If nature points to creationism, why do almost all biologists accept evolution?

Many Muslims and Christians believe God created all living things in a matter of days. Early scientists started off believing these creation stories as well, but then as they encountered the evidence, their views changed. Today almost all scientists who study livings things, say that life evolved over billions of years by a natural process.

Various polls and surveys of all kinds of scientists (including physicists, computers scientists, mathematicians, etc) shows about 95% to 97% of “all scientists” accept evolution. For who are in “earth and life” sciences, the number is even higher, estimated to be 99% to 99.9%. (http://bit.ly/evolsupport). At the same time, around a third of American scientists believe in God, and a significant number of these are Christians (http://bit.ly/godscientists).

If you reject evolution, you claim that almost all scientists are completely wrong and you are right. Why?

 

1. Scientists are less intelligent than you? That seems very arrogant.

2. Scientists know less about biology than you? That seems very ignorant.

3. Scientists are in a secret conspiracy to lie? That seems even more unbelievable than evolution.

4. Scientists are all brainwashed? So if scientists are taught something in school it’s brainwashing, but if children are taught the story of a magical garden from early childhood, it’s not brainwashing?

5. Scientists are all deceived by satan? So satan is able to convince all scientists of a lie, and even most Christian scientists?

6. Nature really does look like it evolved, and whether God initiated this or not, those who devote their lives to study nature have good reasons for thinking evolution is part of the answer.

There is a shared DNA sequence between all living organisms on earth

There is a DNA sequence that is found present in all living organisms; you and the tiniest of bacteria share this sequence as a part of your genetic makeup. Scientists say this makes it the oldest bit of DNA in existence.

“Arguably, the most remarkable DNA sequence on Earth is GTG CCA GCA GCC GCG GTA ATT CCA GCT CCA ATA GCG TAT ATT AAA GTT GCT GCA GTT AAA AAG. It is present in every single living organism – even in organisms not technically classed as alive such as giant mimiviruses. The reason the sequence is so widespread is that it existed in the common ancestor of all life. Carrying out a crucial process, it has remained unchanged for 3 billion years: the oldest fossil in your body.”

‘What a Wonderful World’ by Marcus Chown, pg. 48

Religious subjugation of women is likely due to the biological drive to procreate found in men and apes

Interesting psych tidbit

Psychologists say that human men subjugation women in the same fashion as apes and that this is due to the biological drive to procreate.

Dr. Hector Garcia, professor in University of Texas states that: “Many male apes and monkeys will go to great lengths to stake their sexual claim to as many females as possible, and to police them from other males—as a male reproductive strategy, this has its advantages. But they also tend to attack females as punishment for sexual “infidelity,” or for even flirting with other males, such as by grooming them. Dominant chimpanzees will bypass the male of a tangoing pair and thrash the philandering female. Male apes chasing, restraining, biting, hitting, or dragging females all have been widely documented.”

“Men follow similar patterns of behavior. Research world-wide reveals that sexual jealousy is the primary driver behind domestic abuse and spousal homicide, which is almost always committed by men against women. Because men have historically been the makers of law, they have often coded law to favor male evolutionary strategies. For instance, until staggeringly recently (1974), it was legal in Texas to kill your wife if you caught her horizonalizing with a rival male.”

“No big surprise—men have also overwhelmingly been the makers of religious dicta, and its more chilling content often reflects distinctively male evolutionary concerns… Men often prefer to cloister their women, smother them in drapery, and drown them in sexual shame, claiming it is the will of God and for their “protection”. In reality, these behaviors guard against the lustful ambitions of competitor males, an ancient task of our male ancestry— evidenced in extant primates that mate-guard, herd away, or otherwise attempt to isolate their prospects from male rivals.

Seem more here:

Chicken evolved from dinosaurs; scientists find chicken DNA that codes for teeth

Biologist have long stated that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs, and that they shared the same common ancestor as alligators. Now we have proof.

As strange as the above sounds, scientists have discovered that chickens had leftover dinosaur DNA to grow alligator-like teeth. Using a virus to deliver a genetic mutation that turns on the ancient DNA scientists were able growing these teeth in chickens.

*Unfortunately the picture above is not real, we cannot (yet) make dinosaur-chickens.

See here for story and real photo: http://news.sciencemag.org/2006/…/mutant-chickens-grow-teeth

The Pope accepts evolution

Fun religion/science fact

The new pope (aka, the head of the worlds largest and oldest Christian church) who has been known to hold a great deal of conservative ideas about Christianity is urging Christians to accept the theory of evolution.

Pope Francis said “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything — but that is not so. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Is the pope wrong? Is evolution compatible with Christianity?

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-evolution-inconsistent-notion-creation/

Lab experiements show that lower primates have an innate sense of justice and fairness

Are ideas of justice and equality only human traits? Do these rise out of a Platonic soul deep within our being? Or are these biological traits?

There is evidence that this is indeed dictated by our biology. In this experiment, two monkeys are taught a trade system, rock for food, and this trade works fine with a cucumber, until the second monkey receives a better trade (a grape) which causes the first to become upset about the injustice.

Click here to see the video (starts at 13 minute mark):

N.T. Wright, a leading Christian scholar promotes the theory of evolution

Fun theology fact

N.T. Wright is beloved by many Christians, and many of my conservative friends who say the theory of evolution is a horrific lie, frequently promote his books.

TIME Magazine called Wright “one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought.” (1)

Newsweek labeled him “the world’s leading New Testament scholar.” (2)

Christianity today said “He is the most prolific biblical scholar in a generation. Some say he is the most important apologist for the Christian faith since C. S. Lewis.” (3)

Here is N.T. Wrights view on the evolution of man from other primates:

“The way I see it is that there were many hominids or similar creatures, part of the long slow [evolutionary] process of God’s good creation. And at a particular time God called a particular pair for a particular task: to look after his creation and make it flourish in a whole new way.” (4)

Why do older denominations accept evolution while the modern groups reject it?

Why do Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians (the oldest Christian groups) accept evolution while the new groups (Evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses) reject it?

Creationists cannot agree how to classify transitional fossils

Are there really no transitional fossils that show the evolution of one species to another? Or is that just something creationist say?

Consider this chart of six hominid skulls that are often cited as intermediary fossils, from an early ape ancestor, to a modern human. Creationists are *very sure* (for reasons unknown) that these fossils simply cannot “fill the gap.” They argue these fossils *simply must* be either humans or ape, they simply cannot be something in between.

 

Yes, these fossils appear so much in the middle of an ape/human transition, that all of the leading creationists books disagree with one another, and some creationists keep changing their minds, on which fossil is human and which is ape.

If the leading creationists have trouble telling which fossil is human and which is ape, is this not evidence that these fossils are exactly in the middle?