What is the appeal of evolution?

I'm looking for an explanation for why evolutionists choose evolution? What is the reason? They come from all faiths and nationalities, yet they all accept the same lie. Why is this?Clearly when an atheist from the western world accepts evolution he does so to express his rejection of Christianity. But why do atheists from Hindu and Buddhist and Islamic and Jewish cultures accept evolution? It must be that Islamic and Jewish atheists accept evolution because they reject the Genesis accounts from the Bible, but how do you explain the atheists from Hindu and Buddhist cultures who accept evolution? Are they just brainwashed by the worldwide evolutionist conspiracy?When a geologist finds sea shells on a mountain top, why does he irrationally reject the obvious explanation, that Noah's flood left the shells there? Of course he rejects the possibility of Noah's flood because that would lend credibility to the Genesis story he rejects. But why does he reject it? And why don't at least some geologists who reject the Genesis account say, "Well, it wasn't Noah's flood, but it was clearly a flood." It was obviously a flood that put the sea shells there, so why don't they just say so? They only lose credibility by denying the obvious.It's a similar situation with the geologic layers. Looking at the Grand Canyon, anyone can tell that these layers must have been deposited quickly by a gigantic flood. Why do geologists make themselves look like idiots by denying this? If they reject the Bible and/or Christianity then they can claim that it wasn't Noah's flood that created the layers of the Grand Canyon, but it was still a flood. But not a single non-creationist geologist admits that it was a giant flood. Why is that?The biggest mystery is Christians who accept evolution. Just because they err in rejecting the plain words of the Bible doesn't mean they have to accept evolution. There must be countless other ways to misinterpret God's word, but they almost exclusively choose evolution. Why do these misguided Christians almost universally accept a theory that is without evidence or any scientific foundation whatsoever? Why isn't there at least some variety in the alternatives they choose? Why always evolution?It's a puzzlement!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

I'm wondering why all the evolutionists march in such lock step. Take the age of the earth as an example. Religion has many answers. Evangelical Christians believe the world was created in 4004 BC. Hindus think it is ages old, billions and billions of years I believe. Jainism believes the earth is eternal, has existed and will always exist.But evolutionists have only one answer: 4.56 billions years. Since there's no evidence for this age, why do they choose it? It seems to me that without evidence evolutionists would be free to speculate about a wide variety of possible ages. But they don't. Why is that?--Percy

Haven't looked in on that thread. I composed the OP over the greater part of the afternoon in one and two minute stretches of spare time.--Percy

Ah, I see! But why do they all change their views at roughly the same time, give or take a few years? Since none of this is based on evidence, why aren't there still holdouts for, say, the 20 million years that Lord Kelvin advocated back around the turn into the 20th century? It's just so puzzling that, with nothing underpinning their views, there's such unanimity.--Percy

Thanks for the reference. I hadn't read that thread before (still haven't, since it's over 300 messages). It looks like I promoted it as Admin, then never participated.Iano is, of course, correct that there is no evidence supporting evolution, nor any of the theories in other diverse fields such as geology and cosmology that oppose clear Biblical thinking. But as Faith makes clear with her observations about views on the age of the earth, Iano ignores that science changes its views all the time. If scientists were truly indoctrinated to hold the views of their youth throughout their lifetime, then how could views ever change?No, Iano's explanation makes no sense, so there has to be some other explanation. As a prevailing view falls out of favor, scientists tend to shift their focus en masse to a new view. Since there's no concrete factual evidence behind this shift, we still don't know what causes it. It's very mysterious, because absence of evidence always produces wide-ranging speculation, and since there's no evidence scientists can only speculate. So what explains this lack of speculation? Why do scientists act as if the evidence points in one clear direction when it clearly does not?The expansion of the universe is another example of scientists changing their views as a group, but much more recently than for the age of the earth. A group of scientists claimed that surveys of the recession velocities of distant galaxies revealed that the expansion of the universe was accelerating rather than slowing down. Naturally, this "evidence" is as bogus as all other evidence involving a universe older than about 6000 years, and scientists know that, so why did they all shift their views to accept an accelerating universe? Why didn't another group of scientists make up some opposing evidence and promote their own view so that they received all the credit and fame? In fact, another group of scientists did present their own data, but inexplicably made their data consistent with the first group's data. Why did they do that and allow credit for first discovery to go to this other group? This just makes no sense.Absence of evidence causes rampant speculation. Evolution and related fields of the creation/evolution debate have no evidence. So what is preventing rampant speculation? What causes scientists to instead focus their attention on a rather narrow set of views?--Percy

I'm glad to see that none of my fellow creationists have risen to the evolutionist's taunting and baiting comments. It shows that we are just so above this kind of nonsense.I've gleaned many of my insights from some of the best informed creationists who have visited here, like True Creation, Tranquility Base and Faith, but in reviewing some of their threads I see I may have misinterpreted them. They often say there is no evidence for evolution, but in other places it they say that creationism has much evidence, and it is the same evidence used by evolutionists, just interpreted differently.I don't believe they're contradicting themselves. When they say there's no evidence I think they intend it as shorthand for, "There's no properly interpreted evidence for evolution."So it really comes down to disputes about interpretation rather than about imagined evidence. But this causes no meaningful change in what I'm puzzling over. When new evidence is uncovered, why do scientists always glom onto an evolutionary interpretation? There must be literally dozens of other valid interpretations of the evidence, why always evolution? I don't get it.--Percy

Yes, this hits upon another aspect of the problem. Too many people just accept what they're taught without questioning it. We are indeed fortunate that laypeople increasingly reject what the evolutionists attempt to ladle into their brains.But that isn't the topic of this thread. In order to successfully battle evolution we have to understand it, and that means finding a solid answer to the question, "Why evolution?" We already know that it stems from a rejection of God's given Word in the Bible, but there must be literally hundreds of other interpretations that contradict the Bible. Why do scientists choose evolution?I can think of a couple explanations, and here they are, but none of them feel very satisfactory:

1. If the Bible is left aside from consideration, then a correct interpretation of the evidence leads to evolution (though I don't think anyone really believes this). We only really know what happened from reading the Bible.
   ​
2. The evidence doesn't lead to evolution, but scientists uniformly accept evolution anyway. This just makes no sense. It feels like it requires believing in immense secret conspiracies or brainwashing on a worldwide scale.

So I just don't see any answer to the question, "Why evolution?" Until we understand why scientists seem to focus so exclusively on this answer I don't think we'll ever be able to throw the bums out.--Percy

Hi Jazzns,Ironically, after reading your post it almost feels like we are allies. While naturally your protests that there's no indoctrination strain credulity, you have otherwise hit upon the key points that NJ didn't address. We can preach to our own choirs about the fallacies of evolution without detailed arguments because we know the plain truth of the Word of God contained in the Bible. But if we're to convince people outside our own Christian communities then we have to show how evolutionists are wrong not just in a Christian context, but in any context.We know the evidence doesn't point to evolution, and creationists everywhere point this out in books and lectures and websites all the time, but the details of these arguments are lost on most people. The larger question, and the key question, it seems to me, is why scientists as a group have fixed exclusively upon evolution as the theory to oppose plain Christian teaching. A subsidiary question is how evolutionists influence other fields of science to "go along" and develop theories consistent with evolution. If we can figure all this out then the fall of the evolutionary house of cards will inevitably follow.--Percy