As the devil's advocate (which in this case is an oxymoron), it's not evolution in general that they find far-fetched, but the initial steps from nothingness to amino acids to life. Which, if you remember, was taught for the longest time as impossible (abiogenesis).
Abwaaah??? You'd better define that, because as I understand it, evolution- scientifically applied with disregard to religion or philosophy- only gives an possible account for the incremental changes in DNA, thus producing micro- and then macro-evolution.
Creationist do not deny that evolution happens, but they only accept micro-evolution, which they define as evolution within a "kind." They usually say something like "a horse can evolve into a smaller horse or a bigger horse or a horse with shaggy hair, but it's still and horse." And then they follow it up with "a fish can't give birth to a tree." (I didn't make that one up) They contend that there were a finite number of originally created "kinds" of plants and animals, and that although these may evolve somewhat over time, they cannot become a different "kind," because the bible says that god created animals to reproduce "after their kind."
Now, because speciation (evolution of an existing species into a new species) has been observed, and because of some animals' ability to hybridize (apparently breaking god's "after their kind" rule), creationist accept evolution on the speciation level, saying that the originally created "kinds" evolved into multiple modern species. What I mean by "evolution on a higher order than speciation" is what creationists would call macro-evolution, that is evolution of an animal from an existing genus, family, order etc. into a new one. They generally don't use the scientific language though, preferring the more biblical (and less clearly defined) "kind."
In other words, creationists accept that horses, donkeys and zebras had a common ancestor, and that dogs, wolves and coyotes have a common ancestor, but deny that humans, apes and monkeys could have had a common ancestor, or that birds could have come from dinosaurs, for example.
the initial steps from nothingness to amino acids to life
Which have nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is about the origin of new species, not the origin of life.
Regardless, the point is, it is equally unbelievable that God sprang up from nowhere too. Our human experience doesn't equip us to handle the infinite properly, so for the time being there's no good logical explanation for How Stuff Arose.
Which is the something that has played a large part in the "debate". Frankly, most of the broadsides that both sides launch at each other are due in large part to misunderstandings, not actual, debatable issues (which is something that you will find in almost any walk of life). I would place a large wager saying that the larger problem that Creationists/IDers have is the origin of life without God rather than the evolution aspect. That's just me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You'd better define that, because as I understand it, evolution- scientifically applied with disregard to religion or philosophy- only gives an possible account for the incremental changes in DNA, thus producing micro- and then macro-evolution.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Creationist do not deny that evolution happens, but they only accept micro-evolution, which they define as evolution within a "kind." They usually say something like "a horse can evolve into a smaller horse or a bigger horse or a horse with shaggy hair, but it's still and horse." And then they follow it up with "a fish can't give birth to a tree." (I didn't make that one up) They contend that there were a finite number of originally created "kinds" of plants and animals, and that although these may evolve somewhat over time, they cannot become a different "kind," because the bible says that god created animals to reproduce "after their kind."
Now, because speciation (evolution of an existing species into a new species) has been observed, and because of some animals' ability to hybridize (apparently breaking god's "after their kind" rule), creationist accept evolution on the speciation level, saying that the originally created "kinds" evolved into multiple modern species. What I mean by "evolution on a higher order than speciation" is what creationists would call macro-evolution, that is evolution of an animal from an existing genus, family, order etc. into a new one. They generally don't use the scientific language though, preferring the more biblical (and less clearly defined) "kind."
In other words, creationists accept that horses, donkeys and zebras had a common ancestor, and that dogs, wolves and coyotes have a common ancestor, but deny that humans, apes and monkeys could have had a common ancestor, or that birds could have come from dinosaurs, for example.
no subject
Which have nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is about the origin of new species, not the origin of life.
Regardless, the point is, it is equally unbelievable that God sprang up from nowhere too. Our human experience doesn't equip us to handle the infinite properly, so for the time being there's no good logical explanation for How Stuff Arose.
no subject
Which is the something that has played a large part in the "debate". Frankly, most of the broadsides that both sides launch at each other are due in large part to misunderstandings, not actual, debatable issues (which is something that you will find in almost any walk of life). I would place a large wager saying that the larger problem that Creationists/IDers have is the origin of life without God rather than the evolution aspect. That's just me.