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.

40% of all US deaths are caused by preventable issues

Up to 40% of all deaths in America are caused by preventable issues. If we were more careful about our lives, they could be lived longer and healthier.

Go to a cemetery, look around you, 3-4 in 10 of these tombstones didn’t have to be there so early.
How do we change this?

1. Quit smoking, don’t over-consume alcohol.
2. Eat healthier, exercise more, lose some weight.
3. Wear seat-belts, drive safely, don’t be reckless.
4. See your doctor and get checkups, most cancers are treated with early detection (the 10 year survival rates for melanoma is 95% when found in the first stage and only 10% when diagnosed in the last stage)

 

There has been a radical chance in lifespans

• In 1900, 75% of people in the United States died BEFORE they reached age 65.
• Today more than 70% percent of people die AFTER age 65.

What has changed?

Have the world become more religious?

Has the amount of prayer, Bible reading, or church attendance increased?

Have the amount of conversions to the Christian faith increased?

Nope.

We developed new technologies, medicines, surgeries, vaccines, and other forms of science. Incidentally, many of the more fundamentalist religious people who argue that health is a gift from God have strong anti-science tendencies, yet they are benefit from science.

More religious countries show less innovation

According to a recent Princeton study regarding the number of patents filed per person across the world, there is a strong correlation between religiosity and less innovation. (1)

As studies go, this is a very rigorous correlation study (that controlled for population, education, socio-economic factors, and more alternative reasons) though this does not 100% prove causation.

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?