Post by Derdadort on Jul 21, 2013 17:54:08 GMT 5
Critics of the theory of evolution are often Creationists or supporters of the more neutral Intelligent Design. So I wondered if there are any other (serious) critiques. The theory of evolution is generally accepted and it would be hard or maybe impossible to disprove it completely. Otherwise this would be a kind of scientific revolution and nothing I would refuse if it's proven (but this is so unlikely, I doubt it will happen some day).
Well, I havn't found very much so far. Beside a divine creation there are such things like palaeo-SETI, which claims that mankind was created by some extraterrestrial being. The most time it's in fact only an interpretation of mythological stories and there isn't any serious evidence. Furthermore it's only an alternative for human evolution and not for evolution in general.
Today I found a website, which supports the so called involution1. The author(s) of the website disagree with (young earth-)Creationism and "Darwinism". Their perception is greatly based on orientel (especially Indian) mythology and the so called "ancient teachings". They refuse the "materialistic" views of life and assert that we live in a "multidimensional universe". Humans should be in fact spiritual beings and not materialistic ones like the Darwinism claims. The authors' worldview is in my opinion a special kind of Creationism with esoteric elements (okay, I should mention they're distancing themselves from this term...) like "ethereal bodies" and the spiritual nature of humans and animals. There are also some sections, which support Catastrophism and Animism (they assert that minerals are also lifeforms).
science-of-involution.org/index.html
(There is a German and an English version of the website, but the English one isn't as large as the German)
Irrespective of that it is probably just another kind of Creationism, the section for the critique of "Darwinism" shows lacking knowledge in biology. In addition to that the Sanscrit texts, which are supposed to mention things like the correct age of Earth, the relativity of space and time and the future of our sun, aren't cited anywhere.
To come back to the initial question: is or were there any serious critique of evolution? Serious means, it must among others be able to explain atavism, rudiments, convergence, genetic similarities, and so on.
PS: it's not, because I'm believing evolution is wrong, I'm just interest in alternative explanations.
1) The term has in this case nothing to do with the biological term of involution
Well, I havn't found very much so far. Beside a divine creation there are such things like palaeo-SETI, which claims that mankind was created by some extraterrestrial being. The most time it's in fact only an interpretation of mythological stories and there isn't any serious evidence. Furthermore it's only an alternative for human evolution and not for evolution in general.
Today I found a website, which supports the so called involution1. The author(s) of the website disagree with (young earth-)Creationism and "Darwinism". Their perception is greatly based on orientel (especially Indian) mythology and the so called "ancient teachings". They refuse the "materialistic" views of life and assert that we live in a "multidimensional universe". Humans should be in fact spiritual beings and not materialistic ones like the Darwinism claims. The authors' worldview is in my opinion a special kind of Creationism with esoteric elements (okay, I should mention they're distancing themselves from this term...) like "ethereal bodies" and the spiritual nature of humans and animals. There are also some sections, which support Catastrophism and Animism (they assert that minerals are also lifeforms).
science-of-involution.org/index.html
(There is a German and an English version of the website, but the English one isn't as large as the German)
Irrespective of that it is probably just another kind of Creationism, the section for the critique of "Darwinism" shows lacking knowledge in biology. In addition to that the Sanscrit texts, which are supposed to mention things like the correct age of Earth, the relativity of space and time and the future of our sun, aren't cited anywhere.
To come back to the initial question: is or were there any serious critique of evolution? Serious means, it must among others be able to explain atavism, rudiments, convergence, genetic similarities, and so on.
PS: it's not, because I'm believing evolution is wrong, I'm just interest in alternative explanations.
1) The term has in this case nothing to do with the biological term of involution
