| Line 306: |
Line 306: |
| | | | |
| | According to Stephen Gould, Daniel Dennet and [[Richard Dawkins]], who hold to a traditional Darwinian gradualism view of the theory of evolution, trivialized the importance of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.<ref name="gouldstructure">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html</ref> Dawkins called the theory of punctuated equilibrium "an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of Neo-Darwinism theory". Dennet went farther and stated that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was a "a false-alarm revolution that was largely if not entirely in the eyes of the beholders."<ref name="gouldstructure" /> | | According to Stephen Gould, Daniel Dennet and [[Richard Dawkins]], who hold to a traditional Darwinian gradualism view of the theory of evolution, trivialized the importance of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.<ref name="gouldstructure">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html</ref> Dawkins called the theory of punctuated equilibrium "an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of Neo-Darwinism theory". Dennet went farther and stated that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was a "a false-alarm revolution that was largely if not entirely in the eyes of the beholders."<ref name="gouldstructure" /> |
| − |
| |
| − | == Unqualified to be a scientific theory==
| |
| − | [[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
| |
| − | [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
| |
| − | * http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
| |
| − | * http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':
| |
| − | {{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
| |
| − | by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | == Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications == | | == Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications == |