Do evolution-bashers, who say that the theory of evolution states that life evolves purely by chance, ....?

i dont think evolutionary models deal with the spontaneous formation of life ... however ... it did start somewhere and the spontaneous models are lacking ...

What I reject about evolution is also rejected by many other evolutionists or scientists. My position has nothing to do with religion. It is related to what should be good science. Here are the two main claims that I reject.

Claim 1- There are only a few missing transitional links and micro evolution is the same thing as macro evolution.

These are myths. Paleontologists got frustrated because they could not find the gradual change in fossils that was predicted by gradualism in evolution. The generally accepted theory in evolution is now punctuated equilibrium. The mechanisms of evolution act differently within species than for creating new species. The "gradual change" between species occur so fast (at a geological scale) that we have little record of it. So, in that sense, we have a lot of missing transitional links. See http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html

Claim 2- The theory of evolution can in principle be reduced to the known laws of elementary particle physics (in the standard model) and any form of intelligent design view on evolution is only acceptable in the religious domain.

This is not really a claim that we hear often, but it is implicit behind the thinking of some evolutionists. When you ask some of them, they support it. It is wrong.

It is important to understand that a reduction is a mathematical statement. For example, the reduction of temperature to kinetic energy per particle (and the associated derivation of macroscopic laws) is a mathematical statement. As for any other mathematical statement, a reduction cannot be accepted without a proof. A reduction without a proof, a greedy reduction, arbitrarily restricts the possible interpretations and future developments of the reduced theory.

The common mistake is to confuse the observed fact that a complex system is built from known basic constituents with a reduction. This vague relationship between a system and its constituents, including its use to explain some aspects of the laws for the system, is important, but it is not as strict and significant as a reduction, which would explain the totality of the laws. It is important to make this clear distinction.

The more the theory is close to practical life or rapidly unfolding, the more this becomes relevant. It is somehow relevant in the case of evolution. If the reduction was proved, it would establish that there is no more intelligence behind the known mechanisms of evolution than what we can find in the standard model of physics. An intelligent design interpretation is the opposite of this reduction. It is acceptable within the range of science because this reduction is not proved. Even if it was proved (for the known mechanisms of evolution), it would not say anything about mechanisms that have not yet been observed, but that's obvious and is not so significant. The point here is that it has not been proved for the known mechanisms.

There are still plenty of room for an intelligent design interpretation in science. The complexity of the evolution process is an evidence for such an interpretation. Of course, it is not a proof. This is the kind of things that we cannot prove in science. However, this interpretation might eventually be further corroborated by the discovery of new mechanisms at some fundamental level that would provide some new light on the known mechanisms. None of this would be true or possible if the reduction was proved, but it is not proved.

I especially reject this kind of greedy reduction in the fields of sociology, psychology, health, economics, etc, not particularly in the case of evolution. This may answer your question with regard to my motivation. If we accept bad science somewhere, it will spread everywhere. The consequence is bad: an arbitrary and unsupported restriction on the possible interpretations of science which may have negative effects on our direction of research. It may also create an unnecessary conflict between religion and science as paths toward truth, but that is not my main concern.

Evolution theory states that mutations are random -- that is, mutations are not necessarily caused by environmental pressures (but environmental pressures subsequently determine which of the random mutations are then beneficial).

A shorthand way of saying this is to simply state that the order that we see in the universe is ultimately based on randomness.

Consider this quote from Richard Dawkins:

"The belief that Darwinian evolution is 'random' is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative (natural) selection which is quintessentially nonrandom. " ("The Blind Watchmaker", p. 49)

Most people would assume that this argument is mere semantics, since he admits that without chance, there is no evolution.

There are still some giant leaps of faith in evolution theory.

All living things are made of living cells. Presumably, there had to be a first living cell -- what did it evolve from? Evolutionist say it evolved from self-replicating molecules. Maybe they're right but how do they know? Nobody's ever seen a living cell which did not come from another living cell. No lab experiment has proved that it's possible. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that nobody has seen it happen and theories of how it may have happened are yet unverified.

As a general rule I suspect the ones making money off of creationism are mostly liars. The ones giving the money are mostly gullable. Of course these groupings are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are PURPOSEFULLY trying to deceive. There is no doubt about it. Check out some of their literature on how they want to take over school boards, etc., by first lying about their ideas and beliefs and only after being elected will they begin to try to dismantle curriculums that have full science correctly taught.

They have a very real, very frightening agenda to put their own religious views into the schools as fact and not just as their belief. I've seen it in our own districts and I've followed it around the country. They're well funded and well thought out. This is not just some group of ignorant babblers on Yahoo Answers. This is a group of fundamentalist fanatics who are as dangerous in their own way as the other fundamentalist groups are in theirs

I suggest that you quietly jump around their websites (and I do mean quietly - some of them can be a bit dangerous) -- if you don't believe that, simply check out some of what's written about various groups at the Southern Poverty Law Center site http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

They couch their rhetoric in what seems to be almost logical speech -- after all isn't 'freedom of choice' what this (the U.S.) country is founded on? Of course that "choice" always seems to be just their own very fundamentalist Christian version of 'creation' and never the Hopi's, the Ibo's or anyone else's. When you suggest those choices, all at once there is a sudden dearth of 'freedom of choice' from them. Also, they never mention that 'freedom of choice' doesn't play in science. I'd love to see them "choose" not to fall when they step off that cliff; or "choose" for the electrons not to run thru their body when they touch that live wire.

I think it is a bit of both. Some are unaware of what evolution is and is not. Some purposely twist what evolution is, which makes it easy to refute.

Why just the other day I saw a quote on this board which said that The Encyclopedia Britannica says that fossil remains of the turtle disproves evolution.

Mind blowing

It's a bit of both. MOST of the ones going on TV, I give enough credit to think they may have looked at it, said "oh shi'ite!" and deliberately spout this BS as fact to deceive ignorant laypeople. The same applies to some laypeople, who have studied it just enough to be disturbed by proof they're living a lie, and go on to deliverately deceive other believers because their fairy tale is more important than reality.

Then you have the majority of laypeople (and a few of the professionals) who spout the "ZOMG CHANCE! UR STOOPIED!" drivel because they're honestly that ignorant. Christianity and reason have NEVER been good friends, after all.

no one ever said fundies were smart

"my grandpappy wasn't no ape!"

uh.....ok

are they purposefully trying to deceive the gullible? Yes, the "gullible" being themselves. Not to mention there's a lot of anti-evolution propoganda. (creation museum?) It's just willful ignorance

some guy said the other day "scientists say so...stupid atheists" Yes, I'm going to believe what some drunk idiots said 2000 years ago over highly educated scientists who are able to back up their theories through facts and research. Who's the stupid one??

Have you seen how delighted the disbelievers were when some anthropologists changed how they viewed some ancient species as existing together. They thought that this disproved evolution, when evolution never says that the predecessor species must ever die out.

I will hear out their arguments and determine whether they are worth a response before determining whether the person deserves my answer or not. If someone starts out with something like that- I will flat out tell them- study before arguing, or don't talk to me. I don't want to hear people attacking their strawmen, I want to hear about REAL problems with the theory. not THEIR theory.