non religious opposition to darwinism

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
shadow

Moulton, UK

#1 Nov 5, 2011
Since Darwin wrote his book, many people have challenged his theory. Now this does not mean these scientsts resorted to supporting religious creationism. What they realised was, was that Darwins theory of evolution was either completey flawed, wrong, incomplete etc, evolution is not in question to these scientists but the process or mechanism which brought about the evolution is in question - And has actually never been solved!, there is still a huge debate amongst scientists today for example, did evolution occur gradually or by leaps? What are the mechanisms of evolution? Many evolutionists do not agree with eachother!. These scientists have all put forward there own evolutionary theories opposed to Darwin.

None of these scientists are creationists, None of them are religious in any shape or form. Most are agnostics and atheists. And yes they oppose Darwins theory of evolution!

Pierre- Paul Grasse

Pierre-Paul Grasse a French zoologist has criticised much of Darwin's theory. Grasse instead supported neo-lamarckism. You can read about his views in his book: Evolution of Living Organisms.

Soren Lovtrup

Scientists Soren Lovtrup, has completey shattered many of Darwins claims. Lovtrup put forward the theory of macromutation as opposed to Darwins theory. You can read about Lovtrup's theory in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth.

See his publications:

• Studies on amphibian embryo genesis (Copenhagen, 1953, dissertation)
• Morphogenesis in the amphibian embryo: gastrulation and neurulation, Gothoburgensia Zoologica, 1 (Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell 1965)
• Epigenetics : A treatise on theoretical biology (London Wiley 1974)
• The phylogeny of vertebrata (London Wiley 1977)
• Darwinism : The refutation of a myth (London Croom Helm 1987)

Also see:

Richard Goldschmidt - The material basis of evolution. Completey debunks Darwins theory of gradual evolution - and claims evolution has occured in leaps.(See salationism)

Mathematics debunking Darwins theory

Marcel-Paul "Marco" Schützenberger and many other mathematicians have debunked Darwins theory based on mathematic calculations. This was published in the book Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution by Moorhead.

Sir Fred Hoyle also debunked many of Darwins claims in his book Mathematics of Evolution.

Independent Birth of Organisms

Periannan Senapathy a microbiologist and genetics researcher has debunked Darwins claims. According to Dr. Senapathy all organisms on earth arrived from a "primordial soup/s". You can read about his research in his book Independent Birth of Organisms.

An amazing book, Senapathy is opposed to both evolution and creation and claims that every organism on earth came from a primordial soup/s independently!

Christian Schwabe a biochemist has also opposed evolution with his theory of independent origins of organisms he has written about his theory in his book called The Genomic Potential Hypothesis.

Richard Milton and other Science Journalists

Three science researchers, Richard Milton, Francis Hitching and Gordon Rattray Taylor (all three of them evolutionists with no religion) have debunked darwins theories.

See:

Richard Milton - Shattering the myths of Darwinism
Francis Hitching - The neck of the Giraffe what Darwin got wrong
Gordon Rattray Taylor - The great evolution mystery

All three of them have offered evidence for neo-lamarckism and other evolutionary theories as opposed to Darwin.

Evolution completey opposed to Darwin

Lev Berg a leading biologist and ichthyologist devoloped his own evolutionary theory completey opposed to Darwins:

Berg called his theory Nomogenesis:

Berg's theory of nomogenesis combined arguments from paleontology, zoology and botany to claim that evolution is not a random process.

Darwin debunked by a Lawyer

Norman Macbeth a lawyer completey debunked Darwins theories in his books:

Darwin Retried and Darwinism: A time for funerals
shadow

Moulton, UK

#2 Nov 5, 2011
Scientists against Natural selection?

Scientists have spoken out against natural selection, see:

Beyond Natural Selection - Robert Wesson
Darwin's blind spot: Evolution beyond natural selection - Frank Ryan

According to scientist Lima-de-Faria evolution occurs without any type of natural selection:

See his book Evolution Without Selection.

Also see:

Evolution theory: The Unfinished synthesis by Robert G. B Reid
and his book Biological Emergences.

Both books completey debunk many of the claims of natural selection.

Evolution from space?

Scientists such as Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe have claimed that evolution is driven from space, that genetic novelty is driven due to comets etc landing on earth. See there book Evolution from space. Completey debunks darwins theory.

Biologists against Darwins theory?

Many biologists doubt darwins theory of evolution. One example is Development and evolution: Complexity and change in Biology - by Stanley Salthe who puts forward a completey non-darwinian evolutionary theory.

Non-religious intelligent design?

David Swift - Evolution Under the microscope. Swift is perhaps one of the only non-religious intelligent design proponents. His book completey debunks macroevolution.

Mark Ludwig - Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and Evolution: The Little Black Book of Computer Viruses argued for Intelligent design, Ludwig is not religious.
shadow

Moulton, UK

#3 Nov 5, 2011
Atheist philosophers challenging Darwins theory?

See What Darwin Got wrong - Jerry Fordor and Piattelli-Palmarini, written by two atheists who have refuted many of Darwins claims on natural selection.

Darwinism the fairytale

If you want to read about Darwinism the fairytale, see David Stove. Darwinian Fairytales, he has completey debunked Darwinism, David Stove is an agnostic, not religious! And certainly not a creationist!

Lamarck Correct? Darwin wrong!

Modern day research may have proven Lamarcks claims, as opposed to Darwins. Can acquired characteristics be inherited? Scientist Edward Steele says so!

See:

Lamarck's Evolution: Two Centuries of Genius and Jealousy by Ross Honeywill

Lamarck's Signature : How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm by Edward J. S, Robyn A. Lindley and Robert V. Blanden

Against gradualism

James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force, against the Central Dogma, for rapid change (HGT, symbiosis, whole genome duplication, hybridization, natural genetic engineering) and for adaptive mutation.

Symbiosis

The most recent book of Lynn Margulis (2002) Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species.

Complete Non-religious Anti-Darwinism

See the work of the scientist Michael Denton. His book Evolution a theory in Crisis and his book Natures Destiny. Denton is an evolutionist, but a non-Darwinian evolutionist.

Darwin is under attack!

See the work of Brian Goodwin who has criticised Neo-Darwinism, reductionism and the gene centred view of evolution.

"Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that
Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:
it can explain the variations and the adaptations within
species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different
habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of
organism that are the foundation of biological classification
systems seem to require a principle other than natural
selection operating on small variations, some process that
gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is
the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of
novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary
interest in biology." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The
Evolution of Complexity," 1994
shadow

Moulton, UK

#4 Nov 5, 2011
Graeme Donald Snooks

See his book: The Collapse of Darwinism : Or The Rise of a Realist Theory of Life

Rhawn Joseph

Rhawn Joseph an atheist has claimed Darwins theory is a religious theory. Dr. Joseph has written the book Astrobiology, the Origin of Life, and the Death of Darwinism in which he gives evidence for panspermia, life coming to earth from other planets, non-Darwinian evolution, and shatters the fairytale of abiogenesis and gives evidence for an eternal cosmos.

James Le Fanu

James Le Fanu a physician and popular science writer has criticised Darwins theory of evolution, Fanu is not religious.

According to Le Fanu: "Darwinism is the foundational theory of all atheistic, scientific and materialist doctrines and of the notion that everything is ultimately explicable and that there is nothing special about it – the self-denigration and self-hatred, the great ‘nothing but’ story.

He has authored the book Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves which debunks Darwins theories.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#5 Nov 5, 2011
So... despite the fact that none of these have published any scientific peer-reviewed papers that have falsified evolution (of which popular books are not), and despite the fact that many here are do not even have the correct qualifications to critique evolution, and perhaps most importantly, despite the fact that many of these people you've referenced CONTRADICT each other, all this means evolution has been falsified?

Well, at least we agree on something - evolution is a falsifiable concept!

:-D
shadow

Moulton, UK

#6 Nov 5, 2011
""""" ""So... despite the fact that none of these have published any scientific peer-reviewed papers that have falsified evolution.""" ""

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! DID YOU JUST SAY THAT¬!!!"!!!

-------WHY WOULD THEY PUBLISH SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED PAPERS TRYING TO FALSIFY EVOLUTION, WHEN ALL OF THE ABOVE SCIENTISTS ARE FIRM EVOLUTIONISTS? PLEASE STOP EQUATING DARWIN WITH EVOLUTION. NON-DARWINAN EVOLUTION EXISTS.---------

the dude above obviously does not read peoples posts, the list of scientists have challenged darwins mechanisms for evolution - ie natural selection, and the random mutations of neodarwinism, not challenging evolution itself, every scientist on that list believes in evolution, please.... please stop equating darwin with evolution. Evolution has happened - it's the mechanisms which is up for debate. natural selection is a metaphysical fairytale.

"fact that none of these have published any scientific peer-reviewed papers" acting like a charlatan now.

please see the papers published in nature from:

Periannan Senapathy

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/v...

Soren Lovtrup, and Goldsmitcht also published many peer reviewed papers modeling macroevolutionary mechanisms. look on google scholar.

lev Berg theory of Nomogenesis was peer reviewed by j bs haldane and c h waddington.

Edward Steele - many of his publications on genetics have been peer reviewed. look on google scholar.

Rhawn Joseph has been published in the journal of astrobiology and the journal of cosmology.

you don't know who Lynn Margulis is?

-------NON DARWINIAN EVOLUTION----------

Non-Darwinian Evolution

Paper Title: Darwinism Design and Purpose: A European Perspective Author: Jean Staune - A paper on Non-Darwinian evolution

www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/staune.p...

It could be very surprising and interesting for an American audience to discover that
there are non-Darwinian scientists who claim they support evolution more strongly than Darwinians!

According to Goodwin:

"Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears thatDarwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary interest in biology." -Brian Goodwin from his book "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity"

Neo-Darwinism has failed:

"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive changes in organisms)." - Brian Goodwin "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory" The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#7 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
""""" ""So... despite the fact that none of these have published any scientific peer-reviewed papers that have falsified evolution.""" ""
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! DID YOU JUST SAY THAT¬!!!"!!!
-------WHY WOULD THEY PUBLISH SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED PAPERS TRYING TO FALSIFY EVOLUTION, WHEN ALL OF THE ABOVE SCIENTISTS ARE FIRM EVOLUTIONISTS? PLEASE STOP EQUATING DARWIN WITH EVOLUTION. NON-DARWINAN EVOLUTION EXISTS.---------
the dude above obviously does not read peoples posts, the list of scientists have challenged darwins mechanisms for evolution - ie natural selection, and the random mutations of neodarwinism, not challenging evolution itself, every scientist on that list believes in evolution, please.... please stop equating darwin with evolution. Evolution has happened - it's the mechanisms which is up for debate. natural selection is a metaphysical fairytale.
"fact that none of these have published any scientific peer-reviewed papers" acting like a charlatan now.
please see the papers published in nature from:
Periannan Senapathy
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/v...
And his work is contested by other scientists. However you need to bear in mind that evolution itself is not disputed, something which you yourself DO dispute. The difference is, you dispute it out of ignorance, hence your long-winded appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) for the sake of pretending you have scientists on "your side".
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#8 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5384/v...
Soren Lovtrup, and Goldsmitcht also published many peer reviewed papers modeling macroevolutionary mechanisms. look on google scholar.
lev Berg theory of Nomogenesis was peer reviewed by j bs haldane and c h waddington.
Edward Steele - many of his publications on genetics have been peer reviewed. look on google scholar.
Rhawn Joseph has been published in the journal of astrobiology and the journal of cosmology.
you don't know who Lynn Margulis is?
Yes, she's an evolutionary biologist. The other problem here is that many of these people are debating over the mechanisms by which evolution works. They are not disputing that evolution works. For example, Darwin knew nothing of genetics as that didn't come about until 75 years later, so was unable to propose genetic drift as another mechanism for example. As new knowledge comes in, the theory adapts and takes into account this knowledge, hence the Modern Synthesis also incorporates genetics and PE into the mix as part of the whole.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#9 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
-------NON DARWINIAN EVOLUTION----------
Non-Darwinian Evolution
Paper Title: Darwinism Design and Purpose: A European Perspective Author: Jean Staune - A paper on Non-Darwinian evolution
www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/staune.p...
Not a scientist, but a philosopher of science. Also, it's difficult for me to tell as I can't speak French, but it is possible he's fond of creationist apologetics. But he sure has some kinda philosophical need for "purpose" in life.

But as they say, philosophy in science is about as useful as ornithology to birds.

Your linky didn't work by the way, but if we take a looky here:

http://www.metanexus.net/about-metanexus-inst...

It's clear this site has nothing at all whatsoever to do with scientific peer-review, and is more interested in philosophical mental masturbation.

Your disengenuousness is again noted.
shadow wrote:
It could be very surprising and interesting for an American audience to discover that
there are non-Darwinian scientists who claim they support evolution more strongly than Darwinians!
According to Goodwin:
"Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears thatDarwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary interest in biology." -Brian Goodwin from his book "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity"
Neo-Darwinism has failed:
"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive changes in organisms)." - Brian Goodwin "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory" The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995
Uhuh, sounds like genetic drift to me.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#10 Nov 5, 2011
And now that you've helpfully weeded down the biological concerns of evolution, let's point out how else you were being disingenuous:

You were quite happy to promote anyone in order to bolster your (lack of) case, even though they weren't qualified, from mathematicians

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T0P...

to philosophers, to computer dudes, to laywers, even to cosmologists like Hoyle. And the thing with Hoyle is apart from not being qualified in the correct field (as I already pointed out) his beef was with abiogenesis, which the theory of evolution does not rely on (which I have to point out often). Then we have David Swift:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/citiz...

who is apparently not taken seriously by the biology community either. Meanwhile most of the rest of your boys are at least 100 years out of date.

Perhaps one day the evidence will come through that may vindicate one or more of the people on your list of lists, but until then, we're just stuck with your desperate appeal to authority.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#11 Nov 5, 2011
And NOTHING that "shadow" has posted supports the following:

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word".

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

An little bunny brings eggs to good boys and girls on Easter morning.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

A jolly elf brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas morning.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living 600+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A fairy brings money to good boys and girls when they loose a tooth.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Pi = 3.

Insects have 4 legs.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..

.
.
.

Why is that?
shadow

Moulton, UK

#12 Nov 5, 2011
users please ignore MIDutch, he already admits in another thread he is a roman catholic, he believes in the christian god, and he now has "buddhist leanings" he clearly is upset by the non religious scientists in this thread challenging his theistic ideas about evolution.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#13 Nov 5, 2011
shadow wrote:
users please ignore MIDutch, he already admits in another thread he is a roman catholic, he believes in the christian god, and he now has "buddhist leanings" he clearly is upset by the non religious scientists in this thread challenging his theistic ideas about evolution.
Please ignore shadow, apart from claiming science doesn't exist unless it's by people he likes, he seems to think that people's theological leanings are somehow relevant to the validity of science, therefore "Darwinism" is wrong no matter what.

Hypocrite.
shadow

Moulton, UK

#14 Nov 5, 2011
"However you need to bear in mind that evolution itself is not disputed, something which you yourself DO dispute"

there you go making stuff up again. I do not dispute evolution. We have observed aquired characteristics in the lab, and evolution from space (see hoyle 1981 for example).

As soon as somebody says they do not believe in darwins theory of natural selection, suddenly you equate that person as a creationist? Stephen Gould challenged the gradualistic theory of darwinism, I guess he was a secret creationist aswell then according to your logic? And karl popper a notable atheist philosopher called natural selection a "metaphysical research programme" I guess he was a creationist to according to you? crazy.

you you believe everything you read in a mainstream textbook... think for yaself.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#15 Nov 6, 2011
shadow wrote:
"However you need to bear in mind that evolution itself is not disputed, something which you yourself DO dispute"
there you go making stuff up again. I do not dispute evolution.
Uh, check your silly flying clown thread. You're not a creationist, but a crank who DOES dispute evolution, using a combination of creationist arguments and new-age woo-woo. Just because you have your own bizarre misunderstood, freaky, flawed version of evolution does not mean you accept evolution. It merely means you are easily impressed by snake-oil salesmen and fellow cranks.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#16 Nov 6, 2011
shadow wrote:
users please ignore MIDutch, he already admits in another thread he is a roman catholic, he believes in the christian god, and he now has "buddhist leanings" he clearly is upset by the non religious scientists in this thread challenging his theistic ideas about evolution.
users, please ignore "shadow", it's not like he says anything worthwhile.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#17 Nov 6, 2011
shadow wrote:
there you go making stuff up again. I do not dispute evolution. We have observed aquired characteristics in the lab, and evolution from space (see hoyle 1981 for example).
How do new species come about? Is every variation of species a result of viruses from space?
Shadow

Moulton, UK

#18 Nov 9, 2011
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
How do new species come about? Is every variation of species a result of viruses from space?
Discord name me a book on evolution that you like, and I will answer that question.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#19 Nov 9, 2011
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Discord name me a book on evolution that you like, and I will answer that question.
Hillis, David M., et al.'Principles of Life', Barmes amd Noble, 2010.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Nov 10, 2011
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Discord name me a book on evolution that you like, and I will answer that question.
Growth in an individual is not evolution.

I wouldn't trust you to answer a telephone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Chimney1 18,828
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Chimney1 161,685
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 12 min Denisova 1,606
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 30 min Denisova 2
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 50 min Denisova 178,596
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr lozzza 13,689
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 19 hr Chimney1 14
More from around the web