QUASI-RELIGIOUS BELIEF in Darwin and Darwinism: 'Straw-Men' Scientist Believers Everywhere

-


The article, "QUASI-RELIGIOUS BELIEF in Darwin and Darwinism: 'Straw-Men' Scientist Believers Everywhere", argues that some people have a quasi-religious belief in Darwin's theory of evolution. This means that they have a strong faith in the theory, even when new evidence challenges it. The authors compare this to how some religious people have a strong faith in their religion.

The authors argue that this quasi-religious belief in Darwinism is harmful. They point out that Darwin's theory has been used to justify racist and sexist beliefs in the past. For example, some people (Darwin) have argued that Darwin's theory shows that white people are superior to other races, or that women are naturally suited to be subservient to men.

The authors also argue that Darwin's theory is not perfect. They point out that new discoveries, such as the discovery of DNA and the role of epigenetics, have added complexity to our understanding of evolution. They argue that we should be critical of all scientific theories, including Darwin's theory, and that we should not be afraid to challenge them.

The authors conclude by calling attention to the parallel between religious thinking and the inflexible way in which many people defend Darwinism. They argue that this quasi-religious belief in Darwinism is harmful because it can lead to bias and prejudice in the scientific community and in society as a whole.

Here is a summary of the main points of the article:

  • Some people have a quasi-religious belief in Darwin's theory of evolution.

  • This quasi-religious belief in Darwinism is harmful because it can lead to bias and prejudice in the scientific community and in society as a whole.

  • We should be critical of all scientific theories, including Darwin's theory, and we should not be afraid to challenge them.

It is important to distinguish between the theory of evolution itself and the specific mechanisms of evolution that Darwin proposed. However, there is still much that we do not know about how evolution works. It is possible that Darwin's proposed mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, are not the only mechanisms that drive evolution.

It is also important to note that Darwin's theory of evolution is not incompatible with religious belief. Many religious people believe that God created the universe and that evolution is the process by which God continues to create and sustain life.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No, the EES is not just a add on to Neo-Darwinism aka the Modern Synthesis

-
Image
" The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis fthe theory of evolution) are, if not outright overturned replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (EES). So, not to mince words , the Modern Synthesis is gone" -Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist (Cited by over 270,000 evolutionary scientists.) The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a significant departure from the traditional neo-Darwinian framework, also known as the Modern Synthesis . While both theories aim to explain evolutionary change, they differ fundamentally in their underlying mechanisms and the roles they assign to various biological processes. A crucial point of divergence lies in the interpretation and application of the term " evolutionary ," particularly concerning the incorporation of epigenetic mechanisms....
Read more

Is the random mutational model of evolution on its way out?

-
Image
While the random mutational model of evolution has long been a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the study of epigenetics are challenging its core assumptions. The Random Mutational Model and Its Limitations The traditional view of evolution, often called the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism , emphasizes random genetic mutations as the primary source of variation. Natural selection then acts upon this variation, favoring individuals with advantageous traits. This model has been successful in explaining some evolutionary phenomena, but it also has limitations: It struggles to explain complex adaptations: The idea that complex features like the eye or the immune system arose solely through random mutations seems statistically improbable. It overlooks the role of the environment: The traditional model treats the environment as a selective force, but it doesn't fully consider how organisms can actively respond to and s...
Read more

ERVs and Common Descent: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Findings

-
Image
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have long been considered strong evidence for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees. These remnants of ancient viral infections, embedded in the genomes of both species, were once thought to be non-functional "junk DNA." The premise was that the shared presence of these seemingly random insertions in corresponding genomic locations could best be explained by a shared evolutionary history. However, recent research, such as the "Switching Sides" article published in May 2021, has challenged this assumption by demonstrating that ERVs play a functional role in the development of the human embryo and immune system. This discovery raises questions about the validity of using ERVs as primary evidence for common descent. The Traditional Argument for Common Descent The traditional argument for common descent based on ERVs rests on the following points: Random Insertion: Retroviral insertions are thought to occur randomly in...
Read more