- 注册
- 2011-09-15
- 消息
- 2,423
- 荣誉分数
- 114
- 声望点数
- 123
可以，可 您 拿什么来换呀? 。。。唏! 第一回是可以免费的，第二回，就门都没有。
那有免费午餐呢，喝!
好笑的基督教
- 主题发起人 terry890
- 开始时间
可以，可 您 拿什么来换呀? 。。。唏! 第一回是可以免费的，第二回，就门都没有。
那有免费午餐呢，喝!
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
找不着啊？那就算了
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
反对/质疑进化论的知名科学家列表之一：Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution
里面有详细证据，简单摘要如下：
1. Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973) 一个无神论者；“So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well.”
2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
"The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved."
"Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done"
"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."
3. Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, a Muslim
"To cut a long story short, we request the reader to realize that even if the creation of the universe and the subsequent evolution of life had actually started a trillion multiplied by a trillion years ago, it would still be mathematically impossible for evolution to reach the stage of man.…"
4. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963， 天主教徒
这个人观点太复杂，懒得细究了
I believe that biological evolution is not simply chance and necessity. That could never have produced us with our values. I can sense with [Sherrington] that evolution may be the instrument of a Purpose, lifting it beyond chance and necessity at least in the transcendence that brought forth human creatures gifted with self-consciousness (Eccles, 1989, p. 116).
5. Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.
“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.”
6. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945, 应该是一个无神论者
“As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.”
“I am of course getting angry if biologists try to use the general concept ‘chance’ in order to explain phenomena which are so typical for living organisms as, for instance, those appearing in the biological evolution.”
7. Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics
“The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. This would be truly frightening, if it were not for faith.”
(Marconi, Guglielmo. 1934. From a scientific address to the International Congress of Electro-Radio Biology. September 10. Venice, Italy.) (Emphases mine – VJT.)
里面有详细证据，简单摘要如下：
1. Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973) 一个无神论者；“So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well.”
2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
"The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved."
"Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done"
"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."
3. Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, a Muslim
"To cut a long story short, we request the reader to realize that even if the creation of the universe and the subsequent evolution of life had actually started a trillion multiplied by a trillion years ago, it would still be mathematically impossible for evolution to reach the stage of man.…"
4. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963， 天主教徒
这个人观点太复杂，懒得细究了
I believe that biological evolution is not simply chance and necessity. That could never have produced us with our values. I can sense with [Sherrington] that evolution may be the instrument of a Purpose, lifting it beyond chance and necessity at least in the transcendence that brought forth human creatures gifted with self-consciousness (Eccles, 1989, p. 116).
5. Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.
“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.”
6. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945, 应该是一个无神论者
“As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.”
“I am of course getting angry if biologists try to use the general concept ‘chance’ in order to explain phenomena which are so typical for living organisms as, for instance, those appearing in the biological evolution.”
7. Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics
“The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. This would be truly frightening, if it were not for faith.”
(Marconi, Guglielmo. 1934. From a scientific address to the International Congress of Electro-Radio Biology. September 10. Venice, Italy.) (Emphases mine – VJT.)
又是善意的误解。我的“希望”，是在基本概念和逻辑思维层次来探讨每种思想体系/理论的对错，不管这种思想体系是佛教，基督教，任何其他宗教，还是科学理论。
任何关于认识世界的理论，宗教也好，科学也好，最后总能boil down成几个基本概念和逻辑。比如，宇宙存在是个given的事实，在企图认识了解这个事实的过程中，不同思想体系可以得出不同的结论：
- 基督教/单神教：认为一个“超验”的上帝无中生有创造了宇宙，宇宙有个“起点”，上帝的本质和宇宙的本质截然不同（即有两种不同性质的存在，用数字表示就是2）
- 佛教：认为存在本质是虚是空，甚至完全否定“存在”这个概念，我们看到的宇宙只是表象而已，并不真实（即否定任何存在，用数字表示就是0）
- 我前面提到的万能宇宙：虽然实际存在的宇宙看似充满了构造功能各异的万物，但究其实质都是同一样东西，都是只能转化而永远不会消亡的能量，无始无终（即只有一种性质的存在，用数字表示就是1 -- all is one）。
这些当然只是理想化的简单状态，实际辩论起来并不容易。关键原因之一，是2也好，0也好，虽然表面上看轻1或否定1，骨子里面都有1的成分，尤其是0，讲虚无可以讲得头头是道，这虚无里面实在是充满存在的（堪比西方神学中的non-being）。另外，2里面也有0的成分--造物主与被造物存在本质截然不同，如何发生关系呢，只有一个办法，无中生有，以前提到过的creatio ex nihilo。
我当然反对用什么基督信仰来指导科学，但这并不表示当代科学家思维方式里就没有上述2或0的成分。比如，已经被普遍接受的宇宙大爆炸理论（我也接受大爆炸，但有根本差异，以后有机会再讨论），就受到2的影响，导致很多科学家视大爆炸为宇宙之“起点”。再比如，绝大多数科学家都认为，大爆炸后形成的有限宇宙，至今仍在加速扩张，而有限宇宙外面则没有任何“东西”存在，就是受到0的影响（但这个0主要来自于2里面的那个0，而不是佛教的0）。正因为从基本概念角度，他们认为有限宇宙外面没有任何形式的存在，有限宇宙自转的可能性就在概念上被否定了--有限宇宙外面没有任何“东西”，就意味着没有参照物，没有参照物，谈论有限宇宙的自转就毫无意义。。。有限宇宙就这样被想当然地认为是不自转的了。
科学发展到今天，时间相对而言并不算长，尽管其在无数专科领域通过科学手段积累的对世界的认识都指向1（尤其是量子力学的出现），其在基本概念和逻辑思维方面仍然缺乏清晰的共识，仍然自觉或不自觉地受到宗教或神学思维方式影响，导致迟迟无法形成需要综合所有科学知识的集大成理论（至少十多年前就在承诺了）。霍金走上歧途一点都不奇怪，身处永恒能量之中却写出了本时间简史。
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
阿Q能列一下反对创造论支持进化论的知名科学家吗？有这样的科学家吗？
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
您老是放狗专家，你来！不过也不用，应该会更多吧。前面阿Q讲过了，一个科学理论的正确与否不由支持或者反对它的科学家名气大小和人数多少决定。之所以搞这个列表（显然还有之二 :blink:），是因为CFC科学家们一致认定进化论是不可置疑的真理，质疑进化论的都是伪科学，根本不值一看。我们当然相信科学，但是假设去问100个真正的科学家，他们的意见并不一致，有赞同也有反对进化论，爱问问题的阿Q迷惑了，此时我们该相信谁？科学不是用“科学”的方法，用事实说话，怎么还会有不同的意见？搞无线电的马可尼同学是生物的外行，好歹人家也是诺贝尔奖得主，也应该是深谙科学之道，用科学的方法来看问题的。怎么也会跟科学主流意见不同？
越想越迷惑了，更多问题跑出来：究竟什么是科学？什么是科学的方法？
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
您老是放狗专家，你来！不过也不用，应该会更多吧。前面阿Q讲过了，一个科学理论的正确与否不由支持或者反对它的科学家名气大小和人数多少决定。之所以搞这个列表（显然还有之二 :blink:），是因为CFC科学家们一致认定进化论是不可置疑的真理，质疑进化论的都是伪科学，根本不值一看。我们当然相信科学，但是假设去问100个真正的科学家，他们的意见并不一致，有赞同也有反对进化论，爱问问题的阿Q迷惑了，此时我们该相信谁？科学不是用“科学”的方法，用事实说话，怎么还会有不同的意见？搞无线电的马可尼同学是生物的外行，好歹人家也是诺贝尔奖得主，也应该是深谙科学之道，用科学的方法来看问题的。怎么也会跟科学主流意见不同？
越想越迷惑了，更多问题跑出来：究竟什么是科学？什么是科学的方法？
我post过一个大学关于科学论的课程大纲，what science does and does not ，能看出点端倪？
不知道哪位cfcer认为进化论是真理。它只是一个科学理论，而不是某些人非要说的它是宗教信仰。这是本楼的更根本分歧。那些质疑进化论的科学家们，是由于进化论是迷信而质疑吗？那些支持进化论的科学家们把进化论作为他们的宗教信仰，醒世名言每天(or星期天)去查经膜拜了吗？
向阿Q学习。
Creative Evolution: An Anti-Darwin Theory Won a Nobel
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Abstract
An anti-Darwinian theory of biological origins that was well received and widely accepted for years was creative evolution. This theory attempted to deal with some of the major problems of Darwin's theory, especially the origin of biological information. Developed by Henri Bergson, the level of the theory's acceptance is indicated by the fact that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize† for his work in this area. It is the only Nobel ever awarded for an anti-Darwinian theory of biological origins.
http://www.icr.org/article/3383/
Creative Evolution: An Anti-Darwin Theory Won a Nobel
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Abstract
An anti-Darwinian theory of biological origins that was well received and widely accepted for years was creative evolution. This theory attempted to deal with some of the major problems of Darwin's theory, especially the origin of biological information. Developed by Henri Bergson, the level of the theory's acceptance is indicated by the fact that the author was awarded the Nobel Prize† for his work in this area. It is the only Nobel ever awarded for an anti-Darwinian theory of biological origins.
http://www.icr.org/article/3383/
Werner Arber: Nobel Laureate, Darwin Skeptic （An Intelligent Design Supporter）
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Introduction
In 1978, microbiologist Werner Arber received a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (sharing the honor with Daniel Nathans and Hamilton O. Smith) for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to molecular genetics. Restriction enzymes cut DNA at specific places called restriction sites, allowing researchers to work with small sections of genes and to carry out recombinant DNA work, a process that launched the modern genetic revolution.
This discovery marked the "beginning of a new era of genetics," starting an avalanche of research in molecular genetics that opened wide the route to answering many major questions in cell biology and biochemistry.1 The study areas affected by Arber's discovery include solving the basic problem of cell differentiation and control, and even the cell repair mechanisms.1
Born on June 3, 1929, in Switzerland, Werner Arber earned his Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of Geneva in 1958. In his career Arber was a professor at several universities, including the University of Southern California and the University of Basel.2 Much of his research was directly related to evolution, and for this reason his conclusions in this area are of considerable interest.
http://www.icr.org/article/werner-arber-nobel-laureate-darwin-skeptic/
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *
Introduction
In 1978, microbiologist Werner Arber received a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (sharing the honor with Daniel Nathans and Hamilton O. Smith) for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to molecular genetics. Restriction enzymes cut DNA at specific places called restriction sites, allowing researchers to work with small sections of genes and to carry out recombinant DNA work, a process that launched the modern genetic revolution.
This discovery marked the "beginning of a new era of genetics," starting an avalanche of research in molecular genetics that opened wide the route to answering many major questions in cell biology and biochemistry.1 The study areas affected by Arber's discovery include solving the basic problem of cell differentiation and control, and even the cell repair mechanisms.1
Born on June 3, 1929, in Switzerland, Werner Arber earned his Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of Geneva in 1958. In his career Arber was a professor at several universities, including the University of Southern California and the University of Basel.2 Much of his research was directly related to evolution, and for this reason his conclusions in this area are of considerable interest.
http://www.icr.org/article/werner-arber-nobel-laureate-darwin-skeptic/
Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ted-darwinism-as-an-account-of-consciousness/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ted-darwinism-as-an-account-of-consciousness/
Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
Here are some of our favorite quotes by scientists speaking on the subject of evolutionism. Note that many of these scientists are evolutionists themselves, in spite of their comments. I suppose that they would maintain that to admit that "God did it" would not be "intellectually satisfying!" Such a confession, of course, flies in the face of their naturalistic presuppositionalism.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
(These "mathematical miracles" that must have occurred are summarized in my paper "The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution")
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
Here are some of our favorite quotes by scientists speaking on the subject of evolutionism. Note that many of these scientists are evolutionists themselves, in spite of their comments. I suppose that they would maintain that to admit that "God did it" would not be "intellectually satisfying!" Such a confession, of course, flies in the face of their naturalistic presuppositionalism.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
(These "mathematical miracles" that must have occurred are summarized in my paper "The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution")
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
鸭子指的是这段？如果是的话，俺100％赞同它。如果有兴趣我们可以将黑色字体部分应用到进化论上，看看根据它，进化论应该算什么？
Theory vs Hypothesis:
The method of science is to observe a series of events or phenomena and then, considering the concepts of that particular branch of science (and sometimes rejecting those concepts), to formulate an idea about the how and why. An idea like this is called a hypothesis--an educated guess. The word "theory," however, is used differently in science than it is in popular speech. In popular language, theory and hypothesis have the same meaning and are treated as synonyms. A "theory" in science, however, is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests. A "theory" in science is a very elevated notion. A theory is an idea that has a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. I'm sure you've all felt the consequences of the Theory of Gravity when you trip and fall. Yet we call Gravity a "theory" rather than a "fact" because there are no absolutes in scientific understanding. Although gravity is "only a theory," no one I know would doubt its validity enough to walk off a bridge to test it. Theories are always subject to the test of time, and most accepted theories prove in the long run to be correct but not complete, for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's. Newton's theory of gravity was not wrong, it was just incomplete. Einstein's theory of gravity is more general and incorporates Newton's. So the bottom line is that a "theory" in science is an idea that has so much experimental support that it is likely to be correct.
不知道哪位cfcer认为进化论是真理。它只是一个科学理论，而不是某些人非要说的它是宗教信仰。这是本楼的更根本分歧。那些质疑进化论的科学家们，是由于进化论是迷信而质疑吗？那些支持进化论的科学家们把进化论作为他们的宗教信仰，醒世名言每天(or星期天)去查经膜拜了吗？
难怪你是俺在CFC上的偶像，接受你的意见。俺这句话“cfcer认为进化论是真理” 言重了。不理CFCers怎么想了。俺继续找反对进化论的科学家 :lookaroun
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,768
- 荣誉分数
- 23,534
- 声望点数
- 1,373
:blowzy::blowzy::blowzy:鸭子指的是这段？如果是的话，俺100％赞同它。如果有兴趣我们可以将黑色字体部分应用到进化论上，看看根据它，进化论应该算什么？
Theory vs Hypothesis:
The method of science is to observe a series of events or phenomena and then, considering the concepts of that particular branch of science (and sometimes rejecting those concepts), to formulate an idea about the how and why. An idea like this is called a hypothesis--an educated guess. The word "theory," however, is used differently in science than it is in popular speech. In popular language, theory and hypothesis have the same meaning and are treated as synonyms. A "theory" in science, however, is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests. A "theory" in science is a very elevated notion. A theory is an idea that has a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. I'm sure you've all felt the consequences of the Theory of Gravity when you trip and fall. Yet we call Gravity a "theory" rather than a "fact" because there are no absolutes in scientific understanding. Although gravity is "only a theory," no one I know would doubt its validity enough to walk off a bridge to test it. Theories are always subject to the test of time, and most accepted theories prove in the long run to be correct but not complete, for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's. Newton's theory of gravity was not wrong, it was just incomplete. Einstein's theory of gravity is more general and incorporates Newton's. So the bottom line is that a "theory" in science is an idea that has so much experimental support that it is likely to be correct.
难怪你是俺在CFC上的偶像，接受你的意见。俺这句话“cfcer认为进化论是真理” 言重了。不理CFCers怎么想了。俺继续找反对进化论的科学家 :lookaroun
反对、质疑进化论都不是问题。问题是要提出一个比进化论合理的“科学”理论能够更好的描述世界的起源，而不是一个“上帝创造的”了事儿。有没有反对进化论而又能提出非宗教性新理论地科学家？那个Anti-Darwin Theory的Jerry Bergman的" Creative Evolution"算一个吗？可他还是有Evolution在他的理论里啊。
偶脚得，对生命科学来说，人们的终极目标是想”成为上帝“，人工创造灵魂、生命。
- 注册
- 2012-03-04
- 消息
- 1,347
- 荣誉分数
- 124
- 声望点数
- 223
:blowzy::blowzy::blowzy:
反对、质疑进化论都不是问题。问题是要提出一个比进化论合理的“科学”理论能够更好的描述世界的起源，而不是一个“上帝创造的”了事儿。有没有反对进化论而又能提出非宗教性新理论地科学家？那个Anti-Darwin Theory的Jerry Bergman的" Creative Evolution"算一个吗？可他还是有Evolution在他的理论里啊。
偶脚得，对生命科学来说，人们的终极目标是想”成为上帝“，人工创造灵魂、生命。
逻辑上进化论跟创造论是互为独立的，证明进化论不成立 不等于创造论成立；证明神创造论不成立也不等于进化论成立。除了一方成立另一方必然不成立以外，这是完全两码事。（－－这里阿Q虚伪了一下，如果进化论不成立，99％的人都会想到创造论就成立了
。这是符合常理的非严谨逻辑）所以，俺对形形色色的创造论一点不感冒，一个进化论都搞不懂，还搞那么多别的 :flaming: 俺只对给进化论挑刺感兴趣。对于“Creative Evolution”，有没有evolution并不重要，真正的科学家是不能承认一点点“Creative”的，如果不能保持科学的“纯洁性”，整个就乱套了。。。开了一个小口，底线就守不住了
那么给科学家（包括CFCers）的挑战是：
1、不能因为没有找到更好的替代理论而影响对进化论的批判或辩护，就事论事。找不到至少可以承认目前科学不能解释人类起源
前面的几个质疑进化论的诺贝尔奖科学家就至少有两个无神论啊！2、不能因为反对进化论的大多数是有宗教信仰的，就否认他们提交的证据的价值，科学需要实事求是啊
3、不能将证明创造论不成立或者不可证明，作为进化论成立的依据
terry890
知名会员
- 注册
- 2004-08-20
- 消息
- 1,069
- 荣誉分数
- 119
- 声望点数
- 173
Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_Benedict_XVI
