Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Abiogenesis

2012-10-07T14:12:29Z

Romneylover:

''See also:'' [[Origin of Life]]

Abiogenesis (pronounced ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Spontaneous generation
Main article: Spontaneous generation
Belief in the ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century; this was paired with the belief in heterogenesis, i.e. that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers).[2] Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on.[3] In the 17th century, such assumptions started to be questioned. In 1646, Sir Thomas Browne published his Pseudodoxia Epidemica (subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths), which was an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted at the time. His contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."[4]

In 1665, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism. Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who drew and described microorganisms that are now thought to have been protozoa and bacteria.[5] Many felt the existence of microorganisms was evidence in support of spontaneous generation, since microorganisms seemed too simplistic for sexual reproduction, and asexual reproduction through cell division had not yet been observed. van Leeuwenhoek took issue with the ideas common at the time that fleas and lice could spontaneously result from putrefaction, and that frogs could likewise arise from slime. Using a broad range of experiments ranging from sealed and open meat incubation and the close study of insect reproduction, by the 1680s he became convinced that spontaneous generation was incorrect.[6]

The first experimental evidence against spontaneous generation came in 1668 when Francesco Redi proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. It was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg").

In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani demonstrated that microbes were present in the air, and could be killed by boiling. In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments that demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media, but only invade them from outside.

Complex biological molecules and protocells
Sidney W. Fox also experimented with abiogenesis and the primordial soup theory. In one of his experiments, he allowed amino acids to dry out as if puddled in a warm, dry spot in prebiotic conditions. He found that, as they dried, the amino acids formed long, often cross-linked, thread-like, submicroscopic molecules now named "proteinoids".

In another experiment using a similar method to set suitable conditions for life to form, Fox collected volcanic material from a cinder cone in Hawaii. He discovered that the temperature was over 100 °C (212 °F) just 4 inches (100 mm) beneath the surface of the cinder cone, and suggested that this might have been the environment in which life was created—molecules could have formed and then been washed through the loose volcanic ash and into the sea. He placed lumps of lava over amino acids derived from methane, ammonia and water, sterilized all materials, and baked the lava over the amino acids for a few hours in a glass oven. A brown, sticky substance formed over the surface and when the lava was drenched in sterilized water a thick, brown liquid leached out. It turned out that the amino acids had combined to form proteinoids, and the proteinoids had combined to form small, cell-like spheres. Fox called these "microspheres", a name that subsequently was displaced by the more informative term protobionts. His protobionts were not cells, although they formed clumps and chains reminiscent of cyanobacteria. They contained no functional nucleic acids, but split asexually and formed within double membranes that had some attributes suggestive of cell membranes. Professor Colin S. Pittendrigh stated in December 1967 that "laboratories will be creating a living cell within ten years," a remark that reflected the typical contemporary levels of innocence of the complexity of cell structures.[16]

[edit]Early conditions

Main article: Timeline of evolution
The Hadean Earth is thought to have had a secondary atmosphere, formed through degassing of the rocks that accumulated from planetesimal impactors. At first it was thought by scientists like Harold Urey, that the earth's atmosphere was made up of hydrates—methane, ammonia and water vapour, and that life began under such reducing conditions, conducive to the formation of organic molecules. However, it is now thought that the early atmosphere, based on today's volcanic evidence, would have contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulphide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases. As the earth lacks the gravity to hold any hydrogen, this component of the atmosphere was rapidly lost during the Hadean period. Solution of the carbon dioxide in water is thought to have made the seas slightly acid, with a pH of about 5.5.[17]

Morse and MacKenzie have suggested that oceans may have appeared first in the Hadean eon, as soon as two hundred million years (200 Ma) after the Earth was formed, in a hot 100 °C (212 °F) reducing environment, and that the pH of about 5.8 rose rapidly towards neutral.[18] This has been supported by Wilde[19] who has pushed the date of the zircon crystals found in the metamorphosed quartzite of Mount Narryer in Western Australia, previously thought to be 4.1–4.2 Ga, to 4.404 Ga. This means that oceans and continental crust existed within 150 Ma of Earth's formation. Rosing et al.,[20] suggest that between 4.4 and 4.3 Ga, the Earth was a water world, with little if any continental crust, with an extremely turbulent atmosphere and a hydrosphere subject to high uV, from a T Tauri sun and cosmic radiation and continued bolide impact.

As a result, the Hadean environment was one highly hazardous to modern life. Frequent collisions with large objects, up to 500 kilometres (310 mi) in diameter, would have been sufficient to vaporise the ocean within a few months of impact, with hot steam mixed with rock vapour leading to high altitude clouds completely covering the planet. After a few months the height of these clouds would have begun to decrease but the cloud base would still have been elevated for about the next thousand years. After that, it would have begun to rain at low altitude. For another two thousand years rains would slowly have drawn down the height of the clouds, returning the oceans to their original depth only 3,000 years after the impact event.[21]

Between 3.8 and 4.1 Ga, changes in the orbits of the gaseous giant planets may have caused a late heavy bombardment that pockmarked the Moon and the other inner planets (Mercury, Mars, and presumably Earth and Venus). This would likely have sterilized the planet, had life appeared before that time. Geologically the Hadean Earth would have been far more active than at any other time in its history. Studies of meteorites suggests that radioactive elements such as Aluminium-26 with a half-life of 7.17×105, and Potassium-40 with a half-life of 1.250×109 years, isotopes mainly produced in supernovae, were much more common, with the result that the earth was more than 96% more radioactive than it is today. Coupled with internal heating as a result of gravitational sorting between the core and the mantle generated a great deal of mantle convection, with the probable result that there would have been many more smaller very active tectonic plates, than in modern times.

By examining the time interval between such devastating environmental events, the time interval when life might first have come into existence can be found for different early environments. The study by Maher and Stevenson shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4.0 to 4.2 Ga, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the Earth abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3.7 and 4.0 Ga.[22]

Other research suggests a colder start to life. Work by Leslie Orgel and colleagues on the synthesis of purines has shown that freezing temperatures are advantageous, due to the concentrating effect for key precursors such as hydrogen cyanide.[23] Research by Stanley Miller and colleagues suggested that while adenine and guanine require freezing conditions for synthesis, cytosine and uracil may require boiling temperatures.[24] An article in Discover Magazine points to research by the Miller group indicating the formation of seven different amino acids and 11 types of nucleobases in ice when ammonia and cyanide were left in a freezer from 1972–1997.[25][26] This article also describes research by Christof Biebricher showing the formation of RNA molecules 400 bases long under freezing conditions using an RNA template, a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template.[27] The explanation given for the unusual speed of these reactions at such a low temperature is eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often.

Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a ratio of Carbon-13 (13C) to Carbon-12 (12C) of about −5.5 (in units of δ13C), where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[28] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C (572 °F). They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 Ma.[29] The Nobel Prize winning chemist, Christian de Duve, argues that the determination of chemistry means that "life has to emerge quickly... Chemical reactions happen quickly or not at all; if any reaction takes a millennium to complete then the chances are all the reagents will simply dissipate or breakdown in the meantime, unless they are replenished by other faster reactions".[30][31]

[edit]
Current models

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[32][33] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[34] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell
Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2.[35

Abiogenesis

2012-10-07T14:11:53Z

Romneylover:

''See also:'' [[Origin of Life]]

Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten).

Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Spontaneous generation
Main article: Spontaneous generation
Belief in the ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century; this was paired with the belief in heterogenesis, i.e. that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers).[2] Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on.[3] In the 17th century, such assumptions started to be questioned. In 1646, Sir Thomas Browne published his Pseudodoxia Epidemica (subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths), which was an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted at the time. His contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."[4]

In 1665, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism. Hooke was followed in 1676 by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who drew and described microorganisms that are now thought to have been protozoa and bacteria.[5] Many felt the existence of microorganisms was evidence in support of spontaneous generation, since microorganisms seemed too simplistic for sexual reproduction, and asexual reproduction through cell division had not yet been observed. van Leeuwenhoek took issue with the ideas common at the time that fleas and lice could spontaneously result from putrefaction, and that frogs could likewise arise from slime. Using a broad range of experiments ranging from sealed and open meat incubation and the close study of insect reproduction, by the 1680s he became convinced that spontaneous generation was incorrect.[6]

The first experimental evidence against spontaneous generation came in 1668 when Francesco Redi proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. It was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg").

In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani demonstrated that microbes were present in the air, and could be killed by boiling. In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments that demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media, but only invade them from outside.

Complex biological molecules and protocells
Sidney W. Fox also experimented with abiogenesis and the primordial soup theory. In one of his experiments, he allowed amino acids to dry out as if puddled in a warm, dry spot in prebiotic conditions. He found that, as they dried, the amino acids formed long, often cross-linked, thread-like, submicroscopic molecules now named "proteinoids".

In another experiment using a similar method to set suitable conditions for life to form, Fox collected volcanic material from a cinder cone in Hawaii. He discovered that the temperature was over 100 °C (212 °F) just 4 inches (100 mm) beneath the surface of the cinder cone, and suggested that this might have been the environment in which life was created—molecules could have formed and then been washed through the loose volcanic ash and into the sea. He placed lumps of lava over amino acids derived from methane, ammonia and water, sterilized all materials, and baked the lava over the amino acids for a few hours in a glass oven. A brown, sticky substance formed over the surface and when the lava was drenched in sterilized water a thick, brown liquid leached out. It turned out that the amino acids had combined to form proteinoids, and the proteinoids had combined to form small, cell-like spheres. Fox called these "microspheres", a name that subsequently was displaced by the more informative term protobionts. His protobionts were not cells, although they formed clumps and chains reminiscent of cyanobacteria. They contained no functional nucleic acids, but split asexually and formed within double membranes that had some attributes suggestive of cell membranes. Professor Colin S. Pittendrigh stated in December 1967 that "laboratories will be creating a living cell within ten years," a remark that reflected the typical contemporary levels of innocence of the complexity of cell structures.[16]

[edit]Early conditions

Main article: Timeline of evolution
The Hadean Earth is thought to have had a secondary atmosphere, formed through degassing of the rocks that accumulated from planetesimal impactors. At first it was thought by scientists like Harold Urey, that the earth's atmosphere was made up of hydrates—methane, ammonia and water vapour, and that life began under such reducing conditions, conducive to the formation of organic molecules. However, it is now thought that the early atmosphere, based on today's volcanic evidence, would have contained 60% hydrogen, 20% oxygen (mostly in the form of water vapour), 10% carbon dioxide, 5 to 7% hydrogen sulphide, and smaller amounts of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, free hydrogen, methane and inert gases. As the earth lacks the gravity to hold any hydrogen, this component of the atmosphere was rapidly lost during the Hadean period. Solution of the carbon dioxide in water is thought to have made the seas slightly acid, with a pH of about 5.5.[17]

Morse and MacKenzie have suggested that oceans may have appeared first in the Hadean eon, as soon as two hundred million years (200 Ma) after the Earth was formed, in a hot 100 °C (212 °F) reducing environment, and that the pH of about 5.8 rose rapidly towards neutral.[18] This has been supported by Wilde[19] who has pushed the date of the zircon crystals found in the metamorphosed quartzite of Mount Narryer in Western Australia, previously thought to be 4.1–4.2 Ga, to 4.404 Ga. This means that oceans and continental crust existed within 150 Ma of Earth's formation. Rosing et al.,[20] suggest that between 4.4 and 4.3 Ga, the Earth was a water world, with little if any continental crust, with an extremely turbulent atmosphere and a hydrosphere subject to high uV, from a T Tauri sun and cosmic radiation and continued bolide impact.

As a result, the Hadean environment was one highly hazardous to modern life. Frequent collisions with large objects, up to 500 kilometres (310 mi) in diameter, would have been sufficient to vaporise the ocean within a few months of impact, with hot steam mixed with rock vapour leading to high altitude clouds completely covering the planet. After a few months the height of these clouds would have begun to decrease but the cloud base would still have been elevated for about the next thousand years. After that, it would have begun to rain at low altitude. For another two thousand years rains would slowly have drawn down the height of the clouds, returning the oceans to their original depth only 3,000 years after the impact event.[21]

Between 3.8 and 4.1 Ga, changes in the orbits of the gaseous giant planets may have caused a late heavy bombardment that pockmarked the Moon and the other inner planets (Mercury, Mars, and presumably Earth and Venus). This would likely have sterilized the planet, had life appeared before that time. Geologically the Hadean Earth would have been far more active than at any other time in its history. Studies of meteorites suggests that radioactive elements such as Aluminium-26 with a half-life of 7.17×105, and Potassium-40 with a half-life of 1.250×109 years, isotopes mainly produced in supernovae, were much more common, with the result that the earth was more than 96% more radioactive than it is today. Coupled with internal heating as a result of gravitational sorting between the core and the mantle generated a great deal of mantle convection, with the probable result that there would have been many more smaller very active tectonic plates, than in modern times.

By examining the time interval between such devastating environmental events, the time interval when life might first have come into existence can be found for different early environments. The study by Maher and Stevenson shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4.0 to 4.2 Ga, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the Earth abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3.7 and 4.0 Ga.[22]

Other research suggests a colder start to life. Work by Leslie Orgel and colleagues on the synthesis of purines has shown that freezing temperatures are advantageous, due to the concentrating effect for key precursors such as hydrogen cyanide.[23] Research by Stanley Miller and colleagues suggested that while adenine and guanine require freezing conditions for synthesis, cytosine and uracil may require boiling temperatures.[24] An article in Discover Magazine points to research by the Miller group indicating the formation of seven different amino acids and 11 types of nucleobases in ice when ammonia and cyanide were left in a freezer from 1972–1997.[25][26] This article also describes research by Christof Biebricher showing the formation of RNA molecules 400 bases long under freezing conditions using an RNA template, a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template.[27] The explanation given for the unusual speed of these reactions at such a low temperature is eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often.

Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a ratio of Carbon-13 (13C) to Carbon-12 (12C) of about −5.5 (in units of δ13C), where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[28] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C (572 °F). They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 Ma.[29] The Nobel Prize winning chemist, Christian de Duve, argues that the determination of chemistry means that "life has to emerge quickly... Chemical reactions happen quickly or not at all; if any reaction takes a millennium to complete then the chances are all the reagents will simply dissipate or breakdown in the meantime, unless they are replenished by other faster reactions".[30][31]

[edit]
Current models

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures such as the following, listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[32][33] The biologist John Desmond Bernal coined the term biopoiesis for this process,[34] and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell
Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between Stage 1 and 2.[35

Science

2012-10-07T14:05:28Z

Romneylover:

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], were persecuted by the Catholic church, although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the repression of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly correct, rejecting the supernatural fairytale beliefs of ancient people. Scientific fields of study observing a clear scientific basis include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time. Note, however, that the entire entry on Science in Conservapedia is filled to the brim with religion, creationist jargon, God etc. These are not testable hypotheses, so why do they dominate a page devoted to a pursuit that deals, always and only, with the naturalistic world?

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by Conservapedia to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Conservapedia has to take this stance since admitting that true science existed would burst their make believe bubble. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Science

2012-10-07T14:03:36Z

Romneylover:

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], were persecuted by the Catholic church, although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the repression of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly correct, rejecting the supernatural fairytale beliefs of ancient people. Scientific fields of study observing a clear scientific basis include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time. Note, however, that the entire entry on Science in Conservapedia is filled to the brim with religion, creationist jargon, God etc. These are not testable hypotheses, so why do they dominate a page devoted to a pursuit that deals, always and only, with the naturalistic world?

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Science

2012-10-07T13:58:12Z

Romneylover:

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], were persecuted by the Catholic church, although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the repression of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly correct, rejecting the supernatural fairytale beliefs of ancient people. Scientific fields of study observing a clear scientific basis include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Science

2012-10-07T13:55:09Z

Romneylover:

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], were persecuted by the Catholic church, although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the repression of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting the supernatural. Scientific fields of study observing a clear atheistic bent include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates the Christian time of [[creation]].

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

Charles Darwin

2012-10-07T13:41:12Z

Romneylover:

[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|225px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]]."<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref> See also: [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] ]]
'''Charles Darwin''' (12 February 1809 - 19 April 1882) was a famous naturalist born in England. Charles Darwin is best known for the theory of [[Evolution|evolution]] by [[Natural selection|natural selection]] presented in his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The concept is that organisms are modified over vast amounts of time by naturally occurring processes, originating from common ancestors that lived tens of millions of years ago. Outside the area of evolutionary theory in particular, Charles Darwin was regarded as an expert on barnacles, as well as being credited with discovering how coral [[atoll]]s were formed.

==General Biography of Charles Darwin==
Charles Darwin was born in [[Shrewsbury]], [[England]] in 1809 to his parents Dr. Robert Darwin and Susannah Wedgewood. Darwin's mother was a religious woman but his father was, for the most part, a weak deist. Despite his lack of theistic religious belief, the Darwin's father allowed Charles to be baptized into the Anglican Church and encouraged him to become a clergyman. Darwin's mother died in 1817. In 1825 Charles Darwin went on to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There, he became horrified with the brutality of surgery before anesthesia was invented and quit his medical studies.

In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year Charles Darwin departed on the ''HMS Beagle'' for a five year voyage of exploration. The ''Beagle'' returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Charles Darwin drew his now famous depiction of [[common ancestry]] in the form of a branching tree.<ref>Charles Darwin, Transmutation Notebook B 1837:36</ref> The following year he discovered the concept of ''[[natural selection]].'' Darwin insists that naturally occurring phenomena and factors working together in blind tandem have produced nature and eventually mankind.

However, Charles Darwin originally based the idea of human evolution on a racist assumption<ref>Milton, Richard ''Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'' 1997:186,287 says "Darwin [was] openly racist"</ref>, [after God was rejected as Creator], made in the late 1830s<ref>Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' 1958:130</ref>, that Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego) resembled primates that he had observed in the London zoo.<ref>Larson, Edward J. ''Evolution: The Remarkable History Of A Scientific Theory'' 2004:66,67</ref> In 1842 he wrote out a ''sketch'' of his theory but did not publish it. Again, in 1844 Charles Darwin produced what is known today as an ''essay'' of the same theory more developed but he still chose not to publish.

Finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin published his famous theory about how the species may have been produced without any aid from a Divine Creator. He titled his book ''On [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]], or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''. In 1871, well after his theory enjoyed widespread success, Darwin published his ideas on human evolution in a two-volume book titled ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]].''

==Religious Views of Charles Darwin==


''See also:'' [[Religious views of Charles Darwin]]

[[Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin in 1880 at the age of 71.]]
Charles Darwin likely abandoned [[Christianity]] as a student when he disappointed his father by refusing to become a minister. It is important to note, while reading the rest of this entry, that Conservapedia tries very hard to make you think Charles Darwin believed in God and Creationism, if you read the "Evolution" entry. They need you to think that Darwin himself was not sure of his Theory's correctness. Conservapedia then turns around and try to vilify him here by cherry picking the quotes that show his leaning toward atheism. This shows very clearly that Conservapedia is only a political and religious propaganda tool, and not a collection of facts. Both entries cannot be true, but Conservatives need one to be true one minute, and the other true the next to keep their delusion safe, so in their minds, they are. In his autobiography Charles Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin stated that he was an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> However, Darwin stated in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877</ref>
<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref><ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref> In the 1996 ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'' Kim Sterelny wrote in a book review the following: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a [[Materialism|materialist]] and a mechanist..."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 47, 1996, page 641</ref> Furthermore, Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states the following regarding why it is maintained that Charles Darwin was privately a materialist:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Mayr]]’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of [[brain]], more wonderful than [[gravity]] as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877</ref>}}

Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Charles Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref> [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of [[Robert Malthus|Malthus]]. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". <ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref>

Perhaps the best explanation of Darwin's worldview from 1836 onwards was that Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]] who often had overwhelming thoughts that nature was the product of a mind.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]</ref> <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=j9MEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Dr.+Aveling+has+published+an+account+of+a+conversation+with+my+father.+I+think+that+the+readers+of+this+pamphlet+(%27The+Religious+Views+of+Charles+Darwin,%27+Free+Thought+Publishing+Company,+1883)+may+be+misled+into+seeing+more+resemblance+than+really+existed&source=web&ots=-eyumeD-3g&sig=V1ooJ7WLHqu1csnVz39scxdV4Mg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result</ref>

Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwin-s-real-message-have-you-missed-it</ref> [[Intelligent design]] advocate John Calvert declares that atheists often don't reveal their atheism and stealthily try to promote their atheism.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=207581 Atheism: A stealth religion]</ref> It can be argued that this was Darwin's approach.

For example, Charles Darwin wrote:
{{cquote|“It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”<ref>http://www.nysun.com/arts/war-peace/42267/</ref>}}

Given the Victorian anti-atheism sentiments of many during this period, Darwin did want to appear to be an agnostic as can be seen by this quote:
{{cquote|Dr. Aveling has published an account of a conversation with my father. I think that the readers of this pamphlet ('The Religious Views of Charles Darwin,' Free Thought Publishing Company, 1883) may be misled into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr. Aveling: and I say this in spite of my conviction that Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impressions of my father's views. Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent-that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (page 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=j9MEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Dr.+Aveling+has+published+an+account+of+a+conversation+with+my+father.+I+think+that+the+readers+of+this+pamphlet+(%27The+Religious+Views+of+Charles+Darwin,%27+Free+Thought+Publishing+Company,+1883)+may+be+misled+into+seeing+more+resemblance+than+really+existed&source=web&ots=-eyumeD-3g&sig=V1ooJ7WLHqu1csnVz39scxdV4Mg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result</ref>}}

The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

[[Scientism]] can also be seen in Darwin's worldview. The scientism in Darwins's worldview can be seen in the previously cited quote of Darwin:
{{cquote|It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science.<ref>http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bccorner/020204.html</ref>}}

According to Charles Darwin the "manifestly false history of the world" <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85.</ref> as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85-87.</ref>. Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparative evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" <ref>Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' 2002:341</ref>. When he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

There exists in hostile Darwin literature a story about a Christian called Lady Hope who visited and spoke with a dying Charles Darwin. This appears to be merely a legend, and there is no evidence that Lady Hope ever converted or even visited Darwin on his deathbed. <ref>http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend</ref>

== Charles Darwin, Nazi ideology development and eugenics ==

In a [[Creation Ministries International]] article entitled ''Darwin and eugenics:
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’'' Bill Muehlenberg writes:
{{cquote|‘Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new “scientific” justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as “inferior”. … Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that “a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class” is the tendency of society’s “very poor and reckless”, who are “often degraded by vice”, to increase faster than “the provident and generally virtuous members”.’<ref>[http://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics ''Darwin and eugenics:
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’'' by Bill Muehlenberg]</ref>}}

In addition, Dennis Sewell declared cornering the Darwin family:
{{cquote|[In the] years leading up to the First World War, the eugenics movement looked like a Darwin family business. … Darwin’s son Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national Eugenics Society in 1911. In the same year an offshoot of the society was formed in Cambridge. Among its leading members were three more of Charles Darwin’s sons, Horace, Francis and George.” <ref>[http://creation.com/eugenics-a-darwin-family-business Eugenics: “a Darwin family business”]</ref>}}

Charles Darwin is often considered a [[Proto-Nazi]] for his evolutionary paradigm's influence on [[eugenics]]. Eugenics is the concept of artificially 'evolving' humans by determining who can live, die, or reproduce. [[Adolf Hitler]] would later on use Darwin's theory of [[evolution]] to justify his eugenics programs, including the [[Holocaust]].

== Darwin's obsessive preoccupation with his public persona and reactions to criticism ==

In 2002, Richard Milner wrote in a Scientific American in a article entitled [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000# "Putting Darwin in his Place"], that Darwin ''"clipped, catalogued and indexed hundreds of offprints, about 350 reviews and 1,600 articles, as well as satires, parodies and Punch caricatures, with which he filled hefty scrapbooks..."'' And it appears as if the criticism of his work may have troubled Darwin. Milner in the aforementioned article, wrote that after [[Charles Lyell]] published a very weak endorsement of Darwin's Antiquity of Man, ''"Darwin's disappointment brought on 10 days of vomiting, faintness and stomach distress". Also when anatomist St. George Mivart made a strong attack on The Descent of Man, Milner wrote it "triggered two months of "giddiness" and inability to work..." ''

== Darwin's Sickness and Controversy Regarding His Sickness ==
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of Charles Darwin ]]
For more on this topic see: [[Charles Darwin's illness]]

For most of his adult life Charles Darwin suffered from very poor health.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> The 1992 ''New Encyclopaedia Britannica '' stated that Darwin's illness was psychogenic in origin (A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in mental condition). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> A 1997 article in the [[Journal of the American Medical Association]] entitled "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" states that the "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was [[Psychiatry|psychiatric]]." <ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 ''Journal of the American Medical Association''</ref> In regards to illness associated with evolutionary ideas a journal article in the ''American Journal of Medicine'' declares that Darwin suffered from "psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] ideas".<ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> The American Journal of Medicine article also declared that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facsimile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment". <ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> According to the abstract for a 1997 journal article in the ''Notes and Records of the Royal Society'' the psychogenic hypothesis for the origin of Darwin's illness "holds the field" but the article questions the validity of this diagnoses and mentions the work of Ralph Colp Jr. MD, a physician and psychiatrist (For details see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]). <ref>http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/c5la8dhfh8v7tbx8/</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or psychobiological illness various [[Creationism|creationists]] have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

== Charles Darwin and Pangenesis==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

[[Pangenesis]] was an [[evolution|evolutionary]] notion that was developed by Charles Darwin. [[Creation science|Creation scientist]] Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] wrote concerning pangenesis:
{{cquote|Pangenesis is based on the idea that all somatic cells produce ‘gemmules’ or gene material that is ‘thrown off’ into the body’s circulatory system. These gemmules multiply by dividing, and eventually collect in the organism’s eggs and sperm (the gametes). Consequently, the experiences of their bearers are imprinted in the gemmules, and then can be passed on to the organism’s offspring. Darwin discussed his pangenesis idea in great detail, and felt confident that it would provide a feasible mechanism to produce new genetic information.<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>}}

Despite there being devastating experimental evidence against the notion of pangenesis provided by [[Francis Galton]], Charles Darwin stubbornly held to the notion of pangenesis as he had no [[naturalism|naturalistic]] explanation on how genetic information could be formed.<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref>

==Criticism of the Work of Charles Darwin by Cliff Lillo==

Cliff Lillo wrote:
{{quotebox|Darwin was wrong when he says that science has not yet proved [[Lamarck]] in error about [[spontaneous generation]], wrong when he says that changes in habit can be [[inherited]], and wrong when he says that use or disuse of an organ can be passed along from parent to child, etc. [http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/OriginofSpecies.html]}}

Contemporary evolutionary biology strongly agrees that Lamarckian inheritance and spontaneous generation never or almost never occur. The early 20th century synthesis between Mendelian genetics and natural selection provides a non-Lamarckian basis for inheritance of biological characteristics.

== Family Life ==
Author Peter Brent wrote of Darwin's relationship with his wife Emma and stated that "Their ties to each other were linked to childhood and the very beginnings of memory. They had a common history, a joint tradition. It is hard to think their relationship a passionate one, but it was happy, and the happiness had deep roots."<ref>Peter Brent, "Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity", page 316</ref> Charles Darwin displayed a dependency on his wife that was childlike. Darwin wrote a letter to his wife in 1848 that said, "My dearest old Mammy ... Without you, when sick I feel most desolate .. Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> Peter Brent states that it is hard to imagine that the letter was from thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife rather than a young child writing to its mother.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> In their article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled Charles Darwin and Panic stated that Darwin felt "nervousness when Emma leaves me".<ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association</ref> Darwin had ten children with his wife Emma, <ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Browne_EmmaDiaries.html</ref> who was also his cousin. <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1152536/The-descent-man-We-trace-claim-Charles-Darwin-ancestor.html The descent of man] Mail Online, February 23, 2009</ref>

==Darwin's Racism==

''For more information please see'': [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'':
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref>http://www.aim.org/wls/90/</ref><ref name="DoM6">[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt The Descent of Man], chapter VI</ref>}}

==Darwin's Belief in Male Superiority==
Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'':
{{cquote|... a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/24/feedback-female-inferiority</ref>}}

==Charles Darwin and the Cult of Personality==
There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Charles Galton Darwin]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/charles-darwin/ What Liberals Say - Charles Darwin], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/12/deseno_darwin/ Darwin's Day for Dummies]

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Evolutionary Racists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Darwin, Charles}}