There are few scientists who still retain a belief in creationism. This might be regarded as evidence enough that creationism needs no further consideration. I care to differ. Science is not a democracy. It only takes one thinker to be right, and often its a critical thinker who goes against the majority.
DNA EVOLVED BY CHANCE? - Watch the best video clips here
Here is a video by a scientist against Evolution. Interesting he is not identified by name, he does not identify as a Christian, he does not identify as a Creationism, nor does he pose an alternative explanation. His argument that Evolution is Stupid appears to be based on the fact that:
1. Humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary chain. He rests this argument on the belief that complexity is synonymous with 'higher' or 'intelligent' life forms. I would suggest that is a weak argument. Life only needs to become intelligent if its life depends upon it. Humans are surviving with 42 chromosomes, so why do they need 100 (like a carp).
2. Common evolution: There is no evidence to suggest that humanity developed from the same ancestor. I actually agree with his statement here. There is no necessity for all life forms to share a common lineage, though there does need to be a sequence or progress from simple to complex. This is why its probable that humanity shares a common lineage, but its not a requirement. It in no way supports any argument against evolution though.
3. Common building blocks: He suggests that the reason why we can eat other life forms is because of common DNA. I reject that. Plenty of poisonous plants I cannot eat. The fact that we come from a pool of 20 amino acids is not relevant.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
DNA EVOLVED BY CHANCE? - Watch the best video clips here
Here is a video by a scientist against Evolution. Interesting he is not identified by name, he does not identify as a Christian, he does not identify as a Creationism, nor does he pose an alternative explanation. His argument that Evolution is Stupid appears to be based on the fact that:
1. Humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary chain. He rests this argument on the belief that complexity is synonymous with 'higher' or 'intelligent' life forms. I would suggest that is a weak argument. Life only needs to become intelligent if its life depends upon it. Humans are surviving with 42 chromosomes, so why do they need 100 (like a carp).
2. Common evolution: There is no evidence to suggest that humanity developed from the same ancestor. I actually agree with his statement here. There is no necessity for all life forms to share a common lineage, though there does need to be a sequence or progress from simple to complex. This is why its probable that humanity shares a common lineage, but its not a requirement. It in no way supports any argument against evolution though.
3. Common building blocks: He suggests that the reason why we can eat other life forms is because of common DNA. I reject that. Plenty of poisonous plants I cannot eat. The fact that we come from a pool of 20 amino acids is not relevant.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
