What are the main mechanisms used by secular scientists to explain evolution?

What do scientist assume about the universe?

The way the universe works now is the same as how it did in the past, as well as how it will work in the future, which is unverifiable and therefore must be assumed. Some examples: - Scientists assume that there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth - Secular scientists assume that the earth and universe were not created supernaturally. - Scientists assume that natural laws we identify will apply to all of the universe - Scientists assume that they all work towards the common good - Scientists assume life can evolve on earth in the presence of water - Most scientists assume near-death experiences and out-of- body experiences are a result of a lack of oxygen in the brain

What is a creation?

The non-secular belief that God created the world. The secular event that bounds a reality in existence from non-existence.

What are some statements made by scientists who do not believe in creation but believe in evolution that can be interpreted as being anti-evolution or questioning evolution?

AnswerThere have been quite a number of these made over the years. They can be classified into a number of broad categories, although it must be pointed out at the outset that most people who made these comments were evolutionists and remained evolutionists. It is well said that questioning things is part of science. This must also include acknowledging problems with existing theories where they do not match scientific reality:Regarding the Fossil Record:"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."Stephen Jay Gould (then Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p.127."All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."Gould, ibid. 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p.24."Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.(emphasis added) The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record."David B. Kitts, PhD (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma, USA) 'Paleontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution. vol.28, September 1974, p.467"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistc. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does(emphasis in the original) show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinoaaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling."Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology'. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin,vol.50(1), January 1979,p.25.Regarding Evolution Generally -Has it helped the progress of Science.?"Darwin's book - On the Origin of Species - I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record"..."As a scientist I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit with their preconceived ideas."H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'Origin of species', in 'Letters', New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452.Note: In this case the preconceived ideas get the nod ahead of what the facts of science show.'There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting at Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory - that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress.'...Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science".'Dr John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales) as quoted in 'How Evolution became a scientific myth', New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p765.'Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.'Prof. Loius Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p.17.Regarding Mutations as a Mechanism for Evolution'Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living things evolve.This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable:first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human soecies provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the eyes, the shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture of the hair, the pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.' (Emphasis added)Pierre-Paul Grasse (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977,p.88Regarding the Origin of Genetic Material'The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.'Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), Darwinism at the very beginning of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151.'The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.'....'We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful.'Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D (physical chemistry)(Professor, California Institute of Technology), 'Chemical evolution and the origin of life'. Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978, pp.77 and 78Regarding Dating and Dating Methods'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.'Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometricdating.'....'It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists....".William D. Stansfield, Ph.D.(animal breeding)(Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84.'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. 'A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,p.974.'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.'Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3.Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method:'These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age.'Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology,Oberlin College,Ohio, USA) in Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102.'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature.'Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental vulcanism'. Science,vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.Regarding the Origin of Life ItselfIn order for evolution to take place life had to arise spontaneously without divine intervention. Theistic evolutionists of course propose that God started it all and then used evolution. This is not what mainstream science proposes since even the idea of any kind of supernatural intervention is explicitly excluded. The following are from the mainstream scientific view.'Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.'Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), 'Darwinism at the very begining of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.150.'However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.*This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.'*To postulate that life arose elsewhere in the universe and was then brought to earth in some manner would be merely begging the question; we should then ask how life arose wherever it may have done so originally.David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, Iniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, USA) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA), Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407.AnswerMichael J. BeheThe microbiologist Michael J. Behe is a believer in evolution, however some of his statements question evolution. In Darwin's Black Box, he repeatedly and clearly states that he accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth, and repeatedly and clearly states that evolution by natural selection may be correct, at least for "micro-evolution". He defines micro-evolution broadly, to include the evolution of species, but not of complex biological systems.Behe stated that he could not see how complex microbiological systems could have resulted from gradual improvement, as proposed by Charles Darwin. He went on to argue that, although there is no proof for creation, it appears to offer a better explanation for such complex biological systems. Even if he prefers this explanation, he believes that design is difficult to prove.Although Behe has questioned evolution, he should not be regarded as "anti-evolution". In an attempt to harmonise creationism with evolution, Behe puts forward the hypothesis that the creator may have placed the genes necessary for complex systems in the earliest primitive species (but not turned on), ready to be switched on in descendant species that finally needed those systems (Chapter 10, "Questions about Design"). Now, in the twenty-first century, scientists are in a position to use genome mapping to test this hypothesis, in ways Behe may not have anticipated in the early 1990s.Behe stated (P230): "There is another conceivable sense in which evolution might be said to go in sudden jerks, but which is also not the sense being proposed by Eldredge and Gould, at least in most of their writings. It is conceivable that some of the apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record really do reflect sudden change in a single generation."Dr John DurantIt is widely reported that John Durant, as a young scientist, argued that Darwinism was accepted too uncritically. In his later essay, "A Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation" (Evolution and Creation: A European Perspective edited by Svend Andersen and Arthur Peacocke - 1987), he continued to question the arguments put by both sides:"I have suggested that much of the argument about evolution and creation arises from the belief that, since these two things are opposed to one another, we must choose between them. This belief is simply false. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not atheistic but rather secular, and there is no necessity for it to be in conflict with, or indeed to make any sort of contact with, the theological doctrine of creation.It remains true that we have come a long way from the days when philosophical, religious and scientific discussions of origins were dominated by the theory of special creation. Today, it is at least possible to distinguish between conventional Darwinian evolutionary biology and that larger evolutionary world-view constructing enterprise that is represented by men like Huxley and Teilhard. For the plain fact is that those who accept the essentially secular terms of Darwinism are free to select amongst a variety of alternative world-views according to their own particular philosophical or religious preferences. In exercising this freedom, of course, people are not making a scientific choice. For Darwinism as such rests upon no distinctive metaphysical or religious propositions; and it offers no distinctive support to any particular world-view, be it pro-Christian, anti-Christian or merely neutral. Rightly conceived, theological questions must be decided on theological grounds, and not upon the territory of the paleontologist or the population geneticist. "AnswerLoren Eiseley, Ph.D'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. 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.'Loren Eiseley, PhD.(anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957,p.199.Dr. David Pilbeam'I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.'Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature,June 1978, p.45

Evolutionism vs creationism?

There is no evolution vs creationism. Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is an observed and observable fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much about the fact of evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology that takes many forms in many different cultures and religions and is not supported by any evidence anywhere.

What is the debate between Evolutionary biology and Creationism?

It was basically Dawrwinism, natural selection survival of the fittest that sort of thing, vs. God creating everything.AnswerThe best place to start is with some definitions. The most common usage of "Creationism" is the position that God created the various "kinds" of life, largely in the same form as we see them today. The scientific meaning of "Evolutionary biology" is that life changes and over time, that harmful changes will die out and that beneficial changes will be preserved and multiply, and that all of the life we see on earth today can be traced back to a common ancestor billions of years ago.Note that evolutionary biology does not make any claims about the origin of the universe, just as chemistry doesn't make any claims about the origin of the universe, it does not even make any claims God, just as chemistry makes no claims about God, and evolutionary biology makes no claims about the origin of life, just as chemistry makes no claims about the origin of elements. Evolutionary biology starts from a point with life already existing and describes how life changes, just as chemistry starts from a point with elements already existing and explains how those elements interact. The origin of elements is explained by the theory of nuclear fusion, and the field of abiogenesis attempts to explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis is currently a poorly developed and poorly supported field of science.The definitions of Creationism and Evolutionary biology above pretty well define the two sides in the debate. The central point of argument is whether God individually and separately created "kinds" of life in largely their current forms (perhaps allowing lions and tigers to have a common "cat kind" ancestor), or whether dogs and birds and whales all came from a common ancestor. Note that while some on the Evolutionary biology side are atheists, the vast majority are Christian believing that God created the universe and that evolution merely describes "how" God created the various species just like optics describes "how" God created rainbows. People who believe God created the universe and used evolution are generally not considered Creationists, "Creationism" normally means the special separate of each kind of creature with limited change.There are many conflicting claims and conflicting arguments in this debate.Setting aside such claims and arguments, the unarguable fact is that every national or international science academy on earth with an official public position statement on the subject has the position that evolution is valid science supported by the evidence, and that all of the claims against evolution are false and all the arguments against evolution have been scientifically refuted. Over a hundred major science academies have issued such statements, and every single one confirms the valid scientific status of evolution and the unscientific and erroneous status of the Special Creationism claims.Rounded to the nearest full percentage point, 100% of biologists confirm evolution. If you want to go into decimal percentage points, it's about 99.9% of biologists on the evolution side vs about 0.1% denialists. There is a public debate over evolution, and a political debate over evolution, but scientifically there is no actual debate over evolution. Every scientific body with a public position is on the evolution side, and the tiny handful of evolution denialists in the scientific community are considered unscientific and considered to be No as credible as the holocaust denialists.AnswerAccording to Atheist Michael Ruse this debate is not between science and religion but between two different religious views. According to Ruse evolutionism involves more than the agreement with the scientific theory of evolution. It is ''the whole metaphysical or ideological picture built around or on evolution.'' 1 To Ruse, this constitutes a secular religion which then puts it is conlfict with the Christian creationist view. 1. (Science,22 July 2005, p.560)

What are the main mechanisms used by secular scientists to explain evolution?

Add your answer:

What do scientist assume about the universe?

What is a creation?

What are some statements made by scientists who do not believe in creation but believe in evolution that can be interpreted as being anti-evolution or questioning evolution?

Evolutionism vs creationism?

What is the debate between Evolutionary biology and Creationism?

What is secular culture?

What are the different ideologies that explain the purpose of prison How do the ideologies differ?

What is the various Christian and secular viewpoints with regard to evolution and creation?

The Brandenburg Concerto is an example of Bach's what?

Why does the issue of evolution continue to resurface?

A sentence for secular?

Why is Pakistan not secular?

Is Mexico secular or sectarian?

Can you give me a sentence using the word secular in it?

Is the University of Texas religious or secular?

Is classic rock sacred or secular?

What is the difference between secular and non secular holidays?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company