https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/online_sadhu_sanga/0UAN-0Gpr4o/Qndwndi8CwAJ Re: [Sadhu Sanga] One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 3:04 PM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Message body - Bhakti Niskama Shanta on April 23, 2017 wrote: >If we are following the same process that modern science follows > then there is a valid scientific reason behind the evidence based >refutation of evolution theory. [S.P.] Fighting "Darwinian theory of evolution" is the same as to fight windmills. So, for the second time on this forum I suggest to call a spade a spade. The irony is that what we call a "Darwinian theory of evolution", it IS NOT a theory -- it is just a hypothesis -- a result of generalization and systematization of observational data. So, let us practice in calling a spade a spade: 1) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis. Why? Because it is based on a certain amount of carefully collected and recorded observational data. 2) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution is not a theory. Why? Because it has no explanatory and predictive power. 3) Darwinian hypothesis of biological evolution may continue to be studied at schools and universities, however not as a theory, but as a hypothesis and together with other valid scientific hypotheses UNTILL a true theory of evolution is adopted by scientific community. With respect, Serge Patlavskiy From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] One can be a Scientific Skeptic of Evolution Theory Dear Dr. Ádám Kun Namaskar. It is a common practice in modern science where based on evidence many presumed concepts are replaced by new concepts. If we are following the same process that modern science follows then there is a valid scientific reason behind the evidence based refutation of evolution theory. If microevolution constitutes most of the evolution theory then there should not be a problem for any scientist to accept the same. As you have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which disprove macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith based opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up. What is the scientific justification for the rigid stand to presume evolution as the cause of origin of life and biodiversity? We cannot accept certain presumption as scientific just because there are many scientists who believe that presumption. Scientific conclusions are not accepted on the basis of majority voting. Accepting truth on the basis of consensus is not science. Scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution have realized the unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the world. This realization is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth, the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution are trying to explore what are the other possible ways that evolution might have happened. These scientists have also not provided any credible evidence that demonstrates the mechanism for macroevolution. One can believe different things but just a mere belief is not science. In science we have to support our presumptions with the valid scientific evidence. We agree with you that learning is a process [of overcoming the ignorance] and scientifically questioning “evolution theory” is also a part of that process. We have not told that we should abandon science and scientifically questioning evolution theory is not equal to the process of abandonment of science because science does not mean “evolution theory”. You have written “I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?” Teaching of evolution theory is actually a great disservice to the human civilization. Evolution theory tries to cultivate a materialistic attitude in society, where individuals try to find themselves in a position of superiority, which would allow them to exploit and oppress nature. If someone feels the urge to exploit or oppress other human beings then evolution theory justifies that urge. Accordingly to evolution theory the mood of exploitation and oppression is the natural instinct of every individual which is established by millions of years of evolution. If that is true then why there is a judiciary system in our society to discipline these bad urges. Evolution theory propagates many such delusions that are utterly against our true spiritual nature (consciousness) and thus is an extremely harmful unscientific concept. We have explained many times on this forum that a genuine scientist follows the evidence wherever it may lead. One of the works of our institute is to inculcate this type of genuine scientific attitude in our society for the betterment of humanity. Thanking you. Sincerely, Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute +91-(9748906907) Donate www.scsiscs.org #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India On Sunday, 23 April 2017 2:44 AM, Kun Ádám wrote: Dear All, We are back to bashing evolution for no apparent reason. Good that you agree that microevolution happens. So we cleared most of evolutionary theory. It is not easy to do experiments on macroevolution. It is called macroevolution for a reason, and usually takes quite some time. Definitely more than the length of the average grant. The fossil record on the other hand is full of examples of great changes. Why not accept that? As for practicing scientist not believing in evolution. Please show me a BIOLOGIST who do not believe in evolution. It is rather cheap to say that one does not believe in something another branch of science do. Furthermore, please do not cite the "third way" people. They are firm supporters of evolution. They have issues - and they are actually right - with the world view of the modern synthesis. The modern evolutionary synthesis was mostly done in the '20'and '30 (as 2020 is fast approaching, I also add that this 1920) and was mostly organized in the '40. Biology advanced in the past decades which calls for updates to the theory. It is not called the EXTENDED evolutionary synthesis. It is for example, accommodates the view that mutations are not entirely random, in fact they can be very non-random. Learning is a process. We should not abandon science because it did not answered all our questions in an instant. It does take time to get these answers. I kept on asking what is your problem with evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does evolution interfere with your faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses? best wishes, Ádám