). No need to get into personalities.

I believe you can read Professor Lonnigs arguments and reasons for rejecting evolution as scientific as well as I. And as to getting into personalities and ad hominem attacks, I believe you are addressing the wrong person. The attacks are from evolutionists. And of course, I agree with the scientific truth that nothing complex can be shown to be constructed by chance. The simple but profound truth that what is constructed must have a constructor. I have not seen a convincing rebuttal to that simple truth, stated in the Bible at Hebrews 4:3; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." Evolution claims all the brilliant design evident in nature that man can but dimly perceive came without a designer but "evolved" over time. The facts, I believe, speak for themselves.

 

[rusra02]

You are very confused.

Even if design was evidenced, that does not mean there was no evolution.

Evolution explains how life developed, but there is currently no explanation for how life began.

Do you understand the difference between began and developed?

Like, a man life begins after a male and a female human have sex. Then a human life develops, and this developing doesnt negate the begining.

If you evidenced that a toddler doesnt need his parents to have sex to keep growing, you would not be evidencing that there was no need of sex for the toddler to be born in the first place.

I think you miss the point of the scientist's reasons for rejecting evolution.

 

[sunni56]

They reject evolution because they are ideologues of their religious beliefs and are narrow minded when it comes to their theology.

 

[Musty]

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."​

We all have biases that influence how we choose to interpret the world. If you select a group of people 50 at random from around the world, supplied them with the same evidence for a crime and asked them what they think happened you'd probably get 50 different responses.

These responses would reflect the peoples life experiences and the same is true of what happens when a scientific is presented with scientific information. If someones life experiences bias them in favour of a creationist explanation then it's likely that the explanation you get for the information you gave them will reflect this to a greater or lesser degree depending on how much influence creationism has on their thinking.

 

[Me Myself]

I think you miss the point of the scientist's reasons for rejecting evolution.

He said we wre too complex and evolution doesnt explain that. I am telling you whether it does or does not explain it, it doesnt need to.

Evolution is an evidenced process that biological lifeforms undertake. When we say evidenced we mean that there is evidence for this happening. LOTS and LOTS of evidence, from a lot of fields.

He adress the subject with a false dichotomy, so naturally I am skeptical of his opinion.

Have you ever heard an agnostic or an atheist biologist of today saying there is not enough evidence for evolution?


There are a LOT ( if not most) of atheist and agnostic scientists who dont pretend to know all the answers, so saying "i dont know" its not at all a problem. We currently dont know how life originated. No respectable scientist would tell you that we know. Now what we do know is that life evolves. This two things are not the same.

So if there was insufficient evidence for evolution, an atheist scientist or an agnostic scientist would have nothing to lose from addressing that. More so, he would have a lot to gain by propaganda alone. I can bet you he would gain a lot writting books about it and such.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quote mining is fun.

 

[McBell]

And yet, supporters of Evolution point to scientists as authorities, those you say do not "mean squat". Which is it to be?- BTW, here are the reasons a geologist rejects the ToE: "I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Evolution is not about the beginning of life.
So another fail from you.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be
Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles." - Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka.

Now you are merely repeating the same already successfully refuted crap.

 

[johnhanks]

I believe you can read Professor Lonnigs arguments and reasons for rejecting evolution as scientific as well as I.

Rusra, I gave you a detailed critique of some of Lönnig's arguments in post 14. You have so far conspicuously avoided answering that critique, but continue to post as if Lönnig's arguments had been shown to be unanswerable.

And of course, I agree with the scientific truth that nothing complex can be shown to be constructed by chance...

Where, exactly, in scientific sources is this "scientific truth" written down? Rusra, it is not a scientific truth at all - just the expression of your own misguided preconceptions.

 

[WyattDerp]

No matter how random quantum mechanics for example may seem, who is to say there are not some determinate, but hidden rules that produce the apparently random effect?

To me, religion/creationism and science/theory of evolution operate in different realms. Religion is postulating a "why", or a cause of any first cause we might be able to discern - science has no need and no ability to go there, it's strictly about things this side of the curtain, so to speak.

I think serious religious people and serious scientists have no problems and zero confusion with all that, either. It's the hacks that can't get over it.

 

[rusra02]

They reject evolution because they are ideologues of their religious beliefs and are narrow minded when it comes to their theology.

I would suggest people accept evolution for the same reasons. (Romans 1:18-23)

 

[WyattDerp]

I would suggest people accept evolution for the same reasons. (Romans 1:18-23)

Evolution can be observed, however. Very easily in bacteria. There is no reason to take *anything* at face value, that's the beauty of it.

 

[outhouse]

Why do some scientists reject evolution?

Because theology has stopped them from furthering their education on the subject.


:yes:

I think you miss the point of the scientist's reasons for rejecting evolution.

Theistic beliefs only.



Evolution is fact as gravity and it is embarrassing in this modern age it is still even questioned.

 

[FearGod]

Because theology has stopped them from furthering their education on the subject.


:yes:





Theistic beliefs only.



Evolution is fact as gravity and it is embarrassing in this modern age it is still even questioned.

Do you think random mutation is science.

Comparing gravity which is a fact to the random mutations is indeed a silly one.

The gravity is observed and have its laws,but you have to go back millions of years to observe random mutations and how orgasim evolved from simple cell to the Argentinosaurus.

 

[Iti oj]

Do you think random mutation is science.

Comparing gravity which is a fact to the random mutations is indeed a silly one.

The gravity is observed and have its laws,but you have to go back millions of years to observe random mutations and how orgasim evolved from simple cell to the Argentinosaurus.

no you don't it can be studied and observed in medical test such as bacteria and viruses. you are also completly ignoring the genetic and fossil evidence

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you think random mutation is science.

Comparing gravity which is a fact to the random mutations is indeed a silly one.

The gravity is observed and have its laws,but you have to go back millions of years to observe random mutations and how orgasim evolved from simple cell to the Argentinosaurus.

Gravity is a theory, as is evolution. Both conclusions were arrived at using the exact same scientific method. Yet you accept one and reject the other, which doesn't make any sense.

Mutuations can be observed now -we don't have to travel back millions of years to observe them. Have you ever heard of genetics?

 

[dust1n]

Or the fossil record...

 

[fantome profane]

Do you think random mutation is science.

Of course it is.

What so you think "science" is?

 

[Twilight Hue]

no you don't it can be studied and observed in medical test such as bacteria and viruses. you are also completly ignoring the genetic and fossil evidence

That alone should settle it. Some people have a hard time though that they remain in denial on whats obvious and certain.

 

[Iti oj]

That alone should settle it. Some people have a hard time though that they remain in denial on whats obvious and certain.

to be honest i find just looking at the fossil record of human ancestry alone to be compelling and over whelming