Is this scientist wrong because he doesn't believe evolution, or does this mean he's not a scientist?

Question

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philosopher Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo Research The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17

He is a scientist, as a matter of fact he was Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific

Answer 1

Evolution is just a theory. It is popular and accepted in society. Nevertheless, there is almost no proof for it. In fact, there are far more plausible scenarios from Creation science.

If you approach science with the predisposition that evolution is correct, then what you might discover is forced and molded and fit into the evolution schema. The problem is that evolution has never been observed, except adaption within a species. For example, there are cellular components that all must work in tandem to work at all; yet, this flies in the face of evolution that suggests that a new part is created when needed. Additionally, all life species seems to have occurred in a relatively short period of time (pre-Cambrian explosion) and have since stopped. We do not observe new species being born from different species today...or ever.

All of these arguments, and many more, seem to support a theory other than evolution. In fact, the Creationists view does in fact seem more plausible.

Unfortunately, we are in a bit of dark ages. People today do not regard God as truth, rather science. Therefore, regardless of how ridiculous evolution is and how plausible Creation is, the public will not have God taught in schools. Hence the public schools are stuck learning evolution ideas.

Were in a kind of modern age dark ages, if you will.

Answer 2

If he's a scientist, then it doesn't matter if he believes it or not. For scientists, "belief" isn't part of the equation.

Either the hypothesis is confirmed by observation and makes useful predictions within its domain, or it is contradicted by observation and/or does not make useful predictions.

If he has an observation that contradicts the theory then that's big big news. Otherwise he's just stating a personal opinion that he thinks that evidence will be found disproving or invalidating the theory some day.

And that is not a scientific conclusion. It's a complete guess.

Answer 3

you're thoroughly misinformed. i'm sorry actuality makes you mad, this is so unhappy. you be attentive to, the pope pronounced that evolution is how god did it. does that make you experience extra advantageous? Are you even conscious that evolution does not say adult adult males descended from apes? So, are you mad approximately something that isn't even being pronounced? on the different hand, you're conscious that we and chimpanzees have ninety 5% comparable dna? undergo in recommendations, if somebody tells you evolution has been proved incorrect, they are mendacity to you - and that they are taking you for a fool and attempting to apply you to reinforce their own potential in some way. Evolution is the only maximum supportd thought in technological information. And, you in all risk might desire to be attentive to that a thought isn't a hypothesis, no longer a wager. A thought is the suited explanation for a physique of knowledge. electricity is a thought. Gravity is a thought. Evolution is a thought. a noticeably darned stable one. i'm hoping you may study to handle reailty. that is somewhat ok. undergo in recommendations, the genesis advent account has 2 diverse variations and jews, whose texts those are, don't have self belief they are literally real.

Answer 4

You can call him what you like. I call it grasping at straws in a pitiful attempt at deception. But hey, millions of people have graduated with a bachelors in science since the 1920's (30 years before even the discovery of DNA), I'm sure you could find a few more anti-evolution Christian fundies among them.

By the way Dogsneeze, I am a practising scientist with a PhD in 'natural science', as I have observed are several other regular answerers, so no, he is not a more qualified scientist than anyone on this forum.

Answer 5

Evolution is not a "hypothesis". It is a full fledged scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence. No-one can reject evolution on the basis of the scientific evidence. One can reject evolution only by discarding or ignoring the scientific evidence. Therefore someone claiming to be a scientist while rejecting all scientific evidence in a particular scientific discipline is a poor scientist at best.

Answer 6

Well, Malcolm Muggeridge, whom you obviously have never heard of before, was NOT a scientist. He was a journalist and broadcaster. He wasn't even a philosopher of any note (though he was a good broadcaster). However, him thinking that evolution was wrong is irrelevant either way. Why do you grasp desperately at ANYONE who doubts evolution and yet ignore the phenomenal number of scientists and Nobel Prize winners who accept it in full? Do you not realize how absurd and insecure you seem?

=====

HE WAS NOT A SCIENTIST! He got a bare pass in the natural sciences at Cambridge University (which means he did very badly!). He trained to be a journalist and was quite good at it! Where do you get your facts from? THIS is why we don't listen to anything Christians say about evolution! Their attention to detail is terrible!

Answer 7

The theory of evolution makes no DIFFERENCE in my life.

I mean it has no direct effect on my daily events and I wont be considered a weirdo for thinking its irrelevant to the way we humans treat each other.

At the end of the day, its what I do that counts.

As far as am concerned, evolutionists should sit and discuss why the first human remains in Africa can still be traced to the tribe they belonged to. This was shown on National Geographic. Have these people changed at all? They sure as hell dont look like it but I would definitely like to know anyway.

Answer 8

Great quote--The belief in evolution has also been likened to the fairy tale "The Emperors New Cloths"

--In short form, the Emperor wanted the greatest of cloths for his wardrobe, so he had these two "tailors"--who claimed that the cloth they were using was invisible AND that only the UN-INTELLIGENT could NOT see the substance to this cloth. That indeed was the major premise.
--So to the Emperors & others embarrashment he went parading naked or near it, and was brought to his senses by a young person saying " he is naked".

EVOLUTIONISTS have many times used the same idea that those who could not see the teaching substance(false science) were simply NOT INTELLIGENT)-

-So the sham goes on & as Aldous Huxley stated , this could be part of their unswavering beliefs:

*** g81 9/22 p. 19 Is It a Fact? ***

Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Answer 9

Flimsy theory? its scientific fact, evolution happened and is still happening in the world, we can look at fossils and see how they have progressed, there is no other way such complicated life forms could exist on this planet than through natural selection, good adaptions go on, bad ones die out, a higher species develops as a result

Answer 10

Journalist and Philosopher are not Scientists. Nope, checked a few sources, no science background.