Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Why do anti-evolutionist make extensive arguements against evolution when they dont understand the core of it?

They always shout about how "darwin denied evolution!!!(oh nos)", Which is total BS, btw. Don't they understand that it's not darwin we agree with, its the theory? Even if he denied it, evolution would still be the only theory of how life got here that makes remotely any sence.

9 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    How about this extensive argument?


    DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity

    The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

    DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"

    DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

    The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

    Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

    We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

    DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution

    The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.


    Does that demonstrate enough understanding for you?

    Source(s): The Answers button @
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    There are many reasons why evolution brings such a reflexive attack by the religious faithful. The root of it is because life is full of uncertainties and uncertainty leads to fear. One way to address this fear is to believe that there is a higher power and that your particular group of faithful (all other humans being heathens or infidels) are the chosen people blessed by this divine benevolence. It can be argued that “religiosity” was an evolutionary adaptation that permitted humans to function in large groups as our primate relatives typically max out at ~200 in a large troop.

    What can be more comforting to tell yourself that you and the all-powerful creator of the universe are intimately connected? One of the reasons that Darwin sat on his work for 20 years was because he feared the upheaval and attacks from the religious that would follow publication of his book [which most people, scientist and fundamentalists alike, have not read for themselves]. Evolution threatens this worldview and it can be traumatic for some.

    The answers already posted are the usual litany of ignorance, logical fallacy and misinterpretation that have been spewed for the past 150 years or so. For example, the reply by Martin S shows the lack of understanding between genetic code and the structure of DNA. The essentially universal genetic code is one of the best evidence for descent from a common progenitor. There is also the misunderstanding of what constitutes a theory in science. We also see logical fallacies such as, if a theory can’t explain EVERYTHING, then it must be wrong. Or, it’s so complicated that I can’t understand how it could be, then it must be supernatural. This is also the “god of the unknown” where everything that can’t be explained is attributed to divine intervention. Not so long ago, lightning was the work of the thunder god. There is a more modern theory of electromagnetism that can also explain this phenomenon but also make testable predictions about nature; something lacking in most theologies.

    “The eye” (which eye?) is certainly a marvel but it can also be explained by a series of developments beginning with a simple photo-receptive patch of cells. One does not need a fully functional eye for that trait to be advantageous. If one were a simple flatworm that by chance developed a molecule that could respond to light, that would be a huge advantage over a worm that could not detect light. This could be followed by the development of a depression underneath the photoreceptor cells that would give crude directionality to the light source. A flap of tissue that forms an iris would improve direction sensing. Seal off the iris and fill with medium and there is a primitive eye. I didn’t make this up, these types of photo-detection systems exist now in different species as relics of eye development.

    Also, it’s complete BS to propose that there are no better imaging systems than the eye. Who’s eye? A raptor? A primate? A naked mole? A honeybee? We rely on mechanical tools to extend our perception beyond the limits of what nature evolved to see smaller, farther, sharper and beyond the visible spectrum.

    It is probably futile to argue with a fundamentalist, as they are not motivated by the desire to learn. They live by faith, or a belief in that which cannot be demonstrated. The recently deceased pope even said that we should not study cosmology because the creation of the universe is God’s work. It was better in his view to remain ignorant and accept the translations of ancient texts selected by a group of men centuries ago. They tend to repeat the same discredited propaganda no matter how often the incorrect propositions are corrected. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. It is a scientific theory. What you will hardly ever see is a fundamentalist try to learn the science before attacking it.

    The universe can be a lonely place without a security blanket. Some never give it up.

    p.s. Darwin did not deny evolution. That’s one of those stories that continue to propagate in spite of the truth.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    There are big gaps in the (macro)evolution theory as well. for example I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation regarding how life began that does not require more unproven faith than the biblical account.

    Also most evolutionist think that somehow science is somehow superior and faith inferior. However I think when we consider that science is limited to what we are able to observe, it should be obvious that it is science that is inferior.

    I'd say martin has demonstrated a solid understanding of evolution.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It isn't about them understanding or not understanding. It is about a bunch of people who have not faith in their faith and want 'proof'. They see the theory of evolution as a threat to their belief system and since their faith is on such shaky grounds they attack it without any understanding. Their arguments are so full of logical fallacies it is hard to take them seriously. The intelligent design movement is just silly. It is the same old William Paley nonsense from the late 19th century!

    Irreducable complexity is just an argument from personal incredulity. Their 'information theory' references are just nonsense, too.

    So the reason they attack evolution is because they have no faith. :)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The anti-evolution types argue theologically, a method of argument that works well when one has a single text (the Bible) to interpret. Their understanding of the "core" of evolution is that it represents a grave (some might say lethal) threat to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore they will fight to the death to "defeat" evolution, which fortunately cannot be done. (Even if they were to somehow kill all the scientists and cow the rest of humanity to their will, evolution will be rediscovered someday.)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I am a total Christian and believe in creationism, HOWEVER, I also know that God never said HOW things exactly happened. He just said he spoke it and it happened.

    Gods Day can be 1000's of our years. So it is possible that Gods creation was evolved from whatever God wanted them to be evolved from.

    God never said that the Big Bang theory never happened. He just created the heavens and the earth. HOW? We have no clue. Big bang is possible.

    Makes since?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If anti-evolutionists actually UNDERSTOOD evolution, then they would be too convinced to argue against it. Since they LIKE to believe their religious beliefs are superior, they have to make themselves ignorant of scientific facts in order to go on believing... so that's what they do.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anti evolutionists are bigots and fundamentalists.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Misconceived religious duty and stupidity walk hand in hand.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.