Sve što je pogrešno u vezi s poricanjem Evolucije

• 3Ovo se svidja korisnicima: mcrule, LakyTheMacak, Rogi
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Svedoci smo, i na ovom forumu i uopšte u društvu kod nas, sve ćešćih napada na jednu od osnovnih naučnih činjenica, teoriju evolucije.

Ova pojava je kod nas novijeg datuma i predstavlja jedan od oblika društvenog pomodarstva. Ovi napadi se često uvijaju u nekakve kvazi naučne oblande, maskiraju borbom za slobodu mišljenja relativizuju osnovni naučni proces. Međutim nije slučajno da se ova moda kod nas pojavila baš početkom devedesetih i padom prethodnog socijalističkog istema. Dugo godina Kreacionizam i tzv. Inteligent Design su bili isključivo Američki fenomen, podstican i raspirivan od strane Fundamentalističkih sektaških crkava iz ruralnih područja juga i srednjeg zapada. Međutim ove sekte imaju veoma razvijenu misionarsku delatnost za koju je područje istolne evrope, u procesu tranzicije izuzetno plodno tle. Naravno ova pojava se nije zadržala samo na americi i istolnoj Evropi. Napadi su najčešće usmereni na zahteve da se Kreacionizam u nekom svom obliku uključi u nastavne programe obrazovnih ustanova.

Koliko je ova pojava uzela maha govori i to da je Savet Evrope, telo koje obuhvata 47 ncija i čiji je i Srbija član izdao dokument pod naziviom:


The dangers of creationism in education
(Opasnosti od Kreacionizma u Obrazovanju)

Budući da je tekst previše obiman za prenošenje u obliku forumskog posta preneću samo njegove odabrane delove. Ali on će od sada služiti kao smernica za određivanje politike MC prema postovima.

Summary

The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

A. Draft resolution

...

2. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

3. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their theories are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

...

6. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.

...

9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from well-known scientists, most of whom are not biologists. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

10. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

...

13. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

14. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

...

18. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:

18.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

18.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

18.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

18.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;

18.5. promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.


B. Explanatory memorandum

Evolution: a genuine scientific theory

...
10. Populations evolve when individuals with certain characteristics (such as tallness) have more descendants than other individuals. The characteristics inherited from the individuals with many descendants become more frequent in the following generations:

- Biological evolution is defined as a modification of the genetic characteristics in the course of time within a group of living beings or a population.

- Adaptation refers to the characteristics of an organism that improve its ability to survive and reproduce in total harmony with its natural environment. Adaptations are the result of natural selection.

- Biodiversity results from the repeated separation of one species into two or more new species (which specialists call “speciation”). When a single species separates into two, the two resulting species share numerous characteristics as they derive from a common ancestor.

11. Evolution thus explains how organisms adapt to their environment (by natural selection), how the diversity of life was formed (by speciation) and why different organisms share characteristics (through a common ancestor). In this connection, it is important to stress that it is wrong to claim that human beings descend from monkeys. They are closely related to monkeys and have a common ancestor but there is no direct line of descent between the two.

12. There is a considerable body of scientific evidence concerning evolution. Scientists have shown that evolution is a fact because of

- the evidence provided by palaeontological data,

- the numerous cases of characteristics shared by organisms with a common ancestor,

- the reality of continental drift,

- direct observations of genetic changes in populations.

...

14. Scientific advances and discoveries in the field of genetics have made it possible to demonstrate the existence of genetic mutations that come about at random and are not oriented towards a particular goal. It is the modification of genes in the descendence of living beings that defines biological evolution. Among the organisms that reproduce by sexual means, genetic variability increases through crossing over, the independent assortment of chromosomes and fertilisation. These various mutations and any other processes that rearrange the genetic information combine to bring about the evolution of species and populations and tend to reinforce the variability of individuals and species on the planet. Genetic modifications trigger morphological, biochemical and behavioural differences. Natural selection and/or genetic drift have an effect on the differences between individuals or species in order to produce evolutionary changes.

15. Apart from demonstrating the process of evolution, scientists have been able to show the consequences of this process for life on Earth. Three main characteristics define the latter: the adaptation of organisms to their environment, speciation (the repeated separation of one species into two or more new species), which contributes to the diversity of life on Earth, and the existence of common ancestors. Evolution involves these different characteristics of that life.

16. Palaeontological data, such as the fossil record, provide clear proof of the evolution of species and individuals in the course of time. Fossils are the preserved remains of organisms that lived a long time ago. They enable biologists to reconstruct the history of life on earth and, even though a number of uncertainties remain, provide evidence to give weight to the idea that species have evolved in the course of time. Palaeontology also confirms the existence of new groups of organisms on the basis of organisms that existed previously.

17. The fact that these organisms share common characteristics is consistent with the biological blueprints of the evolutionary relations. One of the main propositions of the theory of evolution is that organisms should carry in themselves the evidence of their evolutionary past, and this is indeed the case. The similarities in the models of development can be explained by their descent from a common ancestor. The proteins and DNA of organisms that share a common ancestor are closer than the proteins and DNA of those that do not share a recent common ancestor.

18. Continental drift, which is the result of the splitting up of the Pangea (the old supercontinent comprising almost all the land that emerged from the Carboniferous period at the beginning of the Jurassic) at least 200 million years ago, also enables proof of evolution to be furnished. The fossils of organisms that evolved when the continents were connected have a wider geographical distribution than those of organisms that have evolved more recently. The effect of continental drift was to separate families of living organisms and thus bring about their development, independently of their descent, as well as the appearance of new species and the extinction of others.

...

21. The resistance of many insects to new pesticides shows they are similarly able to adapt to a new environment in which only those that are most resistant will survive. Resistance to antibiotics also tells us a great deal. Today, many species of bacteria are resistant to all kinds of antibiotics because, as a result of natural selection, only the few bacteria that have resisted have been able to multiply.

22. It is important to note that the number of means of verifying the hypotheses put forward has increased since Darwin. From the form of the fossils discovered to the study of their DNA, the cross-checking of information makes it possible to achieve considerable objectivity.

23. There can be no doubt that evolution is a genuine science.


Creationism

29. These various discoveries and scientific advances concerning evolution led to strong opposition from various so-called “creationist” movements (the word derives from “creation” in the biblical sense of the term).

...

32. According to “scientific Creationism”, the author of creation, as described in the Bible, is always present and intervenes in the various processes that bring about evolution. Within scientific creationism, the debate on the Earth’s age divides the so-called “young-earth creationists” (YECs) from the “old-earth creationists” (OECs). The first apply a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, while the second group admit that creation may have taken place over a long period and seek to reconcile the scientific data with the story of Genesis.

33. Alongside these different movements that come together under the heading of strict creationism, we also find so-called progressive creationism, which does not totally reject evolution but argues that creation necessarily involved successive divine interventions.

...

41. The creationists are attacking on two fronts: they either deny the scientific nature of evolution or try to put the lack of certainty at the centre of the debate that pits them against the supporters of the theory of evolution. To this end, they rely on the fact that the science of evolution, like any science, is not “closed”, ie it casts doubt on certain elements or describes others in greater detail (without this calling into question the foundations on which it is based).

42. For the creationists of all persuasions, the element of uncertainty that surrounds scientific work on the subject of creation and evolution is much too large to give this theory sufficient credence. Do they need to be reminded that this applies to all science? It is only necessary to cite the example of the atom, which was considered indivisible and was then split into its nucleus and electrons, after which quarks were discovered. However, these scientific discoveries have never challenged the basis of atomic theory! A scientific theory produces new knowledge that it tries to interpret according to the prevailing paradigms, which forces the theory to evolve in order to take account of these new data.3 However, reviewing and evolving a theory does not mean calling into question its basic principle, and the same applies to the theory of evolution.

...

45. While the evolution sciences have evolved considerably since Darwin, the creationists have not gone beyond their pitiful level of quibbling4. Evolution has not stopped “evolving” since Darwin theorised it. Science is a body of knowledge constantly being built and rebuilt. The scientific approach consists in continually questioning models, which remain true unless and until they have been refuted. The creationist arguments have never evolved and are not based on any scientific proof. Facts are presented without theory, or theoretical arguments are put forward without any facts to confirm or refute them. Creationism appears more dogmatic than scientific.

46. Guillaume Lecointre has shown that they have been somewhat cavalier with regard to elementary rules of science. The first breach of these rules is their lack of scepticism. In every creationist experiment, faith imposes a preconceived idea of the expected result. Faith does not permit them objectively to accept the result of a scientific experiment if it does not correspond to their beliefs, so it would seem impossible to reconcile faith and science. The second breach noted concerns the fact that even if the creationists seem to comply with the principles of logic, that logic is based on false premises, indeed on a tendentious selection of facts. Finally, mention may be made of a large number of breaches of the principles of methodological materialism and experimentation. As G. Lecointre emphasises, scientific creationism is by definition the very opposite of science because it denies the need for recourse […] to material realities […] in order to establish truths. However, let us repeat: it is not possible to establish knowledge without scientific evidence and without verifying its objectivity and scientific character by the reproduction of experiments and/or observations. The creationists make a number of claims that cannot be scientifically tested and are thus not provable. It is therefore easy to see through the deception of the creationists who claim to follow scientific principles. This deception is all the greater as, being aware that it is impossible for them to prove scientifically what their dogma advocates, some creationists even go so far as to fabricate facts and evidence. Thus, apart from the absurd interpretations put forward by some creationists, it would seem that others do not hesitate to fabricate “pseudo” evidence to try to prove the scientific nature of their statements.

...

Conclusion: the denial of evolution is particularly harmful to children’s education

80. Prohibiting the teaching of key theories, such as evolution, is totally against children’s educational interests. Education has a duty to be a means of enabling children, young people and (zabranjeno)s to become important players in the transformation of societies, whereas adopting a denialist stance on scientifically proven theories constitutes a brake on education and the intellectual and personal development of thousands of children. Science is a prominent player and plays a big and active role in this process of the evolution and transformation of societies.

81. The knowledge it provides cannot be arbitrarily challenged. By denying proven facts, the creationist theories do not contribute to the transformation of societies but to making them become archaic. The creationists are in fact supporters of a radical return to the past, which could prove particularly harmful in the long term for all our societies. This is therefore a crucial issue.

82. As we have seen, evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and populations. It now pervades the whole of science and is one of its fundamental principles, so it appears legitimate to consider the consequences that denying evolution could have on the development of our societies. How, for example, can advances be made in medical research with the aim of effectively combating diseases like AIDS if every principle of evolution is denied? Basically, evolution pervades all medical research. How can we consider living in a world without medicine? That appears absurd, but removing the teaching of evolution from the curriculum, as advocated by the creationists, could result in a considerable reduction in, if not the end of, medical research.

83. In addition, the “scientific” approach adopted by the creationists to put forward and support their ideas is itself a particularly dangerous instrument of mental manipulation: presenting a thesis as a scientific theory without providing any evidence can be compared to an attempt to manipulate minds for purposes that are, moreover, scarcely virtuous. As Charles Otis Whitman, an American zoologist (1842-1910) wrote, “Facts without theory is chaos, but theory without facts is fantasy”. Accordingly, as G. Lecointre notes, any clever manipulator relies on “facts” alone.

...

90. It is important to point out that the theory of evolution has had a profound effect on science in general, philosophy, religion and many other aspects of human society (for example, agriculture). Evolution has also entered the field of psychology: evolutionist psychology is a field of psychology that aims to explain the mechanisms of human thought on the basis of the theory of biological evolution. It is based on the fundamental hypothesis that the brain, like all the other organs, is the result of evolution and thus constitutes an adaptation to specific environmental constraints, to which the ancestors of the Hominidae were forced to respond.

...

93. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not completely deny a degree of evolution. However, this school of thought has hardly provided any fuel for the scientific debate up to now9. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.

94. The teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason evolution must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. If we prevent our students from accessing scientific knowledge, we run the risk of their being unable to compete effectively with other students who are being educated in states where science has a key status.

...

Report
Councile of Europe, Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Kompletan tekst ovog dokumenta možete naći ovde:

[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

hvala na ovome, nisam znala da su ovakve stvari ovoliko uzele maha...
ono sto mene zbunjuje i sto ne razumem, jeste to sto evolucija uopste ne iskljucuje postojanje boga ili kako god zvali to 'bice' ili 'silu', a sasvim je dokazana.....

• 1Ovo se svidja korisniku: LakyTheMacak
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ne samo Evolucija nego nauka uopšte... Religioznost je očigledno urođena potreba mnogih (svih?) ljudi, ali to nikakve veze sa naučnim istraživanjima nema.

To su jednostavno dve odvojene sfere koje se nedodiruju. Samo ljudi koji banalizuju religiju i duhovnost ove stvari suprotstavljaju nauci.

Nauka je pre svega praktično sredstvo...

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ljubicasta :: ono sto mene zbunjuje i sto ne razumem, jeste to sto evolucija uopste ne iskljucuje postojanje boga ili kako god zvali to 'bice' ili 'silu', a sasvim je dokazana.....

Teorija evolucije se svakako ne bavi iskljucivanjem bogova.

Medjutim elegantnost i dokazivost njenih objasnjenja cine da proizvoljna tumacenja postanka sveta od strane npr bliskoistocnih monoteistickih religija--a koja se, je l, bez razlike zasnivaju na idejama o tvorcu-- izgledaju u najmanju ruku dirljivo naivno.

Uzmi da teorija evolucije nije u stanju da potpuno opovrgne ni to da svet nije zapravo (zajedno sa gotovim fosilima itd) ispao iz levog uva dzinovskog ruzicastog oktopoda sa zelenim tufnama.

To je deo do istine koji treba da predjemo peske-- zdravim razumom.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Hehe ružičasti oktopod, to mi se dopada:
Ali je činjenica i da nisu sve stvari dokazane, poput razvitka epiglotisa, a i kao što je sam Darwin rekao za instinkt(jedina stvar koja mu može oboriti teoriju). Ali i sam Darwin nije opovrgavao postajanje Boga (koliko sam ja upućen).
Ali je pogrešno (po mom mišljenju) uzimati stvari iz Biblije zdravo za gotovo, tj. mnoge stvari su u prenesenom značenju, ali mi je takođe kontradiktorno (a sve je zastupljenije) naučno dokazivanje religijskih stajališta...pa to je stvar vjere...

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Stane ::Svedoci smo, i na ovom forumu i uopšte u društvu kod nas, sve ćešćih napada na jednu od osnovnih naučnih činjenica, teoriju evolucije.


Nemoj da pomislis da sam kreacionista, ali nemoj tako olako pisati da je evolucija "chinjenica". Ipak je to teorija, koja je vazeca jer bolju nemamo, a da ima rupa ima...

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Ne bih se složio sa vašim konstatacijama da teorija evolucije ne isključuje Boga.
Srž religije i beskonačna snaga tvorca se upravo ogleda u prvih 6 dana stvaranja.

Ne znam da li je u redu da branim kreacionizam putem jednog odličnog domaćeg sajta.
Ako kršim pravilnik, modifikujte ovaj post.
Da se slučajno ne bi rasplamsala neka nepristojna polemika, evo adrese gde se putem naučnih metoda objašnjava 6 dana stvaranja.

[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]

• 1Ovo se svidja korisniku: ThePhilosopher
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Da da, ali po mom shvatanju, naš mozak nije na tako visokom stupnju da razumije Božansko djelo i misao (ako vjerujete u to naravno), tako da tih šest dana možda i nije naših šest dana...

• 2Ovo se svidja korisnicima: branko62, Rogi
  
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Napisano: 22 Feb 2014 12:44

Vislaseki :: evo adrese gde se putem naučnih metoda objašnjava 6 dana stvaranja.

[Link mogu videti samo ulogovani korisnici]

Izvini ali kako bi to moglo da bude naučno kad se to posvađalo s naukom još u glavi onog ko ga je osmislio?Nije sve što zvuči naučno stvarno naučno.Posebno ako taj koji to tvrdi osporava naučne metode koje koriste pravi naučni za dokazivanje svojih tvrdnji koje su mnogo relevantnije.

Dopuna: 22 Feb 2014 14:32

i teorija o evoluciji se ne kosi ni sa kakvom verom u ama baš ni jednog boga.Ona samo objašnjava razvoj živih bića na zemlji na razuman i racionalan način.
Svako ko tvdi da teorija evolucije direktno poriče postojanje bilo kog bozanstva je sigurno spavao na časovima biologije u osnovnoj školi jer svako ko je slušao nastavu još tad zna da treorija evolucije ne objašnjava poreklo života na zemlji već samo njegovo usavršavanje i prilagođavanje...
Ali vidim da kreacioniste ustvari boli činjenica da ta teorija poriče Adama i Evu jer objašnjava kako su ljudi evoluirali.Razumem ja njih do nekle...Oni žele da veruju kako su posebni i čarobni i ni slučajno nisu životinje niti imaju bilo kakve veze sa životinjama koje je bog stvorio da oni imaju hranu ili zabavu...Ali takav način razmišljanja je arogantan i sebičan...Da ne pominjem i to da nema veze sa stvarnošću.Davno je još dokazano da su ljudi životinje...Da,iteligentne,kreativne životinje,ali ipak životinje...I čak nismo ni po tome jedinstveni u prirodi jer su slonovi,delfini,kitovi i viši primati sposobni za kreativno razmišljanje i čak se međusobno sporazumevaju gestovima i glasovima...Baš delfini,slonovi i kitovi imaju svoje prave-pravcate jezike sa glasovima koji opisuju opasnost i vrstu opasnosti,hranu i vrstu hrane,igru,neraspoloženje,stah,privrženost,tugu i td.
Viši primati su dovoljno ineligentni da se u prirodi služe oruđem...Da ne pominjem i one eksperimente gde si uspevali da nauče gorile,šimpanze i orangutane da koriste znakovni govor,čitaju i čak razumeju napisane reči,pišu sa razumevanjem,sabiraju,oduzimaju i td,što od prilike dokazuje da su na intelektualnom nivou deteta od 5 do 7 godina(u zavisnosti od vrste)...To su jako impresivne ćinjenice o životinjama koje po kreacionističkim idejama nemaju nikakvu vezu s ljudima.Da uopšte i ne pričam o činjenicama da delimo od prilike 90 i neštro % gena sa tim,istim primatima.
Ali i za to kreacionisti nalaze kvazi objašnjenaja i izvrću činjenice da podkrepe svoje ideje o intelegentnom dizajnu.Jedino im fosili dinosaurusa prave malo zbrku,ali to čini mi se da objašnjavaju potopom.

Dopuna: 22 Feb 2014 14:59

Sve to što oni tvrde zvuči ubedljivo,ali samo osobama koje nisu obrazovane dovoljno ili koje još uvek ne znaju ništa o nauči...I zato se i trude da po svaku cenu uvedu kreacionizam u škole jer u tom školskom uzrastu svako bi mogao da poveruje ako mu se obrazloži tako da zvuči ispravno,pa makar to bile i izvrnute činjenice.

Dopuna: 22 Feb 2014 16:09

Kada bi stvarno,nekim čudom kreacionisti uspeli da obore teoriju evolucije izvrtanjem činjenice šta bi bilo sledeće?Možda bi se našao neki pametnjaković da tvrdi kako zemlja nije stvarno okrigla i da se ne okreće stvarno.Naravno i za to bi se izvrnule činjenice jer drugačije ne bi moglo...Ali pitanje je gde bi to odvelo čovečanstvo?Nazad u mračno doba?Možda nazad na spaljivanja nevernika,naučnika koji prkose Bibliji,ginekokologa koji vrše abortuse,feministkinja,homoseksualaca...

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Poz da li neko moze da napise neke primere evolucije koje su se desile u zadnjih 100 god. Bilo je na nacionalnoj geografiji ali nisam stigao da vidim pa me zanima da li medju vama neko zna.