Muitos cientistas atuais rejeitam a evolução (Talk.Origins)

De CriaçãoWiki, a enciclopédia da ciência da criação.
Translation Latin Alphabet.png
Este artigo ou secção está a ser traduzido. Ajude e colabore com a tradução.
Artigo Resposta
Este artigo (Muitos cientistas atuais rejeitam a evolução (Talk.Origins)) é uma resposta a uma réplica de uma reivindicação criacionista publicada pelo Talk.Origins Archive sob o título Index to Creationist Claims (Índice de Reivindicações Criacionistas).

Alegação CA111:

Muitos cientistas rejeitam a evolução e apoiam o criacionismo.

Fonte: Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.) [1]

Resposta da CreationWiki:

A afirmação em si é inteiramente viável e com toda a probabilidade verdadeira, conforme vemos muitos cientistas que trabalham e contribuem para organizações tais como a Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, E outras instituições pró-criação, e muitas centenas e talvez milhares que não estão associadas com grandes organizações.

(citações da Talk.Origins em azul)

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

In all honesty, we don’t need a Gallup poll to tell us that a vast majority of scientists accept evolution in this day and age, and it comes as no surprise to those who are on the other side of the glass looking in from the young earth creationist standpoint. How many current creation scientists were at one time indoctrinated into the very same religious ideology that most Darwinian scientists are engulfed in presently? Probably most of them.

The fact of the matter is that from the time we are children in kindergarten to the time we graduate and receive our doctorates, we are slowly and surely being ingrained with evolutionary propaganda. When little Billy goes to school the first day and the class opens up their picture book about dinosaurs, the first thing he reads (as we all know) is: “Millions of years ago, Dinosaurs roamed the earth.” Without a knowledgeable role model to help little Billy discern the truth about the millions of years farce, he will probably believe it unwittingly for his entire life, as most people do. Later his parents will take him to the Natural History Museum, where he will see the dinosaur display with the life-sized T-Rex (because kids love the T-Rex) and the museum guide will explain that 70 million years ago this dinosaur was the king of all the meat eaters. From here he has only to be subjected to several science classes that teach him the “fact” that the Big Bang started the universe some 15 billion years ago, and that life on earth began almost 4 billion years ago. He will continue to be brainwashed by the media, movies, television, magazines, books, zoos, aquariums, science textbooks, science teachers, professors, and even naïve people in general, that millions and billions of years is not only science, but that it is indisputable fact, and cannot be argued or disproved in any way, and any attempt to do so is simply religious zealots trying to push their pseudo-science on the “real” scientists who have real “degrees” from accredited and completely unbiased universities that preach the "truth" that is evolution.

So from an outside perspective, it is no surprise that evolution has such mass-appeal in the scientific community, not because it’s true, but because it has established a ritualistic brainwashing of young aspiring scientists from day-one. The scary part is that in reality, the young earth creation theory has a huge amount of evidence that is systematically rejected by evolutionists who believe that any of those scientists who believe in creationism do not qualify as real “scientists” and therefore their contributions cannot be considered anything more than religious propaganda. This is the reason why many known creationist scientists submit their research under pseudonyms, and have created their own peer-review journals and organizations, because there is an extreme unspoken bias against any ideas that contradict evolutionists’ precious, logically flawed theory.

Talk.Origins cites two pertinent figures in this quote: Five percent of all scientists, and 700 in "relevant fields of earth and life sciences". The first figure, from a 1997 Gallup Poll,[1] (which Talk.Origins seemingly incorrectly says is from the 1991 Gallup Poll) equates to around 100,000 of America's approximately two million scientists, so is still a very significant number. The second figure is from an 1987 Newsweek article which merely claimed that "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."[1], a very questionable source given its vagueness.[2]

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

When you believe something with fervor and dogmatically reject anything that contradicts those beliefs such as many of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do, then why should the fact that they issue such spurious reports that uphold their elitist ideals come as any surprise? In a battle of ideals, the majority opinion does not equate to the ultimate truth.

Jonathan Sarfati points out that the position of NAS is quite evident:[3] “…a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2 % were overtly atheistic, 20.8 % agnostic, and only 7.0 % believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.”

NAS has made its stance on origin beliefs more than clear by stating in so many words that evidence for creationism has been scientifically invalidated and experimentally falsified, supplying teachers with the tools to indoctrinate students more efficiently into the depths of evolutionary dogma, and publicly leading the crusade against the mandate to allow evolution to be objectively disputed or to present alternative theories in science classrooms. A quote from an article by the NAS called Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences states:

“Confronted by this challenge to the integrity and effectiveness of our national educational system and to the hard­won evidence­based foundations of science, the National Academy of Sciences cannot remain silent. To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to academic and intellectual freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a historic representative of the scientific profession and designated advisor to the Federal Government in matters of science, the Academy states unequivocally that the tenets of "creation science" are not supported by scientific evidence, that creationism has no place in a science curriculum at any level, that its proposed teaching would be impossible in any constructive sense for well­informed and conscientious science teachers, and that its teaching would be contrary to the nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well­informed pool of scientific and technical personnel.”

In this way, they have unequivocally revealed their fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and definition of science, the scientific method, and objective reasoning.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Evidence does not speak for itself. Although evolutionists interpret the evidence to fit their ideals, because matters of origin cannot be observed, tested, nor recreated, they are not subject to the scientific method, and therefore cannot be anything more than conjecture that lacks the necessary scientific characteristic of being falsifiable. Ironically, evolution more closely matches the characteristic of a religion than of operational science.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

Most scientists who reject evolution and support creationism are pretty open about it actually, although it is abundantly clear that most scientists accept evolution of some form, but it doesn’t matter how many hundreds or thousands of actual scientists believe in creation if they are systematically labeled as pseudo-science pushers by evolutionary elitists and their work automatically discredited if it does not glorify the evolution agenda. As far as scientists that “doubt some aspects of evolution,” what is meant is that although the mechanism of evolution may be up for debate, to question the underlying belief system is unacceptable.

For instance, when scientists discovered soft tissue attached to dinosaur bones in over a dozen fossils, evolutionists never once questioned the canonical evolutionary timeline of 70 million years for the extinction of dinosaurs, but rather they questioned the evidence and how it could possibly be preserved for such a length of time. Most well informed creationists know that evolution is “highly questionable” because they have the ability and scientific integrity to question it in the first place, and realize that to qualify an idea as science requires something more than just mass-appeal and scrupulous conformity.