The relative dinosaur haters

The relative dinosaur haters

When T-Rex tries to hunt a almost light tap Dino. – Surprisingly, opponents of evolutionary theory use similar argumentation structures like adversaries of special relativity theory. Image: Christian Gapp, 2009

Why use opponents of the theory of evolutionary ashesic argumentation structures, such as the small group of those who are the special relativity theory?

Discussions with religious motivated evolutionary spirits are unchanging unproductive. Therefore, even profiled fecrechers of Darwin’s evolution like Ulrich Kutschera avoid public dispute with creationists. Interestingly, however, evolutionary opponents use similar argumentative basic structures, such as the small group of critics of Einstein’s religiousity theory. This makes it better to understand why the dialogue is meaningless and why you should use its energies better.

The Darwin year has so far been relatively quiet in this country. People visit the evolutionary exhibitions, such as Darwin and the genesis of species in the traditional museum Koenig in Bonn, without evolutionary seat posters rubbing or interested at the entrance with pamphlets. However, above all such visitors seem to come to the museums that the Darwinist descent does not critically stand against. So the conclusion is probably taken at the end of the year that the evolutionary critics did not have lost ground. But for this pessimism it may still be too early.

Most, stuffy and grievous opponents Darwin come from fundamentally inspired Christian and Muslim circles. Whether you expect yourself to the "creationists", the "short-term creationist" or the appendants of the "intelligent design", is dependent on the point of view of biology, because they share essential criticisms at evolutionary theory. That it is not important to them with scientific-based arguments is evident. Most rejects scientific methods of round route or use a blob for laity professionally sounding, amateur scientific jargon, like word and knowledge. Even with evolutionary compatible theological positions, they will not be accomplished because their rejection is based on dogmas that liberal theological views are as essentials as the evolutionary theory.

Away from a steady location

In this steady situation, it seems worthwhile to start the attempt, once to understand what for one Mindset An evolutionary opponent actually has to have a principle of being able to extend to such stuffed rational arguments. To set up hypotheses, it is helpful to demonstrate the ever-recurring core arguments from evolutionary criters. They can be summarized in this way:

According to generally and internationally accepted segregation, the theory of evolution is considered one of the best confirmed scientific theories, without the, so it reads it in most representations, z.B. All biology do not make sense. The theory representatives insure us, there is no reason to criticize theory; It has given criticism only in the early years, and that was already clearly refuted at that time.

Anyone who has become a criticism of the theory of evolution since then is motivated by envy or religious fundamentalism or grocery belief, does not carry a scientific criticism before and therefore can not be taken seriously. Only spinner or vicious characters occasionally occurred to criticism of a theory that is a secure realization and has become a basis of our entire science, in addition to even theology, philosophy, literature and art influenced and stimulated. The theory is one of the largest mental performance of humanity in the 19th century and has revolutionized all our ideas about nature.

Since there is allegedly no longer giving a serious critique of the theory for a long time, none of course can not be discussed criticism. In the presentations and teachers of the theory you can therefore not drove critical literature. In the trade journals of biology, no critical treatises can be published, and the critical lecture is missing on biology congresses. This has the immediate consequence that all official writings on Darwin Evolution Theory for more than a hundred years has only – more or less – Brave supplements of the original publications.

The presented views appear to be disclosed. Nevertheless, something special is about the text: the original did not commit with evolution by name! The text was generated from a transcript with only a few changes that critically with the Special relativity theory (SRT) Albert Einstein deals with. The passages that have been modified are highlighted in the following quote:

In general and internationally accepted collection, the Special relativity theory As one of the best confirmed theories physics, without the, so you read it in most representations, z.B. No nuclear power plant could be operated. The theory representatives insure us, there is no reason to criticize theory; It has given criticism only in the early years, and that was already clearly refuted at that time.

If you have been criticizing the Special relativity theory Having took care of envy or Anti-Semitism or Nazi ideology or Stalinist propaganda motivated, also carry no physical Criticism before and Konne can not be taken seriously. Only spinners or vicious characters occasionally occurred with criticism of a theory that represents secured realization and to the The basis of our entire science has become, which has even influenced and stimulated in addition to theology, philosophy, literature and art. The theory is one of the largest mental performance of humanity in Twentieth Century and has revolutionized all our ideas about nature.

Since there is allegedly no longer giving a serious critique of the theory for a long time, none of course can not be discussed criticism. In the presentations and teachers of the theory you can therefore not drove critical literature. In the journals of the physics can not be published critical treatises, and on the physics-Congresses are missing the critical proprication. This has the immediate consequence that all official writings on the Special relativity theory since now One hundred years only – more or less – Brave supplements of the original publications are.

The text used comes from the publication about the absolute coarse of the special relativity theory of June 2004, S. XXII. According to the author’s authority "G. O. Mueller "are documented in 3789 work, which are critical to the SRT. Who is behind it? "G. O. Mueller is the pseudonym for an organization, which has set itself the task of bringing the ideology known under the name ‘relativity theory’ known ideology.", Concoction Ekkerhard Friebe on his website. According to its own, he is government director I. R. of the German Patent Office. Together with Jocelyne Lopez he is G. O. Muellers "Interest representatives for Germany".

It is at this point completely irrelevant, whether "G. O. Mueller "really an" organization "is, or if Friebe and Lopez have only gotten everything together to precipitate their audience a wide range of critics that must hide before the" Science Mafia "(Friebe). Important is only one thing: Friebe, Lopez and others, especially in forums titting anti-relative, represent a very small group compared to evolutionary critics. While any questions about evolution are a rough part of the public, the SRT is a pronounced niche topic. She does not even emotional a laity as the evolutionary theory. Friebe and Lopez also argue due to religious views against the SRT. They claim to attack SRT due to the common sense. Lopez’s own, esoterically inspired, extremely amusante theory in the field of emergence of the universe shows no similarities with religious fundamentalist views of Darwingegnern.

Amazing similarities of anti-relative and evolutionary guts

Although anti-darwinists and anti relatives argue from very different origin points, the principle of their criticisms at the respective theory is largely congruent. The ease with which the one point of view in the other could be carried out, occupies this. There are apparently common thinking structures that have nothing to do with the actual thing:

  1. Exactly one TheoriaStifter It exists exactly one specific person – Darwin or. Einstein – which the respective theory can be backed up. It is therefore enough to focus on the final publications of these persons to prove that these basic documents were already wrong. That also means that modern developments of theories are largely ignored.
  2. The "Orthodox Science" It exists an "Orthodox science", which treats the theories of the respective theoria stiffs such as dogmen and with opaque methods for more than a hundred years globally ensures that the majority of scientists follow only the Orthodox way.
  3. Obvious weaknesses and a vacuum of criticism There are obvious, serious vulnerabilities that reflect the busted theories. In addition, the "watchmaking argument" of the intelligent design and "healthy sense" of the anti-relative. Only the active vacuum of criticism and defamation of the opponents by the Orthodox science prevents all scientists from recognizing or pronouncing the mistake.

It can be seen that the opponents of the respective theory evaluate the development of natural sciences with personal, rather humanities categories. That scientific knowledge of her explorer loose, the relativity theory so did not just disappear if it had not given Einstein, is not conceivable for her. Maybe they hide them differently, but their statements were continued to be gradual, even if they had been formulated later. The SRT was 1905, the Einstein "Miracle Year", quasi in the air. Also an evolutionary theory of Darwinschem pattern had given it. Alfred Russel Wallace had published her independently of Darwin by observations in Indonesia. Darwin published his insights only after Wallace had contacted him. Ironically, the Darwin year brought Wallace new popularity. For advocate of faith to a negative, Orthodox science is the opposite, is supposedly scratched on the oak Darwin, the singular origin of the hated theory.

Both critic groups also believe in easy-to-recognize, virtually directly visual and tangible truths. It amazes the naive belief in what is the human being by his senses (discrete ratio). Declarations that go out of the immediate experience, but make a rational understanding of trials, but must be prepared to be developed, such people obviously are a gray. Although they are that more behind that is what to see, but they replaced the Muhsal of the findings through revelation knowledge. That’s actually paradoxes: they only believe what they see directly, but they are irrational a whole world of invisible entities – resp. a supertentat named "God" – which causes causal on the world.

Very much on the point brings this Mindset The saying Douglas Adams, which Richard Dawkins has preceded his book "The God":

"There is no enough to see that a garden is already, without even faith that fairies live in it?"

Evolutionary opponents and anti-relative lives, one more, the other less, in their own world of irrational causalities. They can not be convinced by rationally. It is therefore wasted time to deception your arguments rationally. So it is not important to talk to the critics but over them by leaving their thinking structures and exposing their communicative strategies. The evolutionary theory itself is more helped if publications focused on conveying their readers the desire for real findings. For example, by illustrating the already well-known evolution of the bird feather as a non-targeted process. That’s more helpful than one of the endless-senseless debates on the "unlikability of meaningful mutations" continues. A die-hard creationist will not convince. But above all, it can win young, inquisitive people and help to raise the desire for rational, fact-based findings. It is primarily task to guarantee the school that every Schuler and each Schulerin give sufficient opportunity.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: