What I will address here is how what is perceived as misconceptions from one side is not really a misconception at all. These supposed misconceptions are taken from: http://www.evoled.org/lessons/miscon.htm
1) Misconception: “if you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God”
First, evolution is not something one “believes in.” Biologists do not believe in evolution; rather, they accept it as the best explanation for the diversity and unity of biological organisms.
Second, this is a false dichotomy. Evolutionary theory does not invoke God as an explanation for the adaptation of organisms. What this means is that it is not necessary to invoke God as an explanation, but this is not the same as saying that God does not exist, or that God is impossible. Evolution does not imply this at all. Science is neutral to God; God is neither required nor eliminated by scientific explanations. Nothing about evolution precludes or disproves the existence of God. Science, as a discipline, cannot address the question of the existence of God, since science provides natural explanations for natural phenomena, and God is supernatural.
Furthermore, many evolutionary biologists are devout members of their religious faith, which comprise all of the world’s major religions. Indeed, most religions accept that evolution does not conflict with their religious beliefs (see Voices for Evolution, National Center for Science Education).
First: If you cannot prove something to an absolute and you still think it happened. Then that means you have “faith and belief” that evolution did it. Accepting it does not cancel out that fact that evolution cannot be proven. Example: I can say I accept God does that mean I no longer believe in God? So the reasoning here is flawed
Second: Anytime intelligence is disallowed or denied then you deny the existence of God. Science only sticks to the natural because atheists run it. To venture into the supernatural means they would have to ponder God. So from it’s very atheistic foundation of those who run it God will “always” be denied.
Furthermore: God does not accept an oxymoron type faith. On one hand you claim to be Christian, on the other hand you deny God’s power to create. The Bible actually speaks of this.
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
What is evolution mainly about? Creature worship. How the “creatures” evolved to make themselves better and evolved a higher intelligence such as man. Bow to the creatures because without them man would not exist. Haeckel and Lyell made it clear what their ideas were to achieve.
2) Misconception: “evolution means that there is no purpose to life”
Again, science cannot address this question (see above). Unfortunately, some scientists have used their scientific status to postulate that there is no purpose to life; however, these are their own personal beliefs, and not scientific opinions. Science can only describe how the world is; not how the world should be.
Response: Can you see the conflict here? On one hand there is no purpose yet life happens.
3) Misconception: “evolution is just a theory”
What is really meant by this is that “evolution is just a guess.” This is a misunderstanding based on the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the colloquial use of theory. In common usage, a theory means a guess, and it is used when someone is taking a guess about a causal explanation. In science, however, a theory is as big as it gets. A scientific theory is a coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, which explains a variety of observations. Because a theory is a complex of interconnected statements, it does not stand or fall based on a single critical test. In science, specific hypotheses are tested within an explanatory theoretical framework, and if continuously supported, are added to that framework. Also see The Nature of Science.
Describing evolution as “just a theory” also undermines all of the other major scientific theories (the theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of gravity, etc.). Evolution is arguably the most well supported theory in all of science. Also see Craig Nelson’s article: Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics in The Creation Controversy and the Science Classroom, NSTA.
Response: What is the 1,2,3, criteria that evolution had to meet that exalted it to this status (a scientific theory)? Evolutionists cannot tell us. This is because one day when evolutionists decided the “just a theory” idea needed a boost so that there would not be so many questions challenging it, they voted to “exalt” the idea to the next level. Which means that evolution is a “scientific theory” because it is the opinion of other evolutionists that it should be. Otherwise they would be able to give us the criteria evolution had to meet that made it better than all other theories. Something that not only would we gauge it by, but know when other theories are about to also meet the same criteria. But that won’t happen because then evolution would be exposed for what it really is. And to show this was all done by opinions and wants and not really any science.
4) Misconception: “evolution hasn’t been proven,” or “prove evolution to me”
These are meaningless statements. Gravity has never been proven either. Neither have cells, nor electricity. Evolution cannot be “proven” because it is a scientific theory. All ideas in science are accepted tentatively, with the understanding that eventually, with new evidence, they may be overturned. Evolution is extremely well accepted in the scientific community because of the vast amount of evidence that has been put forward for it (many, many examples, from many different biological disciplines), and the absence of any evidence against it. Because of the sheer quantity of evidence for evolution, it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Also see The Evidence for Evolution.
Response: Gravity can be mathematically calculated. Evolution cannot. Cells and electricity? There are 2 things wrong out of the 3 listed. And I’m going to use a evolutionist famous debate tactic by saying this: What does gravity or electricity have to do with biological evolution? And the next statement is an oxymoron reasoning attempt when so many evolutionists will claim that: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Evolution is accepted in science because science is controlled by atheists who rather die than contemplate a Creator. And as far as the quantity of evidence goes. All dug up evidence has to be interpreted right? And who interprets it? Evolutionists do. So what interpretation should we expect from an evolutionist? Now for the bias comment that sums up why no other idea will ever be contemplated regardless of what it is: it is “extremely” unlikely that it will ever be overturned. Notice the word extremely. You see to the extreme does this person believe in evolution or they would not have made that statement. Evolution cannot be falsified not because of the evidence, but because evolutionist have “extreme” belief in it. Or in the case of this person denying belief: He “extremely” accepts it above everything else.
5) Misconception: “no one was there to see the origin of life, so any ideas about it are just a guess”
First, evolutionary theory does not specifically address the origin of life, but the origin of species. In fact, many argue that a discussion of evolution should not include the origin of life, since this issue deals with prebiotic events, and has little to do with biological evolution.
Second, it is true that no one was there to see the origin of life. This speaks to a larger question about methods used in the historical sciences. So how do we know anything about the past? Clues to the past are always left behind. This is how detectives figure out how a crime was committed, even if there were no eyewitnesses. Scientists use clues left in the fossil record, for example, to make inferences about biological history. Scientists’ ideas about the past are based on evidence; they are not “just a guess” (see “evolution is just a theory” above).
First: If abiogenesis cannot be proven then science would have to contemplate other alternatives. So a Godless origin of life through the evolution process actually relies on abiogenesis. Evolutionist like to separate support mechanism for evolution that have major problems. This is done to separate the problems from actually being problems for evolution. In political circles it’s called distancing yourself from anything that may cause you a problem while embracing everything else that does not. Now if the abiogenesis idea were to one day have remarkable evidence like life being made in a lab from dead matter. Suddenly it would become a major part of evolution. But as long as any idea like this has major problems the only way evolutionists can deal with the issues as a cop-out is to distance themselves and act as if it does not really matter.
Second: This reasoning is flawed because they are treating the fossil record (clues left behind) as if it were some type of empirical time keeping of history. Problem is, it has several flaws in its history recording, and the assumption that it solely supports evolution.
- Evolutionists cannot come up with an observable mechanism that requires time to make layers out of sediments and rocks. Water will sort layers and is observable, time will not.
- They ignore the fact of “cross contamination” as if it would never exist in the fossil record. The reason the fossils can date the layers, and the layers can date the fossils (circular reasoning) is because the layers will leave their age dating markers on the fossils in just a few years. So if a 4,000 year old fossil gets buried in a layer that dates 4 million years ago. It will date the age of the layer (cross contamination) instead of how old it really is. That is how you get blood and soft tissue inside of millions of year old dinosaur bones. They are not as old as we think they are. On this they have to be willingly ignorant because if not the fossil record would not work for evolution.
- In order for the fossil record to solely support evolution, all fossils would have to be simple to complex. This is also because complex to simple does not make sense. The trilobite has fully formed systems. organs, and complex eyes. Complexity is a word that evolutionists hate, but it’s not suppose to exist in the bottom most layers. This is because there would have to be an evolution tree that shows “how it got that complex” not just poof there it is (Complexity with no simple steps). Creation does not have a system of simple to complex so this is what creationists would expect to see.
- Living fossils are another problem for the fossil record being an accurate record of life and time. Living Fossils are where the fossil is found in one layer and alive today. There are over 30 known living fossils and they all have the same problem. The fossil record did not record them surviving beyond the time-line of the layer they were found in. In other words they are only found in one layer where they died and in no other layer proving they survived. Being found in other layers means the evidence points to them surviving. But over 30 times this does not happen.
- Then there’s the order of aquatic life habitat. The fossil record is in the exact order as how life lives in the ocean today (their living habitat). Bottom dwellers first, mid dwellers second, and top dwellers third. How does life evolve in that exact order? It don’t. It gets buried in that order during the flood when the sediments came up with all the water coming up from under the crust of the earth. When life gets buried where it lives then the fossils will line up just like that. And that is what we see. This would also explain complexity being where it should not be in the evolution scheme of things because evolution did not happen.
6) Misconception: “science cannot explain X , therefore evolution must be false, and creationism true”
There is a huge difference between something that is unexplained by science, and something that science is unable to explain. This argument, called the “God of the gaps” approach by philosophers, has been used countless times for phenomena that were as yet unexplained by science, but for which scientific explanations were eventually found. This line of thinking sets up a dichotomy between science and religion. It implies that if science cannot explain X , then God must be responsible for it. This argument is harmful to religion, and has been rejected for more than a century by most theologians. Following this line of reasoning, when science eventually finds an explanation for X , then that must mean that God had nothing to do with it. This is bad for religion, and most religious leaders find it to be an ineffective route to faith.
This also illustrates a common tactic used by professional creationists. Rather than put forward positive evidence for their own ideas, they try to discredit evolution, and then claim you must then accept creationism. However, even if evolution were disproved some day, creationism is not the only other option (see “you should just teach creationism, too” below).
Response: I guess this is what you call the kettle calling the pot black. This is what evolutionists do in debates all the time. I find this finger-pointing ironic. Being blind to their own tactics is common, as they also ignore the problems with their ideas. If the evolutionists can get the creationists to stop using a good tactic to debate with, it gives them the advantage. And that’s what’s going on here. The only reason they complain is because it does what it was intended to do.
7) Misconception: “Darwin recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed”
First, Darwin did not “believe in” evolution; he was convinced by the evidence he uncovered that it was the best explanation for the origin of species. Second, Darwin’s family denies he recanted his acceptance of evolution. Third, even if he had recanted, it would mean absolutely nothing for evolutionary theory. Darwin was the “father” of the field of evolutionary biology, but he was not the first to discover evolution. Several others had proposed the general idea of evolution before Darwin (e.g. Lamarcke). Darwin’s contribution was to: 1) gather a lot of evidence for evolution (i.e. shared ancestry), and 2) describe the first plausible mechanism of evolution (natural selection). In addition, a lot of work has been done in the past century and a half to add to and modify his ideas into the explanatory framework that evolutionary theory is today. Scientists do not blindly accept evolution because Darwin “said so;” they accept it based on the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the absence of any evidence against it.
First: Evolutionists like to imply that Darwin started to accept evolution when he saw what he did on that island. Truth be told that Darwin cataloged all that he found and ship all the evidence off to people he trusted to have them interpret things for him. He was not convinced by the evidence he was convinced by the interpretation of the evidence and this did not happen for several years after the voyage. Those wanting to accept evolution as true will interpret the evidence to do just that.
Second: What Darwin did put his family on the map of respect in scientific circles. To not deny this recant claim ever happened would mean shame in the most hateful manner one can imagine. Followed by gossip, rumors and out right lies from all those who would now hate everyone in that family if they had done this.
Third: To make a really bad situation not seem so bad, you have to make others believe that it would mean “absolutely nothing”. Going to this effort actually shows that it would mean something.
What you are not being told about the rest of what is said is that Darwin is a known plagiarizer. The idea of Natural Selection was not his own. Edward Blythe came up with that idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth But giving Darwin credit for it makes evolution look better. Darwin also took ideas from his grandfather’s booked called: Zoonomia. the laws of organic life. In every instance Darwin used other people’s ideas he never gave credit to them. So he plagiarized all his works. But as the evolutionist will say: So what? Now can you imagine if a creationist did that? Never hear the end of it and “so what” would not work.
8) Misconception: “evolution is racist/sexist/elitist/etc.”
All of the ideas that have been promoted in the name of evolution and Darwinism actually pre-date Darwin by centuries. Therefore, evolution and Darwinism are not the cause of these ideas. Darwin himself was very opposed to slavery. After Darwin’s ideas about natural selection were widely known, some people used their very naïve and incorrect interpretation of the scientific ideas to justify their political and social beliefs (e.g. Social Darwinism). They claimed that some races, for example, are biologically superior and more “fit” than others (the Nazis, for example, used these arguments). They justified their beliefs by claiming they were “natural.” However, this is the philosophical fallacy called naturalism: claiming that what is natural is good. In other words, “what is, is what ought to be.” There is no philosophical foundation to naturalism (see Robert Pennock’s book: The Tower of Babel).
The philosophy underlying social Darwinism is very different from biological evolution. On the contrary, evolution unites all of humankind: we are all related through common ancestry. In fact, evolutionary biologists have revealed through genetic studies that there is no biological basis for the concept of race in humans (see Joseph Graves’ book: The Emperor’s New Clothes).
There is, in fact, an extremely important social role of evolution. Evolutionary theory forms the basis and the foundation of medical and biotechnology, agriculture, conservation of species and wildlife management, and many other fields of increasing importance to society (see Applied Evolution).
Response: The idea came from the full name of Darwin’s book that was later removed. Why hide it if that’s not what was meant? The pics below speak for themselves.
9) Misconception: “you should just teach creationism, too”
This is a very popular argument, even with people who do not identify themselves as creationists, since it appeals to the American sense of fairness. However, the courts have continuously ruled creationism/creation science to be a religious view, and not a science (see NCSE’s “Eight Significant Court Decisions” by Molleen Matsumura).
As such, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which protects our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, without having the state force a particular religion on us. Creation science cannot, therefore, be taught as science in public schools
Even if we could teach creationism in public schools, which type of creationism should we teach? There are many different types of creationism (see Eugenie Scott’s Creation/Evolution Continuum),
as well as hundreds of different creation stories from various cultures and religions. Should we also teach about the Raëlian view that intelligent aliens created life on earth? Which explanation (theory) for the origin of species we teach is based on how successful it is in its ability to explain the available evidence. It is not based on which explanation is more popular with the general public. We have a responsibility to teach how the world is, not how we might like it to be.
Response: Cases in courts are lost all the time because of poor representation which does not reflect on the credibility of creation. Biblical creation was taught at one time as science in our schools. The reason it had to be removed is because creation and evolution cannot work side by side. And since an atheistic science was taking over, creation had to be removed. And by the way, the case that got it removed used evidence that is now considered to be fraudulent. You remember the tooth that was found and was claimed to have been from prehistoric man? Then later when someone returned to the site to dig up (an evolutionist I might add) the rest of the evidence it all belonged to a pig. Evolutionists don’t like talking about this because it’s embarrassing. They were so desperate to get God out of their way they were willing to do anything.
Other misconceptions:1. Humans evolved from chimpanzees.
False. According to evolution, humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.
Response: This is a cop-out answer to avoid the problem with some people being offended by the idea that humans evolved from Chimps. The thing here is to act like: No evolutionist ever implied this. No book ever said this. No human evolution chart ever meant this. So where did the idea come from? Did the creationists one day say: Hey I know we will discredit evolution by saying they say we came from chimps? Nope. It was taught this way when I went to school. And in some schools it still is. The effort here is learning to do damage control.
2. Some organisms are “lower” or “less-evolved”.
False. All living organisms have been evolving for the same amount of time, and thus are equally “evolved”.
Response: This is at best an oxymoron statement.
3. Evolution results in increased complexity.
False. It certainly can, but complexity is not always advantageous and sometimes simple traits are favoured.
Response: This is also an oxymoron statement. Does anything evolve back from a multi-cell life form to a single cell life form in the evolution idea? Nope. So evolution has a starting point which is at the bottom and has to move forward.
4. Evolution plans ahead to achieve goals.
False. Only traits that provide an immediate advantage will be selected for. Traits don’t stick around with the intention of becoming useful some day.
Response: Here’s the kicker to this problem. it takes intelligence to:
a) To form a trait.
b) To select a trait.
Evolutionists would have us belief that these things just happen because evolution is a non-intelligent process. Yet they cannot explain how even a process can determine how one cell in the human body should be made in order to do a particular function so that the body can function. If we did not have white blood cells we would become sick and die or remain sickly our whole lives. So the question would be:
A) What formed a white blood cell trait?
B) What knew what trait to select to solve this problem?
It’s a huge leap of faith to believe that it just happens, or to believe that an all natural non-intelligent process would somehow know? No intelligence = no knowledge. No intelligence + no knowledge = random selection. No intelligence + no knowledge +random selection = a process that does not know what to do next. solve problems, or anything else. It’s like trying to make a computer that has no operating system surf the internet. You would be asking it to have the programing (a form of intelligence) to do something it cannot do without the programing (intelligence). Evolution is essentially a supposed process that teaches that miracles can be performed by unintelligent processes. To put this into prospective, it’s like expecting a new-born baby to be as smart as Einstein was and do what he did. Basically expecting miracles from morons. It’s not going to happen. Unintelligent things are not going to do intelligent things by random chance.
5. Evolution ignores the impossibility of irreducible complexity.
False. An evolutionary model would be logically incorrect if the necessity of a trait preceded its appearance, and thus no model depends on this impossibility.
Response: This is easy to address. the human body has several interdependent systems. Can you name one that can exist and function normally without the other systems intact and functioning also? Example: Everything in the human body requires oxygen to function. So one system that has to be there for all the others to work is the circulatory system. But in order for that to work you need a heart which means the muscular system has to be there. But in order for the heart to beat it has to receive signals. Which means the nervous system has to be there. See where this goes? You cannot have not even one system in the human body that can exist and function without the others being there and functioning as well. In which complete instant creation explains and solves the problem. Slow gradual evolution does not.
6. Humans represent the end product of evolution.
False. If anything, humans demonstrate that intelligence is an extremely powerful adaptation.
Response: What is higher evolved then humans according to evolution?
7. For a mutation to be significant, it must occur in a gene.
False. Mutations in regulatory elements can affect where and when genes are expressed, leading to major changes.
Response: Genes are the programing for change so this is an oxymoron.
8. Individuals can evolve, and a developed mutation is passed down on to future generations.
False. This is the logic behind Lamarckism, and we all know Lamarckism is false… right? Mutations must arise in the sperm or eggs to be heritable.
Response: Which means if it has to be in the genes. This person just contradicted themselves from the question and answer before this one.
9. Macroevolutionary changes above the level of species occur from one generation to the next.
False. Evolution is a gradual process; it does not predict that one animal will give birth to an entirely new animal, nor does it claim that this has ever happened in the past.
Response: Evolution is what it needs to be in every situation. So if a faster type of evolution is needed to explain a quicker change a way to make it work would be thought up. So slow and fast evolution can happen all that’s needed is a reason to have to explain it. Problem is, word don’t make new truths and realities just because we think they should.
10. Hybridization is an evolutionary mechanism that produces new species.
True, but only in rare cases (ex. certain plants). Frequent hybridization between two species generally counteracts speciation by mixing gene pools.
Response: I suggest you look into GMOs (genetically modified foods).
11. Natural selection is the only evolutionary mechanism.
False. Natural selection is important, but there are several mechanisms driving evolution.
Response: Being that I have never heard anyone say that I don;t know where that’s coming from. But I do know that each support mechanism for evolution depends on in what context it’s being used. If the mechanism is being used in a negative light towards evolution then it’s not a part of evolution. If it’s positive then it’s a part of evolution.
12. “Fitness” refers to strength or power.
False. In the context of biological evolution, fitness refers to reproductive success. In other words, the number of fertile offspring an individual can produce in their lifetime.
Response: In several observable instances, there are examples of the strongest being the one that is able to mate. If 2 lions are fighting over a female who gets to mate with that female? The strongest one that wins the fight. So this reasoning is wrong.
13. The phrase “Survival of the Fittest” suggests that the strong individuals should kill the weak.
False. In the context of biological evolution, this statement refers to the “survival” of an individual’s genetic code in future generations via the production of offspring.
14. Social Darwinism and biological evolution are one in the same.
False. Just as religion has been misused to support personal and political agendas, so has evolution. The vast majority of evolutionists do not support Social Darwinist ideas.
Response: What does religion have to do with this? the evidence I have shown in the pictures shows that this comment is also wrong. Whether someone agrees or not does not change what has happened. And because no one spoke up against these things I have shown on this page is the same as condoning it.
15. Richard Dawkins is the spokesman for evolution.
False. Just because he’s famous, doesn’t mean his opinions are representative of what all evolutionists think.
Response: Then evolutionists need to speak up as a whole to make that point instead of being quite about it and bringing it up in only circles where his actions may make their debates less effective. But not doing so means your actions do not support your claims.
16. Darwin is the leader of modern evolutionary research.
False. Just as you wouldn’t credit Alexander Graham Bell with the invention of the newest iPhone, Charles Darwin is not directly responsible for modern evolutionary ideas.
Response: this reasoning is flawed. It’s like saying that a creation can happen without a Creator. This is just another attempt to separate the problems from evolution so that evolution won’t look as bad.
17. The old earth theory was made up to accommodate the evolution timeline.
False. The old earth view was accepted among scientists long before Darwin came along.
Response: But it did not take like wildfire until evolution came along. This is because before evolution creationists ideas were accepted as science. So many scientists of that time did not believe in old earth. Most of the basics of how science works was founded by Christians.
18. Gaps or uncertainties in the fossil record present a serious problem for evolution.
False. Fossil formation, fossil preservation, and fossil discovery are all low-probability events. Gaps in the fossil record are expected.
Response: The fossil record has many problems. One is finding complexity in the lowest layers. The trilobite has fully formed organs, systems, and a complex eye. Being in the bottom layers means there is no evolution tree to it to show how it evolved to this complexity. It’s like: poof there it is. And we all know evolution is not supposed to work that way.
19. Since humans are animals, it’s acceptable to act like animals.
What does this even mean? Clams don’t act like elephants. Rabbits don’t act like jellyfish. Animal behaviours are diverse and unique, including human behaviour.
Response: This was not a Christian idea. it has been remarks made by people who want to use this as an excuse to live as they please. Evolution just happened to give them this idea. I have seen this said in movies and on TV, I have even heard it said by someone.
20. Evolution promotes racism.
False. Evolution actually promotes racial equality by suggesting that all humans shared a common ancestor and have been evolving for the same amount of time.
Response: This was answered earlier with pictures showing how evolution was used to do just this. And the comments made by those who were there in its beginning were racist. You cannot make a leopard change it’s spots. Just like you cannot take racism from a racist and his ideas. And if you are not racist you don;t have friends that are racists. Darwin did.
21. Evolutionary hypotheses never change—that would be a sign of a weak theory.
False. Hypotheses are revised and discarded all the time, just like any other field of empirical science. This is a strength, not a weakness.
Response: Yet no one evolutionist can actually tell us what 1,2,3, criteria evolution had to meet to become a scientific theory. Which means it was exalted to that level by mere opinions and the need to have it sound like it meets a criteria that cannot even be defined. Because if it could be defined then everyone would see where it fails.
22. Scientific journals only publish results that support evolution.
False. While positive results are often showcased in the news and on non-scholarly websites, journals publish negative/inconclusive results too.
Response: Only the ones that does not really hurt the theory, or ones that can be explained away.
23. Scientists work together to make sure weaknesses in the theory remain hidden.
False. Research is a competitive field, and experimental results are under constant scrutiny.
Response: When only evolutionists work with evolution does one expect fairness? Would you send an evolution paper to a creationist group and expect fairness? The reason only evolutionists are allowed to test or do anything else with evolution is because it needs to be protected. Because if the evidence were as strong as what’s claimed then the evidence would have mowed everyone over a long time ago.
24. Evolution cannot be falsified.
False. There are plenty of discoveries that could falsify or dramatically alter our current understanding of evolution.
Response: Will never happen. A evolutionist allowing evolution to be falsified is like an evolutionist denying their own existence. This is because of all the millions and billions of dollars spent on it, all the millions of hours spent in research, all the papers written, all the books written etc… All of this would have to be denied. and on top of that every evolutionist would have to explain why they lied. None of that will ever happen. There is too much at stake to ever allow evolution to be falsified.
25. All evolutionists are atheists.
False. There are many theistic evolutionists.
Response: God does not accept halfway believers that know that the Bible contradicts evolution. So people who claim to believe in God and also evolution actually deny the creation by the Creator. So they might as well be atheists. God is not going to accept those who claim to believe yet deny Him in every thought and deed concerning this issue. What we believe is supposed to glorify and edify God. Evolution does neither. It cannot even be used to bring someone to salvation. That in itself proves it is not of God.