Is there any real scentisit (who is not creationism) reject evolution?

  • Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Evolution
In summary: Speciation is the process of two different populations of the same species becoming genetically separated from each other, leading to the formation of a new species. Genesis 1:27-28 says God created man in his own image, so it's not contradictory at all.
  • #1
EngWiPy
1,368
61
Hello all,

I was wondering if there is any modern real scientist (who is not creationism) rejects evolution based on purely scientific views? Because may be his religious beliefs obstruct his scientific view. I am interested in a highly credited person under this description.

Thanks
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would say that if they reject evolution, then they're not an actual scientist. Evolution has such an enormous load of evidence that it can't be denied. It arises almost everywhere in biology and has connections with geology, mathematics, chemistry, etc.
Denying it would be highly unscientific.
 
  • #3
micromass said:
I would say that if they reject evolution, then they're not an actual scientist. Evolution has such an enormous load of evidence that it can't be denied. It arises almost everywhere in biology and has connections with geology, mathematics, chemistry, etc.
Denying it would be highly unscientific.

Are you saying there is no University Professor who rejects evolution?
 
  • #4
S_David said:
Are you saying there is no University Professor who rejects evolution?

There are absolutely university professors who reject evolution (mainly for religious reasons, I guess). But I call that unscientific. And I question whether we should consider them scientists.
 
  • #5
S_David said:
Are you saying there is no University Professor who rejects evolution?
Most professors aren't scientists, so why even bring them up?

S, does your thread have a point?
 
  • #6
I'm not sure one can reject evolution based on purely scientific views, as it is the overwhelming evidence for evolution that makes it a valid scientific theory. Usually people don't accept it because their other views, such as religious, push away their scientific view.
 
  • #7
Whether or not a person is highly credited is irrelevant. Sometimes the most distinguished of individuals take the most crackpot positions in other fields. There are no scientific arguments that evolution does now occur anymore that there are scientific arguments that gravity does not attract. All scientific discussion regarding evolution in biology focuses around discovering new processes and figuring out how certain traits could have evolved.
 
  • #8
I've yet to hear of anyone who rejects evolution for non-religious reasons. There is no scientific leg to stand on for rejecting it.
 
  • #9
I meant biological highly credited scientists.

My point is: is there a real argument about evolution, or it is just a blind argument where each polar braces its view blindly regardless of what the other polar may say.

I think no one argues about micro evolution, but the problem is in macro-evolution and speciation. I am not a biologist but engineer, yet I am interested in this argument. I saw some debates on YouTube between evolution science and what so called creation science. Well, as a Greek Orthodox Christian I do not believe in creation science, i.e., the bible is 100% scientifically accurate as Protestants believe. However, the origin of life and speciation, at least in appearance, seems to contradict the theological truth in Genesis that God creates Adam and Eve in the beginning. I realized that some theologians say we do not know how God exactly created man, and this view makes space to evolution without confirming it, I guess.

Could not it be the case that science today presents things in a way to believe in evolution? I mean why what so called the fossil record is a proof of evolution? Why the similarities between different animals DNA is a proof of evolution? Why similarities in animals structure is a proof of evolution? Aren't these just guessing? I heard many evolutionists, and their language is dominated by "probably" and "it makes more sense". Which means these are just guessing. Am I wrong?

Thanks
 
  • #10
S_David said:
I meant biological highly credited scientists.

My point is: is there a real argument about evolution, or it is just a blind argument where each polar braces its view blindly regardless of what the other polar may say.

If anyone blindly accepts any particular view, they're being unscientific by definition. Evolution isn't blindly accepted; the evidence for it is overwhelmingly vast. On the other hand, people who reject it certainly do so blindly, or at least mistakenly.

I think no one argues about micro evolution, but the problem is in macro-evolution and speciation. I am not a biologist but engineer, yet I am interested in this argument. I saw some debates on YouTube between evolution science and what so called creation science. Well, as a Greek Orthodox Christian I do not believe in creation science, i.e., the bible is 100% scientifically accurate as Protestants believe. However, the origin of life and speciation, at least in appearance, seems to contradict the theological truth in Genesis that God creates Adam and Eve in the beginning. I realized that some theologians say we do not know how God exactly created man, and this view makes space to evolution without confirming it, I guess.

This is one of those goofy religious right talking points. 'Macro-evolution' is just 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. I'm also curious as to what you mean by a 'theological truth.' Is there evidence for it?

Could not it be the case that science today presents things in a way to believe in evolution? I mean why what so called the fossil record is a proof of evolution? Why the similarities between different animals DNA is a proof of evolution? Why similarities in animals structure is a proof of evolution? Aren't these just guessing? I heard many evolutionists, and their language is dominated by "probably" and "it makes more sense". Which means these are just guessing. Am I wrong?

Ok, here's what you need to understand about science, and everything else for that matter. You can never be 100% certain that a particular theory or explanation is correct. It can always be the case that there's some other reason that the data is the way it is, even if all those possibilities are extremely farfetched. Is it possible that evolution isn't true and god simply created everything in it's present form, or close to it? Sure, it's not explicitly falsifiable (which is why it isn't science, by the way), but we also can't disprove the idea that we're all living in a giant computer simulation. Either way, if god or someone else made everything the way it is, they purposefully made it so that the evidence for evolution would be overwhelming. All we can do in science is work with the evidence that we have, and at this point it all points to evolution. From the scientific perspective, there's no reason to assume anything else is the case unless we find evidence for it.
 
  • #11
S_David said:
I meant biological highly credited scientists.

My point is: is there a real argument about evolution, or it is just a blind argument where each polar braces its view blindly regardless of what the other polar may say.

I think no one argues about micro evolution, but the problem is in macro-evolution and speciation. I am not a biologist but engineer, yet I am interested in this argument. I saw some debates on YouTube between evolution science and what so called creation science. Well, as a Greek Orthodox Christian I do not believe in creation science, i.e., the bible is 100% scientifically accurate as Protestants believe. However, the origin of life and speciation, at least in appearance, seems to contradict the theological truth in Genesis that God creates Adam and Eve in the beginning. I realized that some theologians say we do not know how God exactly created man, and this view makes space to evolution without confirming it, I guess.

Could not it be the case that science today presents things in a way to believe in evolution? I mean why what so called the fossil record is a proof of evolution? Why the similarities between different animals DNA is a proof of evolution? Why similarities in animals structure is a proof of evolution? Aren't these just guessing? I heard many evolutionists, and their language is dominated by "probably" and "it makes more sense". Which means these are just guessing. Am I wrong?

Thanks

Sure there are a few people with PhDs in biology or biology related fields that reject evolution. You'll find looking into it though, creationists who did the foot work to get the degree to try and make their arguments ones from authority. Regardless of their credentials they are still rejecting it for non-scientific reasons.

Yes, you are wrong. It isn't "just guessing". You might find an educational book written for the biology laymen instructive: such as the greatest show on earth
 
  • #12
I don't see what the problem with this speciation thing is. We have evidence of new species occurring in both single and multicelluar organisms. Plants and animals. I believe the FAQ on evolution here in the forum has a link to a site that explains it. If not a Google search should bring up plenty of hits. Is post it myself but I'm on my phone.
 
  • #13
I think science and theology work on different levels, and we can not use the scientific methods to prove a theological truth. God and spiritual realities are realized by experience on different levels.

If there is possibility that God created things, and not necessarily the way it is today, because life is a dynamic process, and adaptation is a necessary quality for living beings, why evolution is thought in schools as a fact? I understand that there are evidences, but as we agree, these evidences may have different justifications.

Now, I am not asking to teach creation or to involve God in the academic framework, but mixing science with something beyond science like the origin of life (which is a direct consequence of the evolution theory) is not scientific to me, at least so far. At the same time, use theology to explain science does not fit as well. In between, evolution is controversial as it seems to me.

bobze, because of this I said from the very first post that I am interested in biologists who are not creationists or at least so do not believe in creation science, which I think their justification will be more reliable.
 
  • #14
Both evolution and abiogenesis easily fit within the framework of the scientific method and as such are feasible scientific theories. Evolution is so close to fact that no one can seriously argue that it isn't. Abiogenesis is slightly less so, but only because we have yet to verify that it is possible. But we are getting closer every day.
 
  • #15
S, we don't discuss religion here, we discuss mainstream science. So please remove the religious references and stick to the scientific facts only, or the thread will be locked as it violates our rules.
 
  • #16
S_David said:
If there is possibility that God created things, and not necessarily the way it is today, because life is a dynamic process, and adaptation is a necessary quality for living beings, why evolution is thought in schools as a fact? I understand that there are evidences, but as we agree, these evidences may have different justifications.

Now, I am not asking to teach creation or to involve God in the academic framework, but mixing science with something beyond science like the origin of life (which is a direct consequence of the evolution theory) is not scientific to me, at least so far. At the same time, use theology to explain science does not fit as well. In between, evolution is controversial as it seems to me.

Again, I think you're missing what science is. It has never been and will probably never be 100% correct. It is simply the method we use to find out as much as we can about how the world. As I also mentioned, is it possible that evolution is flawed? Yes, and it's also possible that relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong... in fact, in some fundamental ways, we already know that they're at least inadequate. Does this mean they shouldn't be taught? Newton's mechanics were proven inadequate by relativity, does that mean they should never have been taught? Of course not. The only way we make progress in science is by understanding the current models and then pushing them as far as we can. Sometimes they continue to work, and other times they fail, and then we have to (or I suppose, get to) reevaluate them.

The key here is that when we have a theory in science we use it until it's proven wrong. And we largely expect that most things in science will be proven wrong, or at least inadequate; in fact, a lot of science is about challenging the accepted theories by applying them to new situations and testing their predictions against the data.

The moral of the story is, science is inherently about doubting and being skeptical of current theories, but there's no more doubt about evolution than there is about any other well established scientific theories. Your objections seem to be born of a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science.
 
  • #17
Thank you for clarifying this in that way, and I, to a large extend, agree with you.
 
  • #18
No religion allowed... So the point of this thread is to find a modern scientist who supports ex. Lamarckism? Could be hard, according to wikipedia it presumably finally faded away round a half century ago...
 
  • #19
Czcibor said:
No religion allowed... So the point of this thread is to find a modern scientist who supports ex. Lamarckism? Could be hard, according to wikipedia it presumably finally faded away round a half century ago...

Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
 
  • #20
S_David said:
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this

There are always crazy people out there. You can find people with a PhD in physics who argue that relativity is incorrect or that the sun is a huge electric battery. But those people are a very small minority.
Likewise, I'm sure you can find a non-religious biologist who argues against evolution. But those people are a very small minority.

You shouldn't be looking for biologists who argue against evolution. It doesn't matter whether you find such a person. What you should do is take an evolution textbook, work through it and read all the evidence of evolution. If you find out that the theory of evolution agrees with the experiments and the evidence, then you need to accept the theory. And then it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

Like the great Richard Feynman says:

If it disagrees with experiment, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Even if Darwin himself comes back alive and starts arguing that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The facts and evidence of evolution speak for itself.
 
  • #21
S_David said:
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this
Honestly - I don't know. There could be a well hidden guy... However, if I were supposed to look for non-religious scientists who would not support evolution, I'd look for any remaining Lamarckist - it used to be a serious theory, not based on any religion.

Or maybe for some disciples of Trofim Lysenko? He died in 1976... (for your purposes communism would not be considered as religion, right?)
 
  • #22
Czcibor said:
Honestly - I don't know. There could be a well hidden guy... However, if I were supposed to look for non-religious scientists who would not support evolution, I'd look for any remaining Lamarckist - it used to be a serious theory, not based on any religion.

Or maybe for some disciples of Trofim Lysenko? He died in 1976... (for your purposes communism would not be considered as religion, right?)

I mean religious as God-believing not an ideology-believing sense. I still do not understand, can you enlighten me, what is Lamarckism? and what it has to do with evolution?
 
  • #23
micromass said:
There are always crazy people out there. You can find people with a PhD in physics who argue that relativity is incorrect or that the sun is a huge electric battery. But those people are a very small minority.
Likewise, I'm sure you can find a non-religious biologist who argues against evolution. But those people are a very small minority.

You shouldn't be looking for biologists who argue against evolution. It doesn't matter whether you find such a person. What you should do is take an evolution textbook, work through it and read all the evidence of evolution. If you find out that the theory of evolution agrees with the experiments and the evidence, then you need to accept the theory. And then it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees.

Like the great Richard Feynman says:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.
 
  • #24
S_David said:
Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.

What?

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.

Nonsense. The theory of evolution is not a single theory. It encompasses all manner of other theories. Cell theory, DNA sequencing theory, etc. Every single one of these is tested, many are used or tested every single day.
 
  • #25
Drakkith said:
What?



Nonsense. The theory of evolution is not a single theory. It encompasses all manner of other theories. Cell theory, DNA sequencing theory, etc. Every single one of these is tested, many are used or tested every single day.

I am sorry, but how these tests related to evolution? Let us take DNA, how DNA proves evolution, for example?
 
  • #26
Also, the best evidence for evolution is that the theory itself predicts things that we then find AFTER predicting it. This is perhaps the greatest clue that any theory is correct. It predicts things that are then found to match observations after this prediction. Practically anyone with some spare time could explain why the Moon orbits the Earth, but forming a theory that both explains it, other similar events, and then makes predictions which turn out to be true is FAR more difficult.

Evolution and all the supporting theories make predictions. Things like DNA being passed on, DNA mutations, missing or malfunctioning organs of different species, and thousands upon thousands of other predictions have been observed. We can say "Ok, IF evolution is true, what should we find?" And then we make a huge list. And guess what? We find it.
 
  • #27
S_David said:
I am sorry, but how these tests related to evolution? Let us take DNA, how DNA proves evolution, for example?

Nothing PROVES evolution. Get that out of your head right now or this conversation is going to go nowhere. Stop looking for PROOF and start looking for EVIDENCE.

Anyways, DNA supports evolution by providing a means for organisms to transfer genetic information to their offspring. This information, in the form of DNA, is subject to change from random mutations, leading to the creation of new genes which lead, over time, to large changes in a species and the creation of new species. Natural selection provides a way to remove genes that do not contribute to their own replication in a species by killing off those organisms before they can pass on their genetic information. Either through being less able to keep themselves alive, or by making it more difficult to pass on their genes in some way.
 
  • #28
S_David said:
Thank you, but my point is not to support my beliefs for example or so, rather I need to know what are the scientific objections, to have unbiased opinion about evolution.

How can you know the objections if you don't know what the theory is in the first place?? You first have to learn the theory and only then can you understand the things that are not known yet! It doesn't make sense to start with the objections.

If you want to be honest with yourself, then you need to keep an open mind. Pick up a book on evolution and work through it. Understand what they say, understand the evidence, understand the experiments. I don't ask you to accept evolution, but I ask you to study it. After you studied the theory and after you know it well, then you can ask what the objections are. And if the book you're reading is any good, it will tell you the unsolved problems with evolution. But you can't start with the objections without understanding the theory first.

It is hard if not impossible to examine evolution, so it is not like physical or other theories which can be tested using experiments.

No, that is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory that can be verified by experiments. If you research evolution a bit, then you will understand it.

Here is one (of the many) experiments that has been done. It is known that monkeys have one chromosome less than humans. The theory of evolution states that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. So we theorize that in some way the chromosomes must have been fused together. This is a theory that we can test. If we can not verify that the chromosomes fused together, then there is a huge problem for evolution. So we need to test this.
How do we test this? We can't go back in time and observe exactly what happened. However, we can test it in a more indirect way. It is known that all chromosomes have a start and stop sequence. That is: at the start of a chromosome and at the end, there are things that say that the chromosome starts or stops here.
So if it is true that the chromosomes fused together, then we must find a human chromosome such that in the middle of it, there is a start and stop sequence. A start and stop sequence in the middle of the chromosome would be unexpected.
And guess what?? Such a thing is exactly what they found! They searched for it and they found it. So that is direct evidence that the two chromosomes may have fused together in some point in time. And this is also evidence that the theory of evolution is right: indeed, we predicted that something like this should happen, and it did!

These are the kind of experiments we do. An other experiment is the following: the theory of evolution would imply that living beings gradually increased in complexity. So if we would find a fossil of a very complex being that lived billions of years ago, then the theory of evolution would be wrong. But we have not found such a being. In fact: all the fossils that have been found are all consistent with evolution! This is powerful evidence for evolution.

So it is not because we cannot observe something in a lab, that we can not test it.
Evolution is no different from other scientific theories: we make a hypothesis and we do an experiment to test it.

It is not true that we have to observe something in order for it to be true. For example, the (former) planet Pluto has been discovered in 1930. But it takes 247 years for Pluto to revolve around the sun. So this implies that we have never actually verified that Pluto indeed revolves around the sun. Does that means that it doesn't?? Of course not, there are other ways to test this hypothesis. So even if you cannot verify something directly, that doesn't mean that there is no way to do experiments to falsify or verify a theory!
 
  • #29
S_David said:
I mean religious as God-believing not an ideology-believing sense. I still do not understand, can you enlighten me, what is Lamarckism? and what it has to do with evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

It wouldn't be an evolution in the classical sense (random mutations + selection) but inheriting characteristic acquired by parents. In XIXth century it was a seriously considered alternative for Darwinism.
 
  • #30
Lamarck argued for evolution by the passing on of acquired characteristics. Darwin argued for evolution by the passing on of innate characteristics. What does this mean? Imagine a proto-giraffe - it probably looks something like a horse. It likes to eat the tender leaves high up on trees - so it stretches upwards with its neck.

Lamarck argued that the children of this proto-giraffe would have longer necks because the parents had done a lot of neck-stretching and had acquired longer necks. These children stretch upwards too, so their children have longer necks still.

Darwin argued that some of the children of the proto-giraffe would have longer necks and some shorter necks. When push comes to shove, the ones with the longer necks have access to more food - they can reach low leaves and high leaves, whereas their shorter-necked friends can only reach the lower leaves. So the longer necked ones are less likely to die childless - so they get to pass on their innate long-necks to the next generation.

Both theories make a prediction - Lamarck says that there must be some kind of mechanism that will allow the proto-giraffe's children to have longer necks because the parents stretched their necks a lot. Darwin says that there must be a mechanism that will allow an organism to make an imperfect copy of itself.

DNA does what Darwin needs; we know of no mechanism that would allow what Lamarck was talking about - so Lamarck's ideas fell by the wayside.

DNA does not prove evolution is right - as others have noted, there is no such thing in science. But if we could not find something like DNA, something that takes a bit of your mother and a bit of your father and a few random twiddles and makes a new organism, then that would be a huge question mark over the theory.

And this is the thing - every time we have made a prediction from evolutionary theory, it has come true. No other theory of the development of life can say the same.
 
  • #31
micromass said:
How can you know the objections if you don't know what the theory is in the first place?? You first have to learn the theory and only then can you understand the things that are not known yet! It doesn't make sense to start with the objections.

If you want to be honest with yourself, then you need to keep an open mind. Pick up a book on evolution and work through it. Understand what they say, understand the evidence, understand the experiments. I don't ask you to accept evolution, but I ask you to study it. After you studied the theory and after you know it well, then you can ask what the objections are. And if the book you're reading is any good, it will tell you the unsolved problems with evolution. But you can't start with the objections without understanding the theory first.



No, that is completely wrong. Evolution is a theory that can be verified by experiments. If you research evolution a bit, then you will understand it.

Here is one (of the many) experiments that has been done. It is known that monkeys have one chromosome less than humans. The theory of evolution states that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. So we theorize that in some way the chromosomes must have been fused together. This is a theory that we can test. If we can not verify that the chromosomes fused together, then there is a huge problem for evolution. So we need to test this.
How do we test this? We can't go back in time and observe exactly what happened. However, we can test it in a more indirect way. It is known that all chromosomes have a start and stop sequence. That is: at the start of a chromosome and at the end, there are things that say that the chromosome starts or stops here.
So if it is true that the chromosomes fused together, then we must find a human chromosome such that in the middle of it, there is a start and stop sequence. A start and stop sequence in the middle of the chromosome would be unexpected.
And guess what?? Such a thing is exactly what they found! They searched for it and they found it. So that is direct evidence that the two chromosomes may have fused together in some point in time. And this is also evidence that the theory of evolution is right: indeed, we predicted that something like this should happen, and it did!

These are the kind of experiments we do. An other experiment is the following: the theory of evolution would imply that living beings gradually increased in complexity. So if we would find a fossil of a very complex being that lived billions of years ago, then the theory of evolution would be wrong. But we have not found such a being. In fact: all the fossils that have been found are all consistent with evolution! This is powerful evidence for evolution.

So it is not because we cannot observe something in a lab, that we can not test it.
Evolution is no different from other scientific theories: we make a hypothesis and we do an experiment to test it.

It is not true that we have to observe something in order for it to be true. For example, the (former) planet Pluto has been discovered in 1930. But it takes 247 years for Pluto to revolve around the sun. So this implies that we have never actually verified that Pluto indeed revolves around the sun. Does that means that it doesn't?? Of course not, there are other ways to test this hypothesis. So even if you cannot verify something directly, that doesn't mean that there is no way to do experiments to falsify or verify a theory!

Interesting! About DNA, is fusion of two chromosomes all what we find in difference between humans and apes?
 
  • #32
Czcibor said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

It wouldn't be an evolution in the classical sense (random mutations + selection) but inheriting characteristic acquired by parents. In XIXth century it was a seriously considered alternative for Darwinism.

Thanks
 
  • #33
Ibix said:
Lamarck argued for evolution by the passing on of acquired characteristics. Darwin argued for evolution by the passing on of innate characteristics. What does this mean? Imagine a proto-giraffe - it probably looks something like a horse. It likes to eat the tender leaves high up on trees - so it stretches upwards with its neck.

Lamarck argued that the children of this proto-giraffe would have longer necks because the parents had done a lot of neck-stretching and had acquired longer necks. These children stretch upwards too, so their children have longer necks still.

Darwin argued that some of the children of the proto-giraffe would have longer necks and some shorter necks. When push comes to shove, the ones with the longer necks have access to more food - they can reach low leaves and high leaves, whereas their shorter-necked friends can only reach the lower leaves. So the longer necked ones are less likely to die childless - so they get to pass on their innate long-necks to the next generation.

Both theories make a prediction - Lamarck says that there must be some kind of mechanism that will allow the proto-giraffe's children to have longer necks because the parents stretched their necks a lot. Darwin says that there must be a mechanism that will allow an organism to make an imperfect copy of itself.

DNA does what Darwin needs; we know of no mechanism that would allow what Lamarck was talking about - so Lamarck's ideas fell by the wayside.

DNA does not prove evolution is right - as others have noted, there is no such thing in science. But if we could not find something like DNA, something that takes a bit of your mother and a bit of your father and a few random twiddles and makes a new organism, then that would be a huge question mark over the theory.

And this is the thing - every time we have made a prediction from evolutionary theory, it has come true. No other theory of the development of life can say the same.

That was helpful. Thanks
 
  • #34
S_David said:
Are you saying that I can not find one single non-religious biologist who argues against evolution? I need to know this

Hoyle is probably the best example of a nonreligious scientist who didn’t believe in evolution. His work in cosmology was once considered mainstream science. Some of his theories still resurface from time to time. Therefore, I think that a discussion of Hoyle would satisfy the rules of this forum (barely).


Hoyle was very famous with respect to one theoretical aspect of astronomy. I take it his work in cosmology was considered pretty good at one time. However, he was very poor in science outside his specialty. To me, his story is a cautionary tale on the dangers of combining overspecialization with extrapolation.

Hoyle is a scientist who seems to understand cosmology to a large degree. Even when he is wrong about cosmology, he his speculations are plausible enough to stimulate thought. However, he didn't know chemistry and he didn't know biology. He extrapolated some of the ideas that he had regarding cosmology to biology. He tried to make a biological theory consistent with his steady state model, which is wrong!

Hoyle was an astronomer who did not believe in the theory of evolution. He was not religious, and could be called an atheist He was well thought of as an astronomer, although few of his astronomical theories have been observationally confirmed. He is most famous for championing the “steady state model” of the universe. I think most of this work involved variations on general relativity. He interpreted all astronomy in terms of his “steady state model.”

Although one could consider him a “real scientist” with respect to astronomy, I do not consider Fred Hoyle a “real biologist”. His analysis of biology and chemistry was not rigorous or formal. Therefore, I don’t think that he was really a scientist in the broad sense.

I have read about some of his theories. I don’t think that he knew much about biology or organic chemistry. He made a large amount of mistakes. One calculation that he made which is commonly quoted is of the probability of a cell being formed by chance (10^-4000). However, I don’t think his analysis was really rigorous. In fact, I can’t even find a detailed reference to his calculation. Basically, he states the number without physical justification. His calculation was really numerology, not science.

Hoyles concept of the theory of evolution actually comes from Haekel, not Darwin. When debunking the theory of evolution, he looked for evidence showing that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Since no other biologist including Darwin believed in that theory, the theory that he debunks is really a straw man. Hoyle doesn’t seem to know much about anatomy either.

His idea of extraterrestrial viruses does not make sense since biological molecules are unstable. He did not know about DNA, RNA or protein transcription. We now know that the mere insertion of a genetic sequence can’t produce a new species. He seems to think viruses are raining down on Earth keeps on causing saltations which are new species.

Note that his Intelligent Design is not religious. In Hoyles mind, extraterrestrial aliens created the biosphere of the earth. These ET’s were created by earlier ET’s. This may be logically consistent with his Steady State Theory.

Hoyle did not believe in the Big Bang. His models relied on the idea that the universe always existed and always will exist. Therefore, there is an infinite series of living creatures that keep making up the next round of living creatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered".[11]
In 1982 Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
—Fred Hoyle[12]
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".[13]

Please note that his analogies don’t correspond to the theories of real biologists or chemists. The process that he describes does not even correspond to the theories of abiogenesis on earth. I suspect that he doesn’t know much about chemistry at all. His knowledge of natural history is also abysmal, but I don’t want to get into that right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
“According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]”


If you want to sort through Hoyles mathematical arguments, get this book. Here is a link to a book where he makes the calculations themselves. I noticed that I can’t accept the assumptions that he makes in just the first few sentences. Maybe you can get further.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
“Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticize the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed.”


Please note that we know a lot more about genetics that was known in Hoyles time. Furthermore, Hoyle did not know even as much about genetics as was known then.

Worse, Hoyles doesn't understand thermodynamics. In his steady state universe, the second law of thermodynamics can't be true. So there is no thermodynamics in anything that he writes. So anytime he makes a calculation involving chemistry, watch out!
 
  • #35
Darwin123 said:
Hoyle is probably the best example of a nonreligious scientist who didn’t believe in evolution. His work in cosmology was once considered mainstream science. Some of his theories still resurface from time to time. Therefore, I think that a discussion of Hoyle would satisfy the rules of this forum (barely).


Hoyle was very famous with respect to one theoretical aspect of astronomy. I take it his work in cosmology was considered pretty good at one time. However, he was very poor in science outside his specialty. To me, his story is a cautionary tale on the dangers of combining overspecialization with extrapolation.

Hoyle is a scientist who seems to understand cosmology to a large degree. Even when he is wrong about cosmology, he his speculations are plausible enough to stimulate thought. However, he didn't know chemistry and he didn't know biology. He extrapolated some of the ideas that he had regarding cosmology to biology. He tried to make a biological theory consistent with his steady state model, which is wrong!

Hoyle was an astronomer who did not believe in the theory of evolution. He was not religious, and could be called an atheist He was well thought of as an astronomer, although few of his astronomical theories have been observationally confirmed. He is most famous for championing the “steady state model” of the universe. I think most of this work involved variations on general relativity. He interpreted all astronomy in terms of his “steady state model.”

Although one could consider him a “real scientist” with respect to astronomy, I do not consider Fred Hoyle a “real biologist”. His analysis of biology and chemistry was not rigorous or formal. Therefore, I don’t think that he was really a scientist in the broad sense.

I have read about some of his theories. I don’t think that he knew much about biology or organic chemistry. He made a large amount of mistakes. One calculation that he made which is commonly quoted is of the probability of a cell being formed by chance (10^-4000). However, I don’t think his analysis was really rigorous. In fact, I can’t even find a detailed reference to his calculation. Basically, he states the number without physical justification. His calculation was really numerology, not science.

Hoyles concept of the theory of evolution actually comes from Haekel, not Darwin. When debunking the theory of evolution, he looked for evidence showing that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Since no other biologist including Darwin believed in that theory, the theory that he debunks is really a straw man. Hoyle doesn’t seem to know much about anatomy either.

His idea of extraterrestrial viruses does not make sense since biological molecules are unstable. He did not know about DNA, RNA or protein transcription. We now know that the mere insertion of a genetic sequence can’t produce a new species. He seems to think viruses are raining down on Earth keeps on causing saltations which are new species.

Note that his Intelligent Design is not religious. In Hoyles mind, extraterrestrial aliens created the biosphere of the earth. These ET’s were created by earlier ET’s. This may be logically consistent with his Steady State Theory.

Hoyle did not believe in the Big Bang. His models relied on the idea that the universe always existed and always will exist. Therefore, there is an infinite series of living creatures that keep making up the next round of living creatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered".[11]
In 1982 Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
—Fred Hoyle[12]
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".[13]

Please note that his analogies don’t correspond to the theories of real biologists or chemists. The process that he describes does not even correspond to the theories of abiogenesis on earth. I suspect that he doesn’t know much about chemistry at all. His knowledge of natural history is also abysmal, but I don’t want to get into that right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
“According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]”


If you want to sort through Hoyles mathematical arguments, get this book. Here is a link to a book where he makes the calculations themselves. I noticed that I can’t accept the assumptions that he makes in just the first few sentences. Maybe you can get further.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
“Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticize the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed.”


Please note that we know a lot more about genetics that was known in Hoyles time. Furthermore, Hoyle did not know even as much about genetics as was known then.

Worse, Hoyles doesn't understand thermodynamics. In his steady state universe, the second law of thermodynamics can't be true. So there is no thermodynamics in anything that he writes. So anytime he makes a calculation involving chemistry, watch out!

Are you saying his calculations are not correct? What is the probability then the non living material becomes living, and what is the probability that the simplest form of life to evolve to a more complicated new species based on modern biologist?
 
<h2>1. What is the difference between a scientist and a creationist?</h2><p>A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method to study and understand the natural world. They base their beliefs and conclusions on evidence and experimentation. A creationist, on the other hand, believes in a literal interpretation of religious texts and rejects scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe.</p><h2>2. Is it possible for a scientist to reject evolution?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible for a scientist to reject evolution. However, this is a rare occurrence as the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as the most scientifically supported explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.</p><h2>3. Why do some scientists reject evolution?</h2><p>There could be a variety of reasons why a scientist may reject evolution. Some may have personal or religious beliefs that conflict with the theory, while others may disagree with certain aspects of the evidence or the interpretation of the evidence. However, it is important to note that these individual beliefs do not change the fact that the theory of evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community.</p><h2>4. Can a scientist be religious and still accept evolution?</h2><p>Yes, many scientists are religious and still accept evolution. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and many scientists see their faith and their scientific work as complementary rather than conflicting. In fact, many religious organizations have officially accepted evolution as compatible with their beliefs.</p><h2>5. How do scientists determine the validity of evolution?</h2><p>Scientists use a variety of methods to determine the validity of evolution, including studying the fossil record, genetic evidence, and observing natural selection in action. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed through numerous experiments and observations, making it one of the most well-supported theories in science.</p>

1. What is the difference between a scientist and a creationist?

A scientist is someone who uses the scientific method to study and understand the natural world. They base their beliefs and conclusions on evidence and experimentation. A creationist, on the other hand, believes in a literal interpretation of religious texts and rejects scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe.

2. Is it possible for a scientist to reject evolution?

Yes, it is possible for a scientist to reject evolution. However, this is a rare occurrence as the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as the most scientifically supported explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

3. Why do some scientists reject evolution?

There could be a variety of reasons why a scientist may reject evolution. Some may have personal or religious beliefs that conflict with the theory, while others may disagree with certain aspects of the evidence or the interpretation of the evidence. However, it is important to note that these individual beliefs do not change the fact that the theory of evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community.

4. Can a scientist be religious and still accept evolution?

Yes, many scientists are religious and still accept evolution. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and many scientists see their faith and their scientific work as complementary rather than conflicting. In fact, many religious organizations have officially accepted evolution as compatible with their beliefs.

5. How do scientists determine the validity of evolution?

Scientists use a variety of methods to determine the validity of evolution, including studying the fossil record, genetic evidence, and observing natural selection in action. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed through numerous experiments and observations, making it one of the most well-supported theories in science.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top