0
Yes. A few examples are Jerry Fodor, Massimo Palmarini, Michael Behe, and Thomas Nagel, among others.
Evolution is fraught with difficulties and it remains in fact a theory, open to dispute by people who choose to avoid ignoring its problems. It can neither be proven nor demonstrated in the lab (in its broader sense of giving rise to new organs or species).
What else can I help you with?
Can science explain creation and evolution?
There are two thoughts on the word creation 1. To make something from already existing materials 2. To bring into existence from nothing. As one cannot make something from nothing then the first idea must be the right one. The proper term for this is to organise and not create. The second part of your question regarding evolution is that all things evolved from some minute organism that suddenly came into existence, this is impossible. That evolution is still taking place must be considered in the light that all things are evolving. Man is taller,living longer. Girls are maturing at an earlier age. This is called The Law of Evolution. This is what we must think of when talking on this subject, the Law of Evolution
Do personal experiences affect the attitude toward evolution?
Do personal experiences affect the attitude toward evolution? Yes, personal experiences DO affect one's attitude towards evolution. The earth is a perfect environment, and it was created out of nothing by God. Evolution can't create a perfect environment out xof nothing. Evolution isn't all powerful, all knowing, or is everywhere. But they say they know how humans evolved, but how did everything else evolve. What there trying to do is make up stories to prove that evolution is real thats why they only know how humans evolved but nothing else. Because animals can't just appear out of nowhere. Thats when god comes in because the bible says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Evolution is faulty. Evolution is unrealistic. Evolution is atheist. You realize now that evolution is just a theory, a theory that proves nothing. Evolutionist say that we evolved from a fish that grew legs or even a armpit licking monkey. But, that isn't what the facts say. John 1:3 states "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This meaning, God created everything and everyone through his own image, and without him nothing would have been created. The evolutionist to my right/left state we evolved from species that still roam the earth to this day, but don't you think if they were, so to speak, "right" there wouldn't be apes or fish anymore, there would just be humans. The facts we have presented show you that evolution is a faulty inference to how we as humans came to be. Evolutionist can say all they want, but if they don't have to the facts to back them up then evolution will always be a theory, a theory that proves nothing.
What questions oppose evolution?
Answer 1There are no serious questions in the scientific community that create a stumbling block for evolution by natural selection. One of the main sources of negative questions concerning evolution is that those who reject the idea, usually on religious grounds, think that evolution is a replacement for all aspects of Creation and therefore target, primarily, questions that Creation answers but that Evolution says nothing about.Evolution by natural selection only asserts that each creature, even each sex within the same creature, and the general environment exerts a selection pressure on every other creature. These selection pressures will guide a species to center on a particular variant within the species best suited for the environment. That variant will then become the new base and the selection pressures will narrow again. Over millions of years, this will result in species going extinct completely or in one area and being replaced by a different but similar species. Eventually, this will result in creatures significantly different than the original creature.Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis which is the idea that life can come from non-life. Evolution requires something to be living to be alive for it to work. Many people raise the question of abiogenesis, which has much less evidence than evolution in order to question evolution. However, since evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, the questions are irrelevant to evolution per se.Evolution does not deal with early cosmology, the formation of the universe, or the formation of the solar system and Earth. Evolution is a biological theory, not a physics or cosmological theory. However, some individuals will ask, "If you believe in evolution, where did the Earth come from?" Evolution has no connection to that answer. It would be like asking, "If you believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days, why did Buddha need to starve himself for forty-nine days to receive revelation?" The two fields are irrelevant to one another.[See the discussion section for more of a debate on some semantics about evolution.]Answer 2Although the prevailing opinion regarding origins has the majority of scientists in support, many of these acknowledge that there are a number of questions which remain unanswered regarding evolutionary theory. Most would agree that these questions, while unresolved, do not 'oppose evolution' but are merely unresolved questions. Noted atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins in an interview about his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" referred to four of his favourite "unsolved mysteries" as follows:1. The origin of life- "That is a complete mystery" he said.2. The origin of sex.3. The origin of consciousness.4. The rise of morality.(source: Boyle, A., The not-so- angry evolutionist, 14th October 2009)The evolutionist G A Kerkut defined what is called the 'general theory of evolution' (GTE) as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.' Dawkins, as mentioned above, (as do many other evolutionists) regard this issue as one that remains to be solved. Some evolutionists try to suggest that the origin of life issue is not connected with evolution at all. However, this has not generally been so from Darwin himself onwards.Evolutionist Gordy Slack states on this issue, "I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself...And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close." (Slack,G What neo-creationists get right-an evolutionist shares lesson's he's learned from the intelligent design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008).Other scientists highlight the following issues which remain to be addressed:1. Information Theory (i.e. biological information): Living things contain masses of information encoded in their DNA, as well as the code-reading mechanism, together with the epigenetic code which controls gene expression. Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker (p115) stated There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Brittanica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over." In The Greatest Show on Earth (page 405) Dawkins states, "The difference between life and non-life is a matter not of substance but information. Living things contain prodigious quantities of information.An intelligent message always requires an intelligent sender. This would appear to be simply impossible through random unguided naturalistic means. Computer simulations where evolutionists control the result through their intelligent input and produce a result supposedly showing evolution can happen are far removed from the real world due to the unrealistic scenarios favourable to their outcome.2. Mutations: do not create new Genetic information necessary for microbes to man evolution to work. For a dinosaur to change into a bird would require an incredible amount of new DNA to be written into its genome. Mutations are shown universally in science to be harmful in terms of the information content. Where an organism benefits from a mutation there is still no increase in information but often a loss. Dawkins himself when asked could not give one single example of an information-adding mutation.3. Natural Selection considered to be a mechanism of evolution can only select from what is already there (and there often is a high degree of adaptability in the genome of various species e.g. all the different dog breeds but still all dogs). Nothing new is ever created by natural selection, as shown by the modern science of genetics, developed since Darwin's time. As someone aptly stated -natural selection may explain survivalof the fittest, but it doesn't explain arrival of the fittest.4.Genetic Entropy- although estimates vary (some higher some lower) human geneticists generally agree that the human genome is accumulating around 100 new mutations per person per generation. These mutations are too small to produce measurable effects and so are not 'weeded out' by natural selection. Geneticists also note the 100's of mendelian genetic disorders in mankind. These figures also suggest strongly that mankind should not exist at all if it as old as postulated.
What are the facts about evolution?
With regard to 'facts' this is still a very subjective question. That some form of evolution occurs there is no doubt. However, there are still many unanswered questions about the natureof evolution. There are similar problems, for example, over gravity; we know gravity exists but the mechanism by which it works is still not completely understood. There are theories about gravity 'particles', 'waves', and, of course, the warping of spacetime as postulated by Einstein. But, despite all these theories having a great deal of merit, the exact 'factual' means by which gravity works is still not fully understood. In the same way, evolution, though evidence supports its existence, is still not fully understood, and until it is, facts about it cannot be cited without some doubt. The word 'fact' can be either irrefutable mathematical evidence (eg 2 + 2 = 4) but can also mean an idea for which there is overwhelming evidence - until something else comes along and improves or modifies it, that is! As an example, Newton's laws of motion were 'fact' for hundreds of years until Einstein realised that they break down at speeds near the speed of light. This is not to say Newton was wrong - only limited. In the same way, we are still groping with Darwin and, although it is unlikely that Darwin will be 'proved' wrong, it is almost certain that the current 'facts' will be modified as new evidence comes along. With regard to Darwinian 'facts', there are two extremes, both of which are rather untenable. Firstly there are those, like Richard Dawkins, who accept Darwin as irrefutable fact. He once stated "Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.'Whilst he may be eventually shown to be correct, there are many questions about evolution that Darwin simply does not answer at the moment, and so such a statement by Dawkins is rather foolish and cavalier. There are some intermediary species that havebeen found, but, considering the multitude of different creatures that have existed since life began, there simply aren't nearly enough, even if we discovered many, many more. Also, rather than a gradual process of evolution as suggested by Darwin, the records suggest that it happened, in some cases, in leaps and bounds. Why? There are also many unanswered questions such as the unlikelihood of complex structures like the eye or the feather being formed by chance, and the great improbability of a complex code like DNA being formed also by chance, even in the most primitive of bacteria. While these unanswered problems and others like them, may eventually be solved, to stick ones neck out and claim that evolution, at this moment, is irrefutable, is as silly as Fred Hoyle's insistence in the Steady State Universe, until Wilson and Penzias came along and discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang, causing Hoyle's Steady State to be shelved overnight. Secondly there are those who deny evolution totally and who insist on an earth that is just a few thousand years old, where all species were created together. Creationists have formulated their own explanations of life's formation surrounding the 'falsified' evidence of Darwinism, and usually rely on scripture to dispute Darwin's theories out of hand. This rigid approach is equally untenable as there is clear evidence of the immense age of the earth, and clear, and overwhelming, evidence that some form of evolution through natural selection does actually take place. Creationists seem, also, to forget that the Darwin they demonise, despite some wobbly episodes, lived and died a Christian. He was once famously quoted as saying he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. Even his Origin of Species ends with the words "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. " In truth, then when asking about the 'facts' of evolution it is very presumptuous to either accept evolution as irrefurtable or deny it out of hand. It seems the truth lies somewhere in between. Until more evidence comes to light, until more theories and speculations come and go and until scientists and naturalists understand much (much) more about the workings of DNA, the facts about evolution will still be rather nebulous and controversial.
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)
Is evolution atheistic?
AnswerNo, evolution is science. If scientists wish to hold religious beliefs they are free to do so - in fact there are some scientists who are Christians. AnswerCertainly not. Evolution believers can be christain, they can be anyone. Some throw words like "atheist" and "antichrist" or phrases like "you will go to hell" because of a threat to their beliefs. No one likes to be threatened. Religion is what some people hold on to, just as science and reason is sometimes what people hold to.
According to atheist how was the first human created?
The question should be "according to science" without reference to atheists. There is no atheist position on anything a atheists are not a group, cabal, organization, religion, brotherhood or similar. The overwhelming majority of theist and atheist scientists agree that humans resulted from a long process of evolution from other life forms starting from simple virus like entities.
May an atheist be president of the US?
There is no law against an atheist being president.
What positions did William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow each represent at the Scopes Trail?
Bryan represented the state which had a law against teaching evolution and believed totally the Bible account of the creation. Darrow was an atheist who was against the state law, defended evolution and Stokes's right to teach it.
Is there anybody that doesn't believe in evolution and isn't a christian?
Many Muslims and Orthodox Jews do not " believe " in evolution. Of course the truth does not need you belief to be true and something can be true whether you believe it or not. I should re-word this question. Is there an atheist that doesn't agree with evolution? There may be an atheist that does not agree with evolutionary theory, but what difference would that make? If there was someone out there I would like to hear his views on evolution.
Was Stalin a atheist?
Stalin was against religion and was strongly Atheist. He ran campaigns discouraging any form of religion.
Is Francisco Ayala an atheist?
Answer 1I'm pretty sure he is a Christian. However, he supports evolution, and not intelligent design.
How many famous scintifics are christians?
I assume you're asking how many famous scientists are Christians.The vast majority of renowned scientists are atheist or agnostic.
Was Karl Marx an atheist?
He described religion as the opium of the people, an illusion designed to make them accept the status quo.
Is it right to believe in evoulution or religion?
Evolution is fact. Religion is a matter of belief. Believe only that which you can prove.ANOTHER OPINIONEvolution is fact. It has been proven by geological records. However this does not disprove religion. Id disproves the creation theory of Christianity, but not religion. You should believe what you heart tells you. I was once a strict atheist that dismissed anyone who believed in a God, but now I'm not so sure, i am on my own spiritual Journey. However as the other answer said, evolution has been scientifically proven, there is no arguing with that.
Why does Socrates say that atheism is the stock charge against all philosophers?
Probably because he was "accused" of being an atheist (in Socrates' time it was capital offence to be an atheist).
Are all scientists atheists?
No, historically many scientists have been strongly religious; nowadays more scientists tend to be atheists than the general public and it also seems likely that the more senior the scientist, the more likely they are to be atheist. There are scientists who are religious and try to contort science to prove their religious beliefs. On the other hand, there are scientists who are religious and understand perfectly that religion and science are completely separate and distinct. In the world of science, those within it are all unique individuals, just like the rest of the world. So one way of believing or thinking anything can't be assumed.
