Is Darwinism the untouchable theory?

Question

Can a scientist question Darwinism, even if the basis for his questions has nothing do with religion? Is it automatically assumed that doing so is due to religious reasons? What if the scientists is not questioning it on the basis of creationism, but because he or she thinks that some aspects of Darwinism is flawed? How would such a scientist be regarded in the scientific community?

Rick, thanks for correcting my sentence structures. Thumbs up for your politeness.

There is no right or wrong answer, so I'll just put this one to vote. Please think it through. Thanks.

Answer 1

It's not a categorical no. Your objections must be "science" in that they have to be falsifiable by experimentation (even if only in principle). The fundamental concept in science is the ability to show a theory to be wrong, since you can never prove one to be true. For a scientist in evolutionary biology to remain credible, they must propose mechanisms and details that are testable.

As an aside, although many scientists may like the idea of a grander design of the universe, to assume there is one is anthropism, which is not science since it can never be tested.

Answer 2

> Can a scientist question Darwinism...?

Yes. Scientists can and should question theories of all sorts. Skepticism is the hallmark of science.

In the case of Darwinism, it has been questioned many, many times by many, many scientists over the past 150 years, and basically the same answer (based on the evidence) keeps coming back; namely that the basic premises are quite sound. It's precisely because this this theory stands up so well when scientists "kick its tires," that makes it such a well respected theory.

> What if the scientists is not questioning it on the basis of creationism, but because he or she thinks that some aspects of Darwinism is flawed?

That would be sensational! Of course, the scientist would have to explain exactly what the flaw was, and back it up with a lot of evidence to indicate that the flaw was in the theory itself and not in the experimental technique, and so on. This is how science grows.

> How would such a scientist be regarded in the scientific community?

Again, provided that the scientist could back it up with evidence, I would assume that he/she would be regarded with high esteem. After all, in science, those people who have shown that previous ideas were mistaken, are the ones that become the "heroes" of science.

It needs to be pointed out that, in the case of Darwinism, such evidence of flaws has not been put forth. On the other hand, there have been many, many nonscientific attacks on Darwinism. Scientists have no respect for nonscientific attacks, nor should they.

Answer 3

No.

There's a lively debate in the scientific community about the details of evolution.

These are the only proven facts. The Earth was formed billions of years ago. Life did not start for a very long time after that. It started simple, and gradually become more complex. Man did not walk the Earth with dinosaurs.

Pretty much everything else is fair game.

Scientists cannot say there is no Creator (although some foolishly do so). All they can say is that, if there is one, the creator started everything with a Bang 13 billion years ago, and used a complicated process that included some kind of evolution as a tool.

Many people, including many scientists, find that a much grander "design" than the overly simplistic ones suggested by New Earth Creationists. You might find this website interesting:

http://www.reasons.org/

Answer 4

The basics are fact. Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection, is the best explanation of this fact we have come up with. Some aspects of evolutionary theory are under question right now. Sexual selection theory and individual vs group selection theory are " bones of contention " among evolutionary biologists right now. Joan Roughgarden and David Sloan Wilson, both evolutionary biologists and proposing controversial reification to sexual selection and group selection theory, are still in good standing in the scientific community.
Those, like Micheal Behe, though, are not in good standing. They bring assertion to the table that is not supported by the evidence.

That is the difference; evidence. Either you have evidence that can pass peer review, or you do not. Basically, it is, " put up. or shut up. "

Answer 5

Science should indeed question Dawinism. However it is the orthodox view held by most true believers in the scientific community. Those who would truly question it will indeed run the risk of doing damage to their careers. If they should even go further and hint at more than naturalism being the manner by which all life arose on earth they put themselves at greater risk. Check out the name calling and the ridicule IDers get out of hand. No self respecting scientist who wants a career would touch seriously challenging the religion of Darwin with a ten foot pole.
The hyperbole that flows from true Darwinists is staggering and sounds more like fundamentalist Christians than science . They talk about knowing as fact the flow of events that happened billions of years ago yet there is zero probablity of ever being able to test these"believed" theories.
The hubris involved is staggering but once a set of ideas becomes dogma and enough papers are written in agreement, it moves from theory to fact to truest truth ..to ..if you do not believe it you are ipso facto an idiot.
What is incredible to me is that evolutionatry theroy rests on the understanding that somehow somewhere, life kindah sort just popped into being. The complexity of even a single celled organizim is staggering. Even if we postulate that somehow by lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng years of chance occurance somehow sortah the bits for the first life arranged themselves and you presto had the parts in place needed tfor your first cellular ..being ...How does inanimate matter become ..alive ?? Where does "life" come from?
To me evolutionary theory rests at many points not on naturalism but something more akin to magic.
First it was gradualism, then we had to switch to understanding that evolution takes place in bursts, somehow kindah, even though we believed it had to take longer swatches of time .
It truely is make it up as you go one size fits all theory.

Evolution needs to be critically questioned as other 19th century outdated theory has been ( Marx and Freud) but I doubt the guys in the white coats with careers and peer concerns will truly do itany time soon. There seems to be way too much invested in this theory.
If you want to believe a system of thought that proposed life springs from non life, which has zero proof that it does or ever can happen, and pedals stories about events they can never replicate or prove, you have more faith than religious folk who believe in God .
There is obviously much that could be said on this topic, but one thing that is kindah frightening is the group think mentality that evolutionary thinkers want to foist on the rest of mankind. Theirs is the true way. You cannot propose any other way. They know the true way.
If you object they are so self assured they will state that their theory is based on facts, proof and evidence and is therefore true.
Unfortunately it is not up to the level of being truth for it cannot be tested. Time has seen to that. It will remain forever a hypothesis true believers will hold to.

Answer 6

Dr. Berlinski is a good example. Check this out (you need RealPlayer): http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski.ram