“The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.””
Sure is, there is nothing wrong with theories, isnt it? Its not as what it is ordinarily used as, that is, a speculation. But then, what is a scientific theory?
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.“
Indeed, a scientific theory spells out something good. It explains natural phenomena and once its an established scientific theory then its accepted as essentially true.
“The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
What makes scientific theories reliable is in matters of its accuracy. It states:
“The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton’s laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.”
With regards to evolution, its widely accepted as true, yet was its accuracy established to say, its sufficient for reliability?
“Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. For example, the predictions made by classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate in the relatistivic realm, but they are almost exactly correct at the comparatively low velocities of common human experience. In chemistry, there are many acid-base theories providing highly divergent explanations of the underlying nature of acidic and basic compounds, but they are very useful for predicting their chemical behavior. Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory’s predictions. However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.”
There may be some facts about evolution such as the galapagos birds as new specie bec of cross breeding and natural selection but that is a phenomenon after the crucial days of creation. So evolution happens after creation. But nowhere could it be proven that life begun from one common ancestor. The bible dont conform with such idea.
There is an accuracy issue with regards to theories. Sometimes, a theory could be less accurate, thus it could be modified or rejected if it doesnt fit new findings, therefore should it be proper to treat each theory as a possible less accurate theory, having the possibility real as per observation? With regards to evolution, is it accurate enough to say it has sufficient ground to be considered true–or reliable?
The source confirmed:
“Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain,”
Furthermore, it states:
“However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.”
For me, i have not seen yet sufficient evidence to say, human evolution is viable–much so Darwinism, primarily.
“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.”
Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook
There is doubt, even in the hub of the science world itself:
“Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.”
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”
“Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum –the oldest still published biology journal in the world — Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.”
One article said:
“The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 “scientists” listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.”
So as you can see, dissenters have with them biologists, though less than 20% who are scientifically inclined in discussing evolution, so its not just based on religious motivations but on scientific analysis and considerations.
Of course, a small percentage of scientists trying to put doubt on a widely accepted scientific theory would be met with objections, such as saying, this dissent is primarily faith based rather than evidence based.
“Yesterday, I discussed the contention by advocates of Darwinian evolution claim that there are no legitimate scientific problems with their viewpoint. Supporters of Darwin’s theory often seek to portray those who doubt evolution as being moved by strictly religious or political motivations. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows that many objections to Darwinian evolution are scientifically based. But because numerous pro-Darwin activists cannot admit this, they have developed a variety of strategies for attacking the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List.”
“The article first states: “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory. Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle — he shared ancestry of living organisms — has overcome all scientific challenges.” This assertion promotes a standard NCSE talking point — that there are no scientific doubts about modern evolutionary theory. However, we’ve already seen that is a false claim.”
These statement is from an article entitled: Answering Objections to the dissent of the Darwinism list.
You can read that from here: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/answering_objec_2/
The scientific objection to Darwinism can be read here: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/information_for/
An excerpt from the link:
What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution?
The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution:
- Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity:Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2
- Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4
- Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7
- Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10 Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15
There are many scientific objections to Darwinian evolution, and again, this is not to say that any particular signer of the Dissent from Darwinism list makes any one of these specific arguments. Instead, I have simply indicated some of the common scientific objections to Darwinian evolution. In a subsequent post, I will address the question: “Is Darwinian Evolution ‘Just a Theory’?”
In support of the first scientific objection:
Dr. Margulis herself, however, had a serious problem with the idea that natural selection acting on mutations could create anything new. She didn’t apply it to the problem of the protein pathways in the cell, but she did recognize the lack of evidence of beneficial mutations. In her 2003 book co-written with Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, Dr. Margulis notes:
Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being?
Her honesty earned her the criticism of eminent materialists like Richard Dawkins, even though Margulis herself was a materialist and a supporter of microbes-to-man evolution. She simply recognized that the mechanisms scientists were offering were terribly insufficient to explain the evolution of the earth’s species. She did an excellent job of pointing out the subjectivity of the phylogenic tree models as well as the shortcomings of natural selection.
She told Discover magazine earlier this year, “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists…Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” She went on, “…[T]he laws of genetics showed stasis, not change. Mendel showed that the grandparent flowers and the offspring flowers could be identical to each other. There was no change through time.”
If you doubted my sources, it is likewise confirmed by New York Times in this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html
Note: Many of my sources is from wikipedia. Other sources are indicated.