- where are the evidences
- phylogenic tree based on DNA sampling
- fossils in museums
- Darwin has an elitist or racist agenda
- the theory of evolution is not the sole work of Darwin, it was started before him and continued after him, consequently the theory can not be attributed entirely to him and his moral views should not be mistaken with the theory itself
- in addition, his moral or ethical views, are questionable as they can appear to anybody today, are not what the previously mentionned evidences should be discarded for, i.e. facts are facts even if they are formulated by someone one dislikes.
- see
- evolution is morally wrong
- this is not the role of biology to discuss morality or ethics, the interpretation of the theory and its social consequences are in politics, not biology
- see
- people did horrible things in following the principle of evolution
- it is the dutty of anybody interested in understanding the subject to study it properly in order to understand the meaning exposed, misinterpretation can be attributed to the poor quality of explanations provided, a lack of pedagogical investment from researcher but it does not undermine the solidity of the theory
- see
- people did improve their society thanks to religion, teaching evolution is undermining that
- that would require to show than the improvements made thanks to religion are actually greater than if religion had not been followed, i.e. if religion made us progress at a certain pace, we might have progressed much faster without
- see
- they are evidences against it
- no evidence so far has been accepted by the biology community against it, that would probably be the top story of top peer reviewed journals like Nature or Science, it has not been the case so far
- see
- there were numerous scientific frauds during the establishment of the theory
- a false evidence is not a counter-evidence, no false evidence automatically falsify the premisses
- see
- science is this or that
- evolution is a theory in the field of biology, science is not limited to biology and thus the three words can not be exchanged freely
- science is undermining the positive impact on religion in our society
- science aims is not a moral or ethical one, solely an explanatory one, deductions and actions resulting in the understanding of theories can not be morally bounded to the scientific process itself
- see
- science is just a form of religion
- a religion is the belief in supernatural force(s), science is the process of explaning natural laws, consequently science is not a religion
- people should be presented with the controversy
- there is currently no controversy in biology regarding the existance of the evolutionary process and its central role regarding the transformation of organisms, the only debates in the field are related to details on the precise dynamics of the process
- see
- science classed are not philosophy, ethics or classes on religions, science classes have by definition the role of teaching the current theories accepted by the scientific community
- see
- you can not prove there is no God
- a proof would require a clear definition of the concept of "God" and then the ability to test if the phenomenum leaves any kind of traces (i.e. produce repeatable measurements), hitherto this has never been the case. Yet, not being able to prove that something does not exist does not imply it exists.
- see
- science can be wrong, it has been wrong before, therefor we can claim that God exists
- science, unlike religion, does not claim to provide a definitive answer in any field it explores, every work in science is subject to constant questionning from new techniques and new paradigms. The fact that science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future does not allow any concept to be claim as scientifically valid.
- see
- but why are some people religiousin the first place?
- The need for religion, whatever religion, comes from a need of safety and simplicity, even if it comes from a concept. Scientific researchers have the very same need of being reinsured, they work as hard as they can on a very specific model within which they feel safer. Overall modeling ones own environment is a survival instinct. Yet, authority can often hijack this need, like any other, and leverage it to gain more power.
- see also early cosmology
- religion is stronger, it has the sacred texts to rely on
- this is indeed a fundamental epistemological difference even if both have a set of explicit rules used to maintain the coherence of the community
- yet science updates its result and its methods
- whereas religion has an explicit aim of not updating its rules and of not allowing members and non members to question those rules
- consequently science is epistemologically open ended, an active learning process, while religion is epistemological hermetic
Viewpoint
Defending evolution. As silly or out of topic the questions on the page might look, they are there present they were used at least once during a similar debate.
To do
Fabien Benetou's PIM
