Kami Penentang Evolusi

[blowahka]

ikut2an baca aja gw gan,,,hehehehe
itung2 nambah pengetahuan..

[yudiweb]

liat aja dsini ada:

Harun Yahya - KERUNTUHAN TEORI EVOLUSI - Download Page

[immoslem]

Selamat datang kembali Oom GEO... bisa dilanjutkan trit ini

ikut nyimak

[immoslem]

Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. " [6]

[immoslem]

Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? What does the evidence say?

Creation vs. Evolution - What Are We Looking For?
Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are we looking for?

Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.

Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

[immoslem]

A Landmark Study of the Human Journey
Where do you really come from? And how did you get to where you live today? DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who—about 60,000 years ago—began a remarkable journey.
The Genographic Project is seeking to chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species by using sophisticated laboratory and computer analysis of DNA contributed by hundreds of thousands of people from around the world. In this unprecedented and of real-time research effort, the Genographic Project is closing the gaps of what science knows today about humankind's ancient migration stories.
The Genographic Project is a multi-year research initiative led by National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Dr. Spencer Wells. Dr. Wells and a team of renowned international scientists and IBM researchers, are using cutting-edge genetic and computational technologies to analyze historical patterns in DNA from participants around the world to better understand our human genetic roots. The three components of the project are: to gather field research data in collaboration with indigenous and traditional peoples around the world; to invite the general public to join the project by purchasing a Genographic Project Public Participation Kit; and to use proceeds from Genographic Public Participation Kit sales to further field research and the Genographic Legacy Fund which in turn supports indigenous conservation and revitalization projects. The Project is anonymous, non-medical, non-profit and all results will be placed in the public domain following scientific peer publication.

[Alphe]

Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it. " [6]

Salah satu sifat Tuhan adalah berbeda dari makhluk ciptaan-Nya. Karena sains mengukur dan menalarkan alam dengan kadar alam dan manusia, maka sulit mengukur Tuhan lewat sains. Namun, melalui kajian alam kita dapat lebih dekat dengan Tuhan (bisa juga sebaliknya).

Kalau elektron, walau tidak kelihatan tapi punya massa dan muatan. Bisa dibuktikan keadaannya secara langsung. Kalau sesuatu yg berbeda sifatnya dari apapun yg hadir di dunia, otomatis ilmu pengetahuan akan angkat tangan. Sama saja dengan menanyakan ahli fisika ttg keadaan sebelum Big Bang, mereka geleng-geleng kepala......

Salah kaprah kalau mengecap teori evolusi sebagai teori anti-Tuhan walaupun umumnya teori ini banyak dipegang orang untuk membantah adanya Tuhan. Teori ini hanya menjelaskan tentang bagaimana keberagaman makhluk hidup hadir di tengah-tengah kita. Kalau ada yg membantah dan meyakini kalau semuanya ada sekaligus maka silahkan, tidak masalah. Namun, jawablah pertanyaan ini, kenapa manusia sekarang rasnya bermacam-macam? Kenapa gak ada tanaman anggrek 250 juga tahun yg lalu? Kenapa dulu ada dinosaurus tapi sekarang tidak ada? Kenapa sekarang ada flu babi? Dan seterusnya. Lagi pula, sekarang evolusi sudah masuk ranah molekuler. Di situ proses evolusi sangat kentara terlihat. Kita lihat bagaimana bakteri berubah sifat, penjelasan munculnya virus HIV, bagaimana flu burung bisa menjadi penyakit di manusia, kok bisa ada thalasemia, kenapa ada sel kanker ganas, kok bakteri bisa menghasilkan insulin dsb.... Berbagai macam proses yg terlihat bagaimana perubahan gen secara acak di tengah tekanan seleksi akan menghadirkan sifat-sifat yang baru.... Serta, penerapan dari teori ini adalah bagaimana kita merubah sifat makhluk hidup melalui rekayasa genetika untuk kemakmuran manusia.

Bukankah dalam kitab suci dijelaskan secara rinci bagaimana kompleksnya penciptaan manusia. Bagi manusia proses itu kompleks, tetapi merupakan hal yg mudah bagi Tuhan. Jika Dia berkehendak, maka jadilah dengan segala prosesnya. Begitu pula dengan keragaman makhluk hidup.... Tidak salah kalau kita percaya kehendak Tuhan menjadikan makhluk hidup beragam dan akan terus berubah. Banyak spesies punah namun bisa muncul spesies baru. Prosesnya bagaimana? Ya itu tadi, ada mutasi yg memunculkan perubahan sifat, diproses lewat seleksi alam kemudian munculah spesies baru.

Lalu bagaimana dengan asal usul manusia? Kalau kita menilik dari kajian sifat Tuhan, tidak menjadi masalah. Dia Maha Berkehendak lagi Maha Bijaksana. Dia bisa saja menciptakan hal yang sepertinya bertentangan dengan hukum alam. Namun, Dia tidak akan sembarangan karena Maha Bijaksana. Api itu panas membakar, tapi Tuhan berkehendak sebaliknya pada Nabi Ibrahim. Kita yakin ada gravitasi. Tetapi, saat Tuhan berkehendak, maka Nabi Musa dengan kaumnya melenggang bebas melewati Laut Merah. Begitu pula dengan kehadiran manusia. Atas kehendak-Nya manusia diciptakan dan diturunkan ke bumi dan atas hukum-Nyalah keturunannya berubah, dan menjadi ras yg berbeda-beda sesuai hukum alam (yg selama ini terjelaskan melalui teori evolusi).

Tentu hal di atas adalah pendapat pribadi yg berdasarkan atas pengetahuan saya ttg Tauhid dan sains.

[immoslem]

Opening Darwin's black box.

"Darwin was ignorant of the reason for variation within a species," writes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box, "but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it."¹ There were other things that Darwin did not know. For example, Darwin assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions. As Behe explains, "To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box. ... The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer."²

Modern technology has allowed biochemists to open Darwin's black box, revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Even leading proponents of evolution have acknowledged this complexity. Past U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts has described this complexity in the journal Cell as an elaborate factory: "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."³

But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion? Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if "any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."⁴ According to Behe, "by opening the ultimate black box, the cell," modern biochemistry "has pushed Darwin's theory to the limit."⁵

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution - blind natural selection acting on random mutations - has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."⁶

References Cited:
1. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, page X (Free Press, 1996).
2. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, pages 9-10 (Free Press, 1996).
3. Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 8, 1998).
4. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6, available at Literature.org - The Online Literature Library.
5. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, page 15 (Free Press, 1996).
6. Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, page 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).

[Alphe]

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution - blind natural selection acting on random mutations - has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."⁶

.

Sepanjang yg saya simak, isi tulisan yg saya kutip membicarakan ttg bagaimana kompleksitas sel tidak akan tercipta lewat proses yg acak. Tentu hal itu benar tetapi harus dilihat bahwa isi teori evolusi tidak hanya mengenai mutasi acak. Setelah adanya mutasi, kemudian diarahkan lewat seleksi alam. Adapun pembuktiannya, adalah dengan menemukan fenomena yg sesuai dengan model teori evolusi. Jika kita memakai teori evolusi, maka ada beberapa prediksi yg seharusnya dapat kita amati. Diantaranya, semakin tua fosil, semakin sederhana makhluk hidup. Dari makhluk-makhluk sederhana itu kemudian ada yg bergabung, simbiosis, dll sehingga terciptalah sistem kompleks.

Setidaknya catatan fosil memang membenarkan bahwa pada awalnya, dominasi makhluk hidup adalah makhluk hidup yg sederhana. Tentu ada kelemahan dari catatan fosil. Yg plg lemah adalah, kita tidak bisa mengecek sistem biokimia fosil secara detil kecuali terawetkan dengan baik. Dengan keadaan bumi yg dinamis, sulit menangkap catatan fosil yg baik dalam setiap tahap kehidupan dalam rentan 4,5 miliar tahun usia bumi. Masalah inilah yg sering menjadi sumber baik yg pro maupun yg kontra berhubung informasi yg kita dapatkan dari fosil sering tidak lengkap.

Tentu harapan pembuktian pada akhirnya adalah secara prospektif, artinya dengan model teori yg ada, kita coba memprediksikan masa depan. Dalam teori evolusi, makhluk hidup akan berubah, sifat akan berubah, gen juga berubah. Hal inilah yg kemudian kita temukan saat ini. Kita melihat dalam waktu kurang dari 100 tahun terlihat fenomena yg menakjubkan. Sifat bakteri yg berubah, munculnya penyakit baru (SARS, flu burung, HIV), fenomena resistensi, dll adalah kejadian yg memperlihatkan kepada kita bahwa mutasi dan seleksi alam memang terjadi. Yg mengejutkan adalah prosesnya cepat dan efisien. Fit for survival, begitulah fenomena yg kita lihat sekarang ini. Tentu pengamatan dalam waktu singkat ini bukan merupakan hard evidence bagi teori evolusi tetapi memberi kita bukti bahwa dasar-dasar teori ini berlaku di kehidupan nyata.

Selain itu, perkembangan teknologi juga membawa pemahaman kita terhadap sistem tubuh secara lebih baik. Dari sini terlihat di sana-sini tentang jejak-jejak perubahan evolutif pada berbagai sistem tubuh kita. Uniknya, jika dibandingkan dengan sistem yg analog pada makhluk lain, perubahan yg kecil itu menjadi terlihat jelas.

[earsun]

Perseteruan tiada akhir antara evolutionist ( scientist ) VS Creationist
dikarenakan :



Sad but true...