Muitos cientistas encontram problemas com a evolução (Talk.Origins)
- Muitos cientistas convencionais apontam sérios problemas com a evolução, incluindo problemas com alguns dos seus pontos mais importantes.
Fonte: Discovery Institute, 2001. A scientific dissent from Darwinism.
Resposta da CreationWiki:
(citações da Talk.Origins em azul)
Não há problemas graves conhecidos com a teoria da evolução. As reivindicações que existem, caem em duas categorias (sobrepostas):
- Alguns problemas supostos são questões sobre detalhes sobre os mecanismos de evolução. Há, e sempre haverá, detalhes sem resposta em todos os campos da ciência, e a evolução não é exceção. Criacionistas tomam controvérsias sobre detalhes fora de contexto para falsamente implicar controvérsia sobre a evolução como um todo.
- Alguns problemas supostos são mal-entendidos, ignorância ou alegações fraudulentas sobre o que a ciência diz.
Parece que a Talk Origins comete um grave erro aqui. Em vez de dizer que "não há problemas sérios conhecidos com a teoria da evolução", o autor deveria ter dito "Eu não reconheço problemas sérios com a teoria da evolução". A diferença é que se trata de uma afirmação absoluta, como se o autor da Talk Origins tivesse as chaves para a verdade absoluta. The first statement, the one in his "rebuttal", claims objective truth for everyone and everything when science cannot really offer such a thing. The second statement at least offers the reader a chance to ask the question "is the Talk Origins opinion true?".
If you look through intelligent design websites such as Access Research Network and creation science websites such as Creation Research Society, among others, you see there are scientists who have a different opinion to what Talk Origins has said. The reason why there is scientific opposition to the theory of evolution is exactly because people, scientists and layman alike, see serious problems with the theory of evolution. Thus, either the author of Talk Origins is trying to speak absolute truth, which real science gives him no authority to do because science is supposed to be able only to speak in probabilities, not absolutes. Or he is imposing his opinion on people who do not agree with him. It doesn't help that he falsely accuses creationists of taking details out of context, but his website does repeatedly slander creationists as a whole, which helps to further his cause.
He enlarges the problem by basing the rest of his points on the belief that there are absolutely no serious problems with the theory of evolution. For example,
- Because he believes evolution is fact, to him any problems would be minor, and would not do away with the "fact" of evolution, as he shows with his first point.
- Because he believes evolution is fact, anyone pointing to serious problems with it must either not understand the theory, or be ignorant, or just be mistaken, as is shown by his second point.
Let's think logically here. The theory of evolution is based strongly on two mechanisms: natural selection and random mutation (see note at the bottom of this page). If these two mechanisms are shown or believed to be inadequate, then what does the theory really stand on? Only the belief that evolution must have happened somehow. Now, is that belief a fact? All the interpretations of the circumstantial evidence for evolution become questionable if there are no mechanisms to bring it about. Thus both the theory and the "fact" become what they truly are anyway: beliefs.
There are scientists who see, via circumstantial evidence and the known laws of nature, and surmise that undirected forces, such as those needed for the theory of evolution, cannot adequately explain the complexity and diversity of living organisms. The mechanisms suggested appear flawed and inadequate, the interpretation of the circumstantial evidence seems overstretched and over-extrapolated, and the philosophical baggage incumbent on the theory and its interpretations seem unwarranted. With these in mind, the theory and the "fact" are inadequate hypotheses.
So yes, on many levels, there are scientists who see the serious flaws with the theory of evolution and the philosophy of naturalism that drives it and its adherents. It is up to you, the reader, to see if the evidence and reasons given against evolution are good enough.
Note: Although Darwinian evolution uses different pieces of circumstantial evidence to support it, mechanisms are needed for the theory of common descent to be tenable.