Anti-evolution Research Articles

헤겔의 반-진화론적 입장과 자연철학적 종(種) 이해

그간 헤겔의 변증법적 발전 개념이 현대 진화론의 관점과 양립한다는 것을 입증하려는 연구가 있었지만, 이러한 해석을 시도할 때 맞부닥뜨리는 근본 문제는 헤겔의 명시적 반-진화론 입장이다. 그러나 헤겔은 또 자연철학은 자연과학과 다르다는 관점을 분명히 하면서 생물 종에 대한 자신의 사유를 개진 한다. 그렇다면 중요한 문제는 헤겔이 진화론자냐 아니냐 하는 것보다 종이 왜 자연철학적으로 이해되어야 하며 또 어떻게 자연철학적으로 이해될 수 있는가하는 점일 것이다. 따라서 본고는 헤겔이 반-진화론 입장을 취한다는 것을 분명히 하면서, 동시에 1830년 『철학대계』의 「자연철학」의 맨 마지막 장 「유적 과정」에 대한 분석을 통해 헤겔의 자연 철학적 종 사유를 재구성하고 이것이 『철학대계』에서 자연으로부터 정신으로의 이행에 어떤 역할을 하는지 또 그 의미는 무엇인지 고찰하고자 한다.

Returning to The Plague and The Bhagwad Gita : New Meaning and “Existentialist Absurdity” amid COVID-19 Pandemic

??????????????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????????????????? ?? ???????????????????2.47??
 Meaning:
 Your right is to perform your work but never be oriented to the results. Never be motivated by the results of your actions, nor should you be attached to not performing your prescribed duties.
 The above mentioned philosophy however, can be best understood in the present scenario of the pandemic of COVID 19. The pandemic which has kept everybody unsettled, restless from within, Shrimad Bhagwad Gita serves a torchbearer to the humanity. It holds our faith in karma, the true meaning of life.
 As WHO reported, 2020 gripped the whole world into the saga of darkness which is started with a disease from animal. Not only that in fact it has engulfed the whole world into it. The entire world it seems has locked and blocked not only its movements but life. The numbers of death and patients increasing every day and with this increase in number is increasing the social stigma towards people. Health workers, women, children, sex workers, all are victim of it. This saga of disease has restricted not only our breathing but livelihood, happiness. We all succumb now to our own shell. Aristotle said once, “man is a social animal” and look at the world around today, a small little animal has brought that man to just a tiny individual who is always at the hands and prey to the nature. Be it Ebola Virus (EVD) of 1976 that was considered one of the deadliest viruses until then of its own kind, severely fatal to human illness or the Spanish Flu or the Bubonic Plague, Black Death epidemic. All these have always been fatal and deadliest in their own specific ways. Still, we human always feel surprised whenever we face such sudden outbreak of any disaster, what so ever. The catastrophic, xenophobic behaviour, subjects to be analysed from anthropological point of view try to justify one of the foremost evolution myths by Herbert Specncer, “Survival of the Fittest”. However, in literature, it is said that everything has a purpose in a narrative or a situation, it has a meaning to interpret. Things and situations are always interpretational. So is the case in this pandemic. This COVID-19 is much more than just a “disease”. It’s a social-cultural construct that shapes, reshapes or de-shapes humanities responses and behaviour.
 The objective of this paper is to look these constructs from a different lens and analyse the underlying existential philosophy, an existential absurdity drawing adjacent connections between the age old two classics piece of literature, The Bhagwad Gita (a long conversation between Arjuna and Lord Krishna before the battle of Mahabharata in the battle field Kurukshetra and The Plague by Albert Camus.

Trying biology: the Scopes trial, textbooks, and the antievolution movement in American schools

In Trying Biology, Adam R. Shapiro convincingly dispels many conventional assumptions about the 1925 Scopes monkey trial. Most view it as an event driven primarily by a conflict between science and religion. Countering this, Shapiro shows the importance of timing: the Scopes trial occurred at a crucial moment in the history of biology textbook publishing, education reform in Tennessee, and progressive school reform across the country. He places the trial in this broad context - alongside American Protestant anti evolution sentiment - and in doing so sheds new light on the trial and the historical relationship of science and religion in America. For the first time we see how religious objections to evolution became a prevailing concern to the American textbook industry even before the Scopes trial began. Shapiro explores both the development of biology textbooks leading up to the trial and the ways in which the textbook industry created new books and presented them as responses to the trial. Today, the controversy continues over textbook warning labels, making Shapiro's study - particularly as it plays out in one of America's most famous trials - an original contribution to a timely discussion.

Does evolution compromise Christian faith? R. J. Asher’s Evolution and Belief

Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist, by Robert J. Asher. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pp. xxiii + 300. H/b $24.99. In this book, Robert Asher reviews some of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, explains why evolutionary biology should pose no threat to Christian faith, and refutes oft-repeated criticisms of evolution by natural selection that many non-biologists find convincing. Asher does a wonderful job with the evidence for evolution, although non-biologists will find parts of his presentation heavy going. As a professing Christian of conservative theological bent, I find his discussion of the relationship between science and Christian faith basically sound. Nonetheless, as Asher (p. xiv) recognizes, few youngearth creationists (who believe that God created the universe and its contents in 6 days, less than 10 millennia ago, as told in the Bible’s first two chapters) or proponents of intelligent design (who argue that God demonstrably designed many of the ancestors of today’s organisms) will read this book, let alone be convinced by it. They object to evolutionary theory in the name of science, but their objections are driven by their religious beliefs. With sympathy, Asher discusses various bases for their religious objections. Asher (p. xv) recognizes that some people have more rational grounds for rejecting evolution by natural selection. He dismisses the slander that William Jennings Bryan was a young-earth creationist, showing that he rejected natural selection because school textbooks used that idea to promote social injustice. Indeed, offensive ‘utopias’ promoted by reputable scientists in the name of evolutionary theory may still raise up anti-evolutionists (Midgley 2002). Asher, however, seems not to realize how many Christians oppose Darwin’s ideas because they depend on Paley’s argument from design to

Using Protistan Examples to Dispel the Myths of Intelligent Design

In recent years the teaching of the religiously based philosophy of intelligent design (ID) has been proposed as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. Advocates of ID are largely motivated by their opposition to naturalistic explanations of biological diversity, in accordance with their goal of challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism. Intelligent design has been embraced by a wide variety of creationists who promote highly questionable claims that purport to show the inadequacy of evolutionary theory, which they consider to be a threat to a theistic worldview. We find that examples from protistan biology are well suited for providing evidence of many key evolutionary concepts, and have often been misrepresented or roundly ignored by ID advocates. These include examples of adaptations and radiations that are said to be statistically impossible, as well as examples of speciation both in the laboratory and as documented in the fossil record. Because many biologists may not be familiar with the richness of the protist evolution dataset or with ID-based criticisms of evolution, we provide examples of current ID arguments and specific protistan counter-examples.

Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks

ID ('intelligent design') is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe. Its current version maintains that a 'Designer' must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the 2005 case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. (in Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.) was a landmark of American jurisprudence that prohibited the teaching of ID as science, identified it as religiously based, and forbade long-refuted 'criticisms of evolution' from introduction into public school classes. Much of the science of the trial was based on biochemistry; biochemists and other scientists have several important opportunities to improve scientific literacy and science education in American public schools ('state schools') by working with teachers, curriculum developers and textbook writers.

NIETZSCHES „ANTI-DARWINISMUS“

As the threefold meaning of - equalizing, opposing, and surpassing - suggests, Nietzsche's Anti-Darwinism is not a simple opposition to Darwinism. Rather, it assumes a more fundamental similarity between the two which it then claims to go beyond. Darwinism and Antidarwinism show themselves to be complementary interpretations which interact and and again overcome each other - like the will to power and will to nothingness, health and sickness, or superman and the last man.

Social Un-Darwinism: How Does Society Relate to Nature in an Evolutionary Perspective?

It is time to rescue from dismal shadow of Darwinism. According to this now widely-discredited doctrine, human society is governed by the survival of fittest. Competition reigns unchecked. Individualism erodes any effort to cooperate. Ethics and morality become irrelevant. Some contend that social competition is very engine of human progress, and hence any effort to regulate it cannot be justified. Others accept competition as inevitable, even though they don't like it or do not endorse it ideologically. They seem persuaded that we cannot escape its reality. Natural selection, many reason, is ... well, natural. Natural, hence inviolable: What recourse could humans possibly have against laws of nature? Thus even people from divergent backgrounds seem to agree that this view of society unavoidably follows from evolution. Creationists, not surprisingly, parade it as reason to reject outright (Bergman 2006). By contrast, as resolute an evolutionist as Thomas Henry Huxley, bulldog, invoked similar implications even while he urged his audience to transcend them morally (1894/1989). Yet core assumptions of so called Social Darwinism are unwarranted. Why does it continue to haunt us? The time has come to dislodge this entrenched belief, this sacred bovine: that nature somehow dictates a fundamentally individualistic and competitive society. Unraveling flawed argument behind also yields a more general-and much more important-lesson about nature of science. Here, historical argument seemed to enlist science to portray certain cultural perspectives as facts of nature. Naturalizing cultural ideas in this way is all too easy. Cultural contexts seem to remain invisible to those within culture itself, sometimes scientists, too. The case of Darwinism--not at all--illustrates vividly how appeals to science can go awry. We might thus learn how to notice, and to remedy or guard against such errors in other cases. Social Darwinism Without Darwin Ironically, basic doctrine now labeled did not originate with Darwin himself. Darwin was no Darwinist. Quite contrary: Darwin opened way for understanding how a moral society can evolve (last month's Sacred Bovines). Indeed, by Darwin's era, notion of unregulated selfishness as a condition that threatened social order was centuries-old. In mid-1600s, for example, Thomas Hobbes described primitive state of nature as bellum omnium contra omnes: a of each against all. For him, supreme individualism (if left unchecked) would eclipse sociality. Even genuine benevolence seemed impossible. In Hobbes's cynical spin, generosity was really disguised self-interest: For no man giveth but with intention of good to himself, because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts object is to every man his own good. (1651/1962, p. 118) Hobbes's proposed solution was to imagine a social contract. If everyone agreed mutually to limit self-serving behavior, all would benefit. If. As in a legal system, who enforced contract? One would need a moral authority outside or above system (for Hobbes, it was King). The dilemma of cheaters and warrant for authority--the lack of moral grounding--was same that critics of evolution now fault in Darwinism. And it resulted from same basic assumptions: individualism and war of nature--all posited without (and well before) Darwin. Darwinist perspectives were also expressed by Thomas Malthus in his 1798 Essay on Principle of Population and in its many subsequent editions. For Malthus, population would forever increase ahead of ability to feed it. The natural inequality of population and production, he claimed, confuted romantic ideals (then prevalent) of social improvement: Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them [the seeds of life] within prescribed bounds. …

Turks fighting back against anti-evolution forces

Turks fighting back against anti-evolution forces

A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views

A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views

Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe

Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe

Self-organized criticality in evolution of nuclear fuel microstructure

Nuclear fuel microstructure has major influence on the fission product release from nuclear fuel matrix. Here we present the self-organized criticality model applied to describe the evolution of nuclear fuel microstructure. It is shown that the behaviour of fuel bubbles is similar to that of species in natural ecosystems and their evolution can be characterized as an avalanche process. Modelled bubble size distribution for different fuel burnups is in good agreement with the experimental data.

Hooke, Fossils and the Anti-Evolutionists

Hooke, Fossils and the Anti-Evolutionists

Anti-evolutionists defeated

Anti-evolutionists defeated

Statistics of certain models of evolution

In a recent paper, Newman surveys the literature on power law spectra in evolution, self-organised criticality and presents a model of his own to arrive at a conclusion that self-organised criticality is not necessary for evolution. Not only did he miss a key model (Ecolab) that has a clear self-organised critical mechanism, but also Newman's model exhibits the same mechanism that gives rise to power law behaviour as does Ecolab. Newman's model is, in fact, a ``mean field'' approximation of a self-organised critical system. In this paper, I have also implemented Newman's model using the Ecolab software, removing the restriction that the number of species remains constant. It turns out that the requirement of constant species number is non-trivial, leading to a global coupling between species that is similar in effect to the species interactions seen in Ecolab. In fact, the model must self-organise to a state where the long time average of speciations balances that of the extinctions, otherwise the system either collapses or explodes. In view of this, Newman's model does not provide the hoped-for counter example to the presence of self-organised criticality in evolution, but does provide a simple, almost analytic model that can used to understand more intricate models such as Ecolab.

Evidence for self-organized criticality in evolution

Data of a number of different types have been put forward as evidence for self-organized critical behavior in evolution. These include fossil data on extinction rates and taxon lifetimes, evidence of fractal structure in taxonomic trees, and simulation data from experiments on artificial life. Here we present a new and very simple model of species origination and extinction which, although not critical, reproduces all of these data well. We suggest therefore, that data of these kinds should not be taken as evidence of self-organized criticality.

The new antievolution — and what to do about it

The new antievolution — and what to do about it

Anti-darwinism in Japan

Anti-darwinism in Japan

A Reply to Walker, Mertens, and Hendrix on the Creation-Evolution Issue

Research Article| December 01 1977 A Reply to Walker, Mertens, and Hendrix on the Creation-Evolution Issue Stanley L. Weinberg Stanley L. Weinberg Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The American Biology Teacher (1977) 39 (9): 548–549. https://doi.org/10.2307/4446084 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Stanley L. Weinberg; A Reply to Walker, Mertens, and Hendrix on the Creation-Evolution Issue. The American Biology Teacher 1 December 1977; 39 (9): 548–549. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/4446084 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1977 National Association of Biology Teachers Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reflections on the evolutionist controversy

Although several decades separate Leslie White's and Emmanuel Terray's defense of Morgan, and despite the fact that the contents of their theories diverge considerably, both anthropologists employ essentially the same strategy in their debates with the anti evolutionists. White and Terray both main? tain that Morgan's detractors are guilty of a category mistake. According to them, the anti-evolutionists present a false characteriza? tion of Morgan's position, thereby mis? interpreting the theoretical status of his evolutionism. As a result, his opponents criticize Morgan on grounds for which he should not legitimately be held accountable. Both defenses of evolutionism therefore rest on a categorical distinction: in White's case, between "the evolution of culture" and "the culture history of peoples," and in Terray's between historical theory and empirical history. It is important to note that White and Terray are not making a defense of Morgan's literal position but are defending what might be termed the "Morgonian project." In other words, they are defending the validity of an evolutionary approach while not necessarily agreeing with all of the details of Morgan's particular brand of evolutionism. Furthermore, since the attack on evolutionism is quite often only an aspect of a larger attack on theoret? ical speculation in anthropology, their defense of evolutionism can be considered, in part, as a defense of the role of theoretical generalization. While I believe that White's and Terray's strategy is in principle tenable, I do not believe that they have developed their positions in sufficient detail to make them adequate. Consequently, they are vulnerable on several crucial points, points which can in fact be accounted for. I would therefore like to examine their arguments in some detail in order to elucidate the points at which they require supplementation and to indicate the direction that supplementation might take.