the teaching of evolution has been opposed in US in many public schools,mainly fuelled by protestant fundamentalism...this voice has been joined by Adnan Oktar of turkey,with his latest book, Atlas Of Creation, refuting the evolution theory by charles darwin...calling it a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the koran(religious book of islam)...
Earlier also few scientists have questioned darwin's theory examplifying the fact that darwin wasnt aware of the facts of genes,etc..
well friends i wanted to know ur take on all this...
2007-07-17 18:08:02 · 21 answers · asked by razmatttaz... 4 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
All the new evidence has backed up what is obvious, by simple observation. Some animals are closely related. The genes absolutely backed that up in nearly unambiguous ways. It is also obvious from the way that humans have shaped animals that have been domesticated. The fossil evidence also backed it up as did embryology studies. It is that simple and those who say otherwise are as wrong as those that used to say the Earth is flat.
2007-07-17 19:14:32 · answer #1 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I take it as an wonderful example of misconception theory. Misconception Theory was first advanced by Harvard's Astronomy department as a theory of education. They went to a Harvard graduation and asked 23 graduates and alumni basic questions such as "Why is it warm in the summer and cold in the winter in New York City?" Only two people got it right. One of those who got it wrong was an astronomy major. Of America's best and brightest, most cannot answer high school science questions correctly.
It turns out that what we believe as true, early on, is what we will believe as adults even if taught to the contrary. Original ideas are very strong. If given contrary education, rather than reject prior ideas, we force fit the new ideas into the old.
We do not really start teaching science to children until quite late, we teach religion very very early.
Finally, good alternative beliefs still do not do what religion does. Religion, I believe performs a number of psychological functions science does not want to perform. Religion also performs a number of political functions science does not want to perform. It also performs a number of economic and social work functions science does not want to perform. We lack cultural alternatives to religion. Atheism cannot do it because it is not a philosophical belief but rather a perspective on a single dimension. Humanism might have a chance, but it doesn't seem a complete enough world view either.
So, until we build a credible alternative to religion, I think we are stuck with these problems.
2007-07-19 08:25:05 · answer #2 · answered by OPM 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who doesn't accept evolution theory as the best theory for development of lifef on Earth is extremely religiously biased and needs to get their head out of the sand and actually read a book on the subject WITHOUT scoffing at everything that contridicts your religious dogma.
There comes a point when religious fantasy and reality just doesn't mix well, this is one of those areas. I don't think I need to point out, in the real world, which one of those should be let go.
2007-07-18 04:25:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I've always seen people discuss this in black and white terms. Evolution doesn't have to refute the existence of God, and Christianity doesn't have to be threatened by the idea of evolution. My father's take was that God was active through evolution. He felt science gives us insight into the complexities of a divine intelligence. Like the bumper sticker that reads, "God said let there be light, and Bang! there it was", he believed both told the same story from different perspectives.
I feel religious teachings are the responsibility of the parents and should be observed in the home and practiced by the individual in public without persecution. It's not the responsibility of a public school to provide religious teachings, but it is theirs to protect believers of any faith from harm or harassment. Beliefs are not equivalent with facts or observations. They have their proper place.
2007-07-19 11:51:49 · answer #4 · answered by Comancheria 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I understand some of the reasons why religious people are desperate to cling to their beliefs. They fear death, the unknown..they want to believe that humans are somehow "special" and not just another animal, they don't want to contradict what their parents, teachers, and other authority figures have told them all their lives. Finally, many people need an external moral compass and need the emotional "support" that religion provides during difficult times in their lives.
However, no amount of wanting something to be true will ever make it true. There is a mountain of physical evidence proving the validity of evolution and it has been rigorously scrutinized for decades . The beauty of science is that it doesn't need you to believe in it to be true. It just is. I choose to live in reality. I've seen the evidence. I believe that evolution is as much "fact" as its possible to get in science.
2007-07-18 17:51:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
CTN's got the right beat on this. Charles Darwin's
been challenged by many, but only by those who
live lives of religious dogmas.
If any scientists question Darwin's theories, it is
only because his writings are primitive compared
to modern-times. But the premise of "Darwinism"
is a solid and proven premise.
The same cannot--nor can it ever be--said for the
premise of "creationism."
2007-07-18 01:29:27 · answer #6 · answered by Pete K 5 · 9⤊ 0⤋
These arm chair theorists can say what they will. The facts are there and, they can't refute them without turning their backs on the facts.
A new jaw bone was just discovered in the "Leakey" area that connects "Lucy" with her progenitor going back to about 4 million BC so, let them refute what they want, how go they explain this?
2007-07-18 06:24:45 · answer #7 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand how the orgin of species contradicts or has a thing to do with religion. I would think that if there was a god he would be smart enough to create something that can "evolve" on it's own to fit the situation and continue to survive without him having to micro manage every little atom in all the Universes that we know of so far.
2007-07-18 01:44:45 · answer #8 · answered by spider 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The average IQ is only 100 and evolution is only concerned with something being smart enough to survive.
2007-07-22 23:50:44 · answer #9 · answered by minuteblue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fundamentalists are afraid of education because knowledge cures the pestilent virus of religion.
They contrive pseudo-scientific bovine excrement to support their feeble theories.
Evolution isn't feeble.
Those who refuse to acknowledge facts are feeble minded.
2007-07-20 09:48:42 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. Trevor 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋