No real problems here.I am fascinated by the discussion on evolution, especially between SK Wong (Muddling and mangling neo-Darwinism) and Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib (Darwinism heading towards oblivion).
As one who is trained in mathematical research, I know that a theory must begin with some assumptions that are not subject to proof. Changing these assumptions will yield different conclusions. For example, the assumptions of Euclidean (or Newtonian) geometry yield "flat" space. This was the prevailing notion of the universe until Einstein used different assumptions and derived a "curved" space-time.
Similarly, a scientific theory starts with some assumptions (often framed in mathematical terms) which are not capable of direct proof. No theory can come out of zero assumptions. The crucial difference between mathematics and science is that mathematicians are happy to study and allow various competing "theoretical" models to flourish in their minds whereas scientists must view each theory through the lens of reality to determine which accords with the real world.
Considering that most of these 'assumptions' are beyond the realm of understanding of the average layperson, who else better to decide on this than scientists? Take for example the assumption of special relativity that the speed of light is constant. This might sound simple, but would a layperson be in a position to judge between this postulate compared with that of, say, the (now-discredited) theory of the luminiferous ether from the evidence of interferometric experiments (does the average layperson even know what interferometry is?)?
Deciding which scientific theory to accept or reject should be straightforward. It should be purely a matter of whether the observations agree with the conclusions. Unfortunately scientists in the scientific establishment have taken upon themselves to decide which assumptions are permissible and which are not (ie, "non-scientific").
Science is not religious or anti-religious. Science is areligious, so it neither requires the existence of God nor the non-existence of God to function. This is a fallacy often made by religious fundamentalists: if there is no mention of religion in something (be it a novel, music or art), then it must be anti-religious. Is it better then for a doctor to assume that God exists, and God will heal his patients? Or to assume that God doesn't exist, thus he must do all with his knowledge to heal his patients?In the matter of the origin of the universe (and the development of living organisms), some scientists have succumbed to their own religious (or, rather, anti-religious) preferences by tacitly incorporating an assumption (unprovable) that there is no intelligent designer (or God).
This is a nonsensical statement. The theories of relativity depend on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, which has been verified experimentally thousands of times. Electromagnetic theory assumes that there are no such thing as magnetic monopoles, and to-date no magnetic monopoles have been observed. Scientists oppose ID because ID is NOT science: it is not falsifiable...something can be said to be scientific only if there is some finding or experiment which would destroy it. ID is not falsifiable in this way, as it is dependent on the fact that some biological findings are currently unexplainable; but when theories arise which can explain these findings, ID would just move on to other findings which are currently unexplainable.With their postmodern bias of unbelief, such scientists have ceased to be open enquirers of the truth. They oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design Theory, proclaiming it to be non-scientific and unverifiable. Surely, science should be verifying whether the conclusions of the theory fit the facts. You don’t try to verify the postulates directly.
In any case, calls to 'teach the controversy' are out of place, as a quick survey of the SPM (i.e. Malaysian high school) science syllabus reveals this: the latest discoveries in physics covered was the 1912 Bohr model of the atom; for chemistry, most of the topics discussed were well-known by the early part of the 20th century as well; while the biology syllabus includes some material about the structure of the DNA and genetics which were well-established by the 1960s. In other words, there should be no controversies being taught to secondary school students, only well-established knowledge. In any case, if something which is as non-scientific as ID is to be taught in science classes, then should Darwin's theories be taught in madrasah's and church sunday schools as well?
Nuclear particles are in direct consequence of findings in chemistry and physics, and is directly verifiable by experiments even though it cannot be perceived by the human eye. Indeed, large swathes of modern technology cannot exist without the assumption of that nuclear particles exist. Science has moved beyond the realm of direct human sensation since the Renaissance, perhaps the writer should move beyond it as well.Has anyone actually seen a postulated nuclear particle with his own eyes? Is it a round ball? Yet these occasionally squeamish scientists insist that we cannot postulate an "Intelligent Designer". They’ll probably demand that this postulated Designer appear in front of them but even then; they may still claim it’s an illusion!
Apart from perception, there are other things which must be established in order for something to conform to reality. As alluded in my reply, one of these is that it must be able to influence, and be influenced by other parts of reality. Thus, if God appeared before my eyes and struck me with lightning, I would be forced to either accept His existence or question my own sanity.
This is because there are NO fundamental distinctions which are not arbitrary. Few people would doubt that dogs are domesticated from wolves, but nevertheless at this point in time they are generally regarded as distinct species, and are generally incapable of inter-breeding. Mendel is indeed regarded as the father of modern genetics, however he lived in the late-19th centuries, decades before the discoveries of DNA and modern molecular biology. Your rejection of the link man and primates betrays that your concerns with evolutionary theory is not of a scientific nature, but is thoroughly religious.In accordance with Charles Darwin, establishment scientists see no fundamental distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. The former is disputed by many scientists though the latter is accepted by most. Gregor Mendel, known as the "father of modern genetics", rejected macro-evolution. I’m not discounting all of evolutionary theory but specifically macro-evolution including that which links man to the primates.
Doubts in established theories occur all the time, however large numbers of extremely major problems need to be established before the theory is in serious trouble. In spite of all these so-called 'counter-arguments', they have not been well-established to an extent to convince biologists that evolution is in doubt. In any case, it's a misconception to regard evolution as something set in stone; it is in fact constantly changing to take into account new discoveries and information.Many counter-arguments to macro-evolution have been developed by various scientists, for example those based on observations indicating a loss of genetic information rather than greater diversity. A recent discovery of a cell’s ability to recover correct genetic information despite parents with flawed genes also casts doubts on evolution theory.
Macro-evolution is as by far the best explanation for observed phenomena in biology, even though it might not be perfect in its details. That is the normal state of scientific theories, which seek to attain the best description of nature through the scientific method. Anyone who lay claims to absolute truth is not talking about science. Scientists do not attempt to bar discussions on God or the spirit realm in philosophy, theology or religious classes; they do not belong in science classes simply because they are not, by definition, science.Scientists are presumed to be open-minded yet though macro-evolution is still unsubstantiated they pronounce it as the established truth and presume to bar all teaching of alternative theories from the classroom. This is not free enquiry but an imposition of their postmodern ethos that there is no God, no spirit realm, and only the material world exists.
They discount, a priori, any possibility that a spiritual being can manifest itself through empirically verifiable activities in the material realm. Some people testify to being healed of terminal cancers; their doctors have no explanation, and yet the scientists, under an a priori assumption that there is no God, excludes the possibility of miracles (either an accelerated operation of the scientific laws or their suspension).
A scientist would not discount the possibility of miracles occurring, just that there is no way to systematically study such phenomena to establish it in a scientific manner (or rather, all such attempts have failed). Rather, the burden is on the believers of miracles to prove that the occurence of miracles are beyond the realms of probability and statistics.
See earlier discussion on the falsifiability of scientific postulates. The burden is on the writer and others of his ilk to prove their beliefs in a scientific manner, not on scientists to disprove them.A good scientist must be open-minded, open to every possibility. In the evaluation of the theories of intelligent design vs. macro-evolution, postmodern scientists have, by and large, failed this test. Indeed, by stipulating what can be a scientific assumption and what cannot be one, they are playing God.
As one who believes that the universe is not an accident (the probabilities weigh against it), I believe it is a matter of time before macro-evolution will be nailed down in the coffin by an ever-increasing preponderance of evidences now trickling in. Some might prefer to wait all night for the sun to rise but do we have that much time before we believe?
