The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations say it is true.
All that evidence. Directly observed macroevolution, DNA, the fossil record, etc. Hard to deny all that.
* Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things
Nope. Biology classes teach that it's about the way living populations change. The first thing you should know, if you want to take down science, is what it is.
Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment.
No. That is not what it's about. It's about mutation and natural selection.
When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact.
No, they mean common descent of all living things on Earth is a fact.
Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas.
No. What a silly idea? No wonder you hate science. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.
Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action.
No. They say that large scale change has happened, because the evidence demonstrates it. Just one example; DNA analysis shows the same family tree for all organisms that is found by other evidence, such as the fossil record. And we know it works, because it is tested on organisms of known descent.
However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.
That's testable claim. Show me an organism which has reached that point, and can have no further changes.
Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
Much day to day science doesn't depend on metallurgical sciences, either. But agronomy, animal husbandry, drug research, medicine, and many others depends on evolutionary theory.
Scientific fields of study have become very narrow.
And not surprisingly, the people whose expertise is in biology are most likely to accept evolution. Those who have degrees that are not related to biology, like mechanical engineering, are more likely to reject evolution. Ignorance is creationism's best ally.
Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
Here's a way to test that; ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because those scientists do," you're right. If he starts talking about evidence, you're wrong.
Scientists want to have an answer for everything,
So does everyone. But to suggest that they make up stories out of nothing is not merely foolish, it's against everything Christians stand for.
Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study.
Right. Science can't address the supernatural. But if you're a Christian, you should accept Genesis, which expressly denies the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of special creation.
However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.
Show me where Newton used faith in his theory of gravity. Be sure to include the calculations. Show me in Pasteur's scientific papers how he used religion. Show me where religion fits in Faraday's law of induction.
Or come on back to the real world and take part in the discussion.
