Futurism July 18, Hard Science For over years—since the time of Charles Darwin—the Theory of Evolution has been through more scrutiny and rigorous investigation than just about any other scientific claim.
Our recent book Science and Human Origins responds to a variety of arguments for human-ape common ancestry, including prominent arguments from theistic evolutionists. In six recent articles see the links at rightI have argued that the fossil record does not support the evolution of ape-like species into human-like species.
Rather, hominin fossils generally fall into two distinct groups: How have theistic evolutionists dealt with the topic of human origins? Unfortunately, most simply accept, adopt, and promote the standard Darwinian story, offering virtually no critical analysis whatsoever.
We saw this in the bookwhere theistic evolutionist Ronald Wetherington, an anthropology professor at SMU, gave an uncritical endorsement of the standard claims of human evolution. His arguments for human evolution were so strongly stated that they probably went much further than what many non-theistic evolutionary paleoanthropologists would dare say.
Another good example is what the principal blogger covering human origins at BioLogos, Dr. James Kidder, did last year did in a series on human origins.
His series is a good read and quite a competent presentation of the standard Darwinian evolutionary view of human origins — which no doubt reflects Dr. But how solid is the evidence behind Dr.
My recent series has discussed and cited numerous scientific papers which raise points that challenge the standard Darwinian account of human origins. Conspicuously, virtually none of these credible scientific challenges are mentioned in Dr.
His series, though well written, capitulates entirely to the orthodox Darwinian view and presents that to BioLogos readers as if it were all there is to say on this issue.
But I am open to the possibility that transitional fossils might exist, and in other contexts, I do think there are some plausible examples of transitional fossils. But as my series on human origins has demonstrated, the fossil evidence shows a clear break between human-like and ape-like species, which is not bridged by transitional fossils.
This is not merely my own opinion. My article cites multiple evolutionary scientists who are acclaimed experts in the field and who make this same basic sort of claim. They make the accusation because it takes the focus off the problems the fossil evidence poses for Darwinian evolution, and puts it on Darwin-critics.
Support for this position usually entails attacking the weak areas of the fossil record, where burial processes have left us little with which to work, or the creation of straw men arguments in which transitional fossils are defined in such a way that none could ever be found.
First, note the logical irony: Third, not all paleontologists agree with Kidder that the lack of transitional fossils is simply the result of the unsophisticated and all-too-easy excuse the fossil record is poor. Consider what paleontologist Niles Eldredge and paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersal who are both committed evolutionists co-wrote in a book on human origins: The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: Columbia University Press, Fourth, despite the fact that I am Dr.
In fact, the term appears in textbooks and even the occasional scientific paper. See here for just a few of many examples. One Nature blogger reports on a panel where Dr.
This conveys a wrong impression that scientists are missing a certain fossil to actually prove evolution happened. There is no need to hype a story unnecessarily. But this is all an aside.
I appreciate exactly what Dr. Transitional fossils in the human fossil record are distinguished at both the genus and species level. This group includes the extinct genera Ardipithecus and Australopithecus and the current genus Homo. Kidder would have no troubling finding some authorities who agree with him.
But there are also credible authorities who disagree — especially with regard to those specific fossils. But then why does Kidder feel the need to so completely capitulate to the view that humans evolved from Australopithecus? My point is not that Dr.
When you dig into the technical literature, many parts of the standard story turn out to be based upon very weak evidence. In short, there are strong scientific reasons to dispute the claim that humans evolved from ape-like precursors.
Is it acceptable to point this out?The Scientific Argument against Evolution Most modern Americans associate the theory of evolution with the publication of On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin, in In reality, many nontheists evolution since there is abundant scientific evidence to .
How do Theistic Evolutionists Explain the Fossil Record and Human Origins? Casey Luskin. September 14, , PM. How do Theistic Evolutionists Explain the Fossil Record and Human Origins?
They make the accusation because it takes the focus off the problems the fossil evidence poses for Darwinian evolution, and puts it on Darwin. The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in , is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in.
What are some arguments evolutionists use to poke holes in the theory of creation and why would they be wrong. 1. Evolutionists say evolution exclude a creator. In a similar way the Darwinian Theory of Evolution has become dogma.
Proponents are closed to any evidence or argument that shatters the basic formula that Darwin proposed many. DNA Evidence for Evolution - What aspects of genetics do Darwinists interpret as DNA evidence for evolution and how do opponents of the theory respond?
Home >> DNA Evidence for Evolution. DNA Evidence for Evolution Certain aspects of DNA have been interpreted as evidence for Darwinian evolution.
DNA evidence for evolution includes . The book begins with an overview of Darwin’s teaching and of the neo-Darwinian theory developed in the 20th century, which added chemical evolution, mutations, and genetic relationships to Darwinian natural selection as mechanisms of evolution.