Darwinism: Fact or Fiction?
Religion & Science
Is Darwinism fact or fiction?
Darwinism: Fact or Fiction?
Is Darwinism fact or fiction?
- Fact
- 29 votes
- Remains to be proven
- 17 votes
- Fiction
- 17 votes
Only members can vote.
Only members can post replies, please register.
Darwinism: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory. - http://www.answers.com/topic/darwinism
Darwinian Evolution is today the most widely accepted explanation of the history of life on Earth. (For those still clueless about Darwinism, it includes the idea that man came from ape-like ancestors) Supporters of Darwinism claim that it is fact, infallible, and agrees perfectly with what is observed in the natural world, and http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/?src=h_h says that Charles Darwin "profoundly altered our view of the natural world and our place in it."
However what is the truth of the history of life on Earth? What about the Intelligent Design and Creationism? Is there reason to believe that Darwinism cannot properly explain the history of life as we know it? Some say that one of the fastest growing global phenomenon is scientists who are doubtful of the claims of Darwinism http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Lastly I must warn against the often seen logical fallacy of double talk regarding micro and marcoevolution. Too often I have seen the statement, "There is no scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its essential mechanisms." If "evolution" is defined as development of drug resistance by bacteria, (microevolution) then everyone would accept that "evolution happens." But Darwinian Evolution is essentially "the standard scientific theory that 'human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'":
"and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that 'human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'"" - (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002.)
Decide for yourself. Is Darwinism fact, fiction, or unproven theory? What is your stand?
More Information on:
Darwinian Evolution: http://www.talkreason.org/ , http://www.talkorigins.org/ , http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Intelligent Design: http://www.uncommondescent.com/ , http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Creationism: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
None of the Above: http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism-faq.htm
Url list updated... PM me if you wish to make a suggestion on other links.
Hey, Well look his was a theory, he based on evidence, and it will have flaws, but, in my mind it's more credible then Creationisim which gives no evidence.
Oh Persocom go find a Discover Magazine, Febuary 2005, It's About Testing Darwin's theory( sure you can find it on google or something).
I'm not questioning the validity of Darwinism vs Creationism here. I'm questioning the validity of Darwinism as an infallible account of the history of life. And I do not wish to take a stand on this issue here.
No, that site never states that they think it "requires divine intervention". Stop changing people's words around, it makes your arguments much less credible. 40% believe "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." Next, ReligiousTolerance was not "going so far as to say", they were presenting statistics from the "The Gallup Organizations".
Next your main source states 610 scientists in the world signed something that said they were "skeptical" of "Darwinism" world-wide. The religious tolerance page states that 700 Scientists in the U.S. give credence to creation-science, according to Newsweek. Skepticism is not the same as stating something isn't true, it's being unsure of it's truth.
Now, I'm not sure if evolution is true, but since the only people opposing its truth seem to be groups of Christians (who tend to have an intellect only a little bit above Pat Robertson), I'm not really that skeptical.
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many people think it threatens morals, civilization, and their very souls, and virtually nobody wants it to be true. Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public. The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence. If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to irreparable shreds decades ago.
Like all theories, evolution is subject to scientific attack, too. Achieving a major revision of established theory is something that many scientists dream of. Plus, many scientists feel the same emotional opposition to it that so many non-scientists do. If a credible alternative to evolution appeared, biologists would race to publish it. Indeed, scientists have made some significant revisions of details to the theory of evolution, but there has been no such race to overthrow the basic theory.
The theory of evolution is stronger than ever, accepted around the world without a hint of informed scientific challenge to the basic theory. The controversy surrounding evolution has made it one of the most scrutinized theories of all time, and evolution has withstood that scrutiny with flying colors.
I fully support Darwinism, but I believe that it has it's flaws and that eventually, it will be proven to be correct or incorrect. Intelligent design, while it may have some facts, is too new for me to accept straight out.
Creationism is for the religious folks. I'm not one of them. I refuse to believe that a being created by humans could create the Earth and its inhabitants. Like Nietzsche said during the Industrial Revolution, "God is dead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo
Here we have a flightless bird incapable of defending itself. Everything else in nature has some way of hiding, escaping or defending itself from predators. Not so in the case of this bird
It does not make sense in a Creationism/Intelligent Design view of things for whoever that created everything make a bird that serves no practical goal in the circle of life.
In a Darwinism view this bird shouldn't of existed as well. Since evolution deals with passing on favorable traits to the rest of the species that that will help it's changes at survival. Instead it looked like it went in reverse there.
So it looks like all these theories need a good deal of overhauling and reworking because it's so not working when you look at that poor flightless bird.
Not exactly. If you read in any (good) biology textbook, it'll tell you that NOT ALL MUTATIONS are favorable. (I would suggest one by Sylvia Mader or Campbell.) This bird may have had an unfavorable mutation which is why it died out. Not every mutation will yield a superior organism because mutations are random.
And actually, if you read further down in the article the parrot does have some abilities which would enable it to protect itself.
While I am an evolutionist, I acknowledge that Darwin's theory of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution does have some holes. But at this point in time I also believe that it does the best job of explaining the process of evolution than any of the other theories out there.
And I'll leave with a really informative site about Evolutionary History:
History of Evolutionary Thought
Here's the original site if you want to browse through it. HERE
Did you even read your link? It was on an island and there were few predators. It was better for them to have large amounts of body fat to store energy rather than being able to escape from nonexistant predators. The animal evolved to its environment. A negative trait in one part of the world is a positive trait in another. And ironically enough when humans started destroying its habitat the kakapo was pulled from the brink of extinction by a sex allocation theory, based on the evolutionary theory, that predicted conditions in which the kakapo would produce more female offspring.
God guided the process = divine intervention. I'm not trying to twist the meaning in any way.
Updates:
Actually it might imply that they thought Darwinism is impossible without God's help. It's wrong to assume what those 40% of scientists thought.
You may not have meant it in that way, but you did write it. Those scientists held the belief that God guided evolution. That isn't to say they think evolution is impossible without God (which you were saying their opinion was with "requires divine intervention"), but that they are religious and therefore think God guided it. I'd guess they'd think evolution could have occurred without God if God doesn't exist.
Darwinism for all intent and purposes IS fact. It explains very well how life changes over time. Not only that it predicts stuff that eventually later becomes true in the lab. What more can you ask from a scientific theory? While obviously there are a few flaws to the theory that comes with all scientific theories. Take Newton's laws of motion for a long time people thought they were true everywhere. Then Einstein comes along and shows that Newton's laws must be changed when the speed gets close to the speed of light. Even Einstein himself was wrong. He spent the better part of 30 years trying to disprove quantum mechanics but to no avail. Darwinism will be refined until it is completely true in all cases.
Like the earlier poster said. Scientists everywhere dream of being able to make a huge change in the way we understand the universe. To be able to change or revise a big part of Darwinism would be a major achievment for them that would bring fame and fortune. The fact that no one has yet disproved or even greatly change (to my knowledge) Darwinism only attests to its factuality and completness.
Most of the life on earth has changed but some animlas haven't changed much at all. There is a 2% difference in our DNA with chimps.
this is a fiction. if u want to know u should read Harun Yahya's book about darwinism
Is evolution really scientific?
The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."--The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."--The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199
According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."--June 25, 1981, p. 828
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."--Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."--By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place--and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."--C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19
The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."--October 1980, p. 88
What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: "If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that "numerous species" came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?
Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: "By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages."--(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48
What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."--January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23
A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet."--(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times."--Natural History, October 1959, p. 467
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: "If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best."--Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."--(New York, 1980), p. 29
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes." (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory...
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process."--(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742
What about those "ape-men" depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
"The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face--of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."--The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151
"The vast majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."--Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41
"Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man."--Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304
Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?
"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science."--The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15
But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says...
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his "grandfather's day," meaning that one's entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term "day" to describe an extended period of time...
"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."--2 Peter 3:8
Thus the 'days' of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long...
About Darwin and his theories... A lot of people use this theory to say: "See, the world just changes, there is nobody who created it". I know the world changes, and the persons changes, and the species change. But this fact don't make me thing that the world just appear, out of nowere, without anyone to make it appear; or that the life just appear, out of nowere, without anyone who makes it appear. I think God gides this changes, and that God make the world better for us changing it until He decided that we could live in there.
Some weeks ago, I saw a program in the National Geographic Chanel. In this program says that, after years of genetic research, with genetic material from people from all around the world, they fainally have discovered that all humanity proceed from just one single male (he lived around 60000 years ago). Curious, isn't it? There is a scientific fact that says that all of us have one single parent. But I know, this man did not look exactly as we look today, his decendants have changed, in every generation there have been changes, adaptatios, natural selection, etc. But for me, this cientific fact does not denied that God create the world, it only makes me wonder how much patience He has (He have dealed with us for 60000 years, not only 6000, and He still endures us). Fantastic, isn't it?
Evolution, the development of creatures over a great period of time, is a proven science. Darwinism is the limited and specific belief that one tiny virus grew into mice, into apes, into man. That particular fact has yet to firmly be determined.
Darwin spent years developing his Origins of Species, but he could never look at the true source, only minor differences in finches brought about by genetic adaptation. His true theory may be far fetched, but his observations make for rampant truth.
Darwin is the competition that America so strives to create against any opposition. All he made was some observations and it's blown out of proportion.
Evolution is a continuous process no matter how big or small it is.
i dont believe in darwinism for one, im a christian and two, the Lord created all things that are around us, even ourselves.. there are Biblical proofs to justify what i said.. and if you disagree with what i said well give me at least 1 error from the Bible which will make the Bible inaccurate.. *im not trying to start a fight but this is what i believe in..
Life is too complicated to explain as an accidental meeting of a few amino acids, the proofs are simple to anyone who would look deeper then high school biology but most want a simple definitive answer. Can I prove god created all life this planet and everything? No but it is far harder to believe an accidental combination of chemicals became cells and evolved into man (the math involved is staggering) then to believe that there is a unseen director to this universe
To quote Pascal: “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He (God) exists.”
That's it? You just want 1 error from the bible? Are you sure? I can literally give you hundreds. Everything from failed prophecies, scientific inaccuracies, faulty logic, blatent lies from jesus and even moral/ethical problems. However, since you're brainwashed by your religion, I'm guessing I can list out every single one and you'll find a way to slither out from under them all. Nevertheless, you ask, so you shall recieve (unlike praying).
Crack that bible up and within the first few pages you'll be told snakes eat dust and man has one less rib than women. This might surprise you but both are incorrect. The bible also supports a flat earth. The bible even says plants were created before the sun. Ever learn about photosynthesis in 4th grade? Unfortunately the writers of the bible did not.
Jesus tells us numerous times that anything asked for in prayer will be recieved. Go ahead, pray for something now. Here, quote a bible verse while you're at it...
John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."
Ask for a thousand dollars in a brown paper bag to appear infront of you. Jesus will give you ANYTHING and NOTHING is impossilbe.
Mark 11:24: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Matthew 17:20 "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
Go on, pray for something impossible and see if Jesus grants it. He won't, and you'll then try to make excuses for Jesus. Unfortunately no matter what excuse you come up with you can't get around Jesus lying.
Do you like slavery? Do you think slavery is wrong? Well it isn't, at least not according to god. If you think slavery is wrong they you disagree with the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
God loves slavery as long as you don't kill your slave, just beat him horribly and you'll be ok.
Do I have to keep going? Because I most certainly can. That's enough to get you started though, go make up excuses for your mythology now.
The math involved is put out by creationists and is incredibly innacurate. Several articles on Abiogenesis probability.
Wow, people still use pascal's wager and think it's logical? Errors with pascal's wager. And those problems are just the tip of the iceberg.
In the light of frequent previous misunderstandings about what is Darwinian/Naturalistic Evolution, I've updated the list with a new faq explaining why antibiotic resistant bacteria, new species of Darwin's finches and even natural selection do not prove evolution. It's written by an Agnostic science writer and thus under "None of the Above" http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism-faq.htm
Edits: To be fair I also included a new link in favor of Darwinian Evolution.
Evolution is a fact. Tell you what, it's alot more believable than there originally being two people who were responsible for all humans on Earth.