November 19
Down with Darwinism
2 tahun lepas, kami pernah bincang pasal teori Darwin memandangkan mentor Mat masa tu, arwahyarham Prof Mohd Al-Mahdi ada buat pembentangan bertajuk “Modern Science Finds God” di INTEC anjuran ATUSA kan? Masa tu Mat jadi exco agama ATUSA.
Salah satu perkara yang dibangkitkan masa tu ialah Intelligent Design (ID) dalam men’counter’ balik teori Darwinism. Aku agak tertarik tetapi kemudiannya tak layan sangat sebab situasi Malaysia tak lah memerlukan kita kaji sangat bende tu.
Tetapi sejak aku sampai kat US ni, istilah Darwinisn, ethism dan evolution mendominasi hidup ku. Benarlah kata Mat dulu, darwinism theory ni bukan setakat teori sains. Ia berkembang menjadi Social Darwinism. Dari idea itulah munculnya agama mereka iaitu atheism. Susah nak cari orang yang yang tak atheis dalam class bio aku. Kawan-kawan baik pun atheis jugak..lol.
Lebih daripada itu, sistem hidup mereka berpaksikan materialism sebab bagi mereka manusia itu hanya benda yang bebas bertindak tanpa sekatan. Manusia ni macam haiwan, keperluan hidup dia hanya makan, minum, seks dan berhibur. Tiada sistem moral. Pandai-pandai lah kalau nak hidup tu.
Konsep Survival of the fittest pula menyebabkan mereka percaya hanya yang kuat berhak hidup. Macam dalam hukum rimba, siapa kuat dia berkuasa. Idea nationalism berkembang daripada semangat bahawa bangsa dia lah yang terkuat. Masih ingat bagaimana bangsa bangsa di Eropah saling berperang dan berbunuhan dalam Perang Dunia 1&2 berteraskan ideology kebangsaan? Hitler yang anggap bangsa selain Jerman adalah hina dan nyawa mereka tak bernilai.
Self-gene Theory menjadikan mereka hanya mementingkan diri sendiri. Capitalism menjadi asas bermuamalah. Keuntungan jadi teras utama walaupun dengan cara menindas. No money no talk. Apapun perkara baik yang Amerika buat mesti ada muslihat di belakang- mahukan timbal balas. Analogy nya sama macam penjual yang bermuka manis dan pura-pura melayan pelanggan dengan baik walhal yang dimahukan adalah barangannya terjual!
Huh..banyak lagi sistem-sistem nilai barat hari ini adalah hasil daripada teori Sang Darwin.
Sebagai Biotechnology major, aku perlu baca buku text Biology setebal lebih seribu muka surat yang hampir keseluruhannya cerita pasal Evolution Theory. Hari pertama lecture lagi Prof aku dah sebut pasal teory tu “no matter what are your belief.” (Prof aku adalah salah seorang penulis buku teks!)
Tidak cukup dengan class biologi, untuk universiti terbaik dalam bidang Philosophy dan Writing, pelajar universiti aku jugak kena amik banyak writing dan humanities class. Writing Class aku dari tahun lepas sampai sekarang asyik kena tulis pasal evolutionary, Social Darwinism, capitalism, American democracy. No wonder tahun lepas aku terpaksa download beratus muka surat buku tulisan Harun Yahya . Aku terima sebagai satu cabaran walaupun hujah aku kadang-kadang ditolak dalam class discussion.
Tetapi isu utama yang hendak aku bangkitkan kini adalah tentang perang idea yang sedang berlaku ni. Kita tahu kerajaan Malaysia menghantar semakin ramai student Biotechnology ke USA ni. Di RIT dan Penn State sahaja muncul kampung Melayu akibat ramainya student biotech. Bagaimanakah mereka memahami isu ini? kita khuatir kalau isu ini tidak dijelaskan lebih awal, di masa depan kita akan melihat para saintis malaysia yang keliru akidahnya (walaupun mungkin tidak sampai ke tahap atheis seperti yang sedang di alami USA sekarang).
Sebagai langkah awal yang pro active, aku mengajak rakan-rakan sekalian untuk memulakan perang ideology ini. Pertahankan akidah kita. mungkin kita tidak mampu berhujah menewaskan Richard Dawkins dan rakan-rakan tetapi sekurang-kurangnya kita menyelamatkan kawan-kawan dari alam kekeliruan. ID adalah satu tempat yang sangat baik untuk bermula.
*maaf, banyak sangat istilah Inggeris digunakan.
Bergerak merentas isu..
That’s like saying down with genetic research including cancer research because trust me on this, the bulk of our understanding on biological life especially on a molecular level is dependent on the understanding that evolution is a fact.
Unless of course you’re calling medical science a farce, then well…tell that the next time someone you know suffers from a genetic disease.
hurm…kat rit tak blaja byk sgt pasal evolution…tapi tatau aa…aku rase, in a way, ade gak logika nyerr teori evolusi though not all yg betul…teori jeh pon…untuk terima sepenuh nyerr memang mustahil sebab byk bercanggah ngan ape yg ade dlm Quran dan sunnah…sape yg lebih tau pasal kejadian universe and makhluk didalamnya melainkan Allah?…so ape yg ade dlm Quran dan sunnah kene trime aa walaupon darwin cakap lain…pemikiran manusia yg terlalu cetek tak mampu memikirkan segala2 nyerr…oleh sebab itu aku terpakse kate aku tak stuju pendapat Edrei yg kate evolution is a fact…no and not ever going to be a fact…
1. Teori Evolusi
Korang kena faham perbezaan antara proses evolusi dan mekanisme evolusi. Proses evolusi tiada masalah dalam Islam. Masalahnya ialah mekanisme yang spontan, naturalis dan materialis itu menolak seorang “Intelligent Designer” sebagai pengawal halatuju proses evolusi itu. Takde masalah utk terima “evolution is a fact”.
2. Mamat Edrei
We meet again huh? Its so funny how everytime we meet, you never provide reasons to counter the arguments of ID being put forth. And then you just run away feeling you’ve won the argument.
3. Intelligent Design – http://caliph.wordpress.com/articles/intelligent_design/
iye maybe ade btul nyer proses evolusi seperti contoh yg ade dicrite dlm Quran yakni makhluk dimuka bumi origin nyerr dr air and so on and so forth…tapi yg menyebabkan aku tak terima teori evolusi nie sebagai fakta is sebab teori nie menolak kewujudan Tuhan… untuk mengatakan PROSES evolusi itu fakta aku boleh terima tapi untuk mengatakan evolusi secara keseluruhan itu satu fakta?…nope…ade certain kejadian yg tak mungkin bleh diexplain evolusi…disebabkan flaw tue teori evolusi yg difahami oleh evolutionist moden tak boleh diterima sebagai fakta melainkan hanya teori semata2…
Yup, Endrei please provide factual and logical agrument especially on Intelligent Design instead of just ‘emotionally appealing’ argument such as “tell that the next time someone you know suffers from a genetic disease.”
until now there are some scientists who saying that darwinism is an ideology rather than a scientific fact. It is clear that this issue is still a debates among the scientific community. Science is a mystery. The facts keep on changing depend on new discoveries. Since 20 years back, ID has started to challege this vague fact. I am confident that maybe in 50 or 100 years later we’ll see the fall of Darwinism.
lonsaa:
kau tak banyak blaja pasal evolution? iye ke..check btul2..evolution tu tak semestinya pasal beruk jadi manusia. paling banyak ialah evolusi tumbuhan. Dan korang kena kaitkan macam mana sistem economy dan politic barat terutamanya amerika dibina atas prinsip ini. Itulah yg dimaksudkan social darwinism. Aku tak kisah sgt pasal beruk jadi manusia..tu hanya sebahagian kecil je masalah teori ni.
nasib baik tak byk blaja teori pelik2…byk sgt teori dlm hidup nie memeningkan sebab tade bukti solid yg sume tue btul…i prefer something yg concrite and real…n dlm lecture aku byk blaja evolutin manusia…tak sentuh sgt pon evolution tumbuh-tumbuhan…
Teori tu sesuatu yg 99% betul berdasarkan kajian yg dibuat. Mana bleh tak suka teori. tak saintifik la camtu.. apo da..
Evolutionary Biology….
Kelas yang paaaaling rigorous utk student aliran health/biolgy di SUNY Buffalo – kelas saringan utk mereka yg *rasa dia nak* study biology dan mereka yg betul2 *BOLEH* study biology. juga kelas utk tapis mereka yg nak ke professional health schools: med,dental,optometry,pharmacy etc etc. senang cter, kalau lepas kelas ni, maka senanglah jalanmu utk ke medical school hehehe…
Banyak sangat kenangan manis masa studi kelas ni. Paling ingat, saya akan ‘khatam’ semua movies/books y g ada kat harunyahya.com dan lepas every lecture akan pergi ‘bersembang2′ (atau dgn kata lebih jujur, gi berdebat hehehe…) dgn professor.
beruang terjun dalam laut lepas tu jadi ikan paus? erkk…
mutation akan membuatkan seeker binatang yg takde kepak, tetiba ada kepak? haiihhh….
paling best bila buat muka selambe je tanya professor kalau2 dia rasa manusia pun akan mengalami evolusi, contohnya akan kuar satu lagi mata kat dahi ker… dia dgn penuh serius cakap dia rasa tak sbb kita byk makan medicine yg menghalang kita berevolusi…haiyya professor, kita makan ubat sbb nak sembuhkan sakit, bukan nak halang mutasi menhasilkan sebijik lagi mata!
Then let me give you a simple example. Evolution happens on a microscopic level just as it happens on a macroscopic level. Scientists have seen it before. One of the prime examples of evolution happening on a microscopic level are the formation of the superbugs such as the Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacteria.
In this case, selective pressure (antibiotics) force the bacteria (TB for example) to adapt to their environment. Since only the ones immune to antibiotics will survive, they will be the ones that will grow to a whole new generation. And again repeat the process with a new antibiotic. That in itself is effectively microscopic evolution.
The false concept of “throwing a bear into a sea and it turning it into a whale” is a false concept of evolution and a poor grasp of basic science. The amount of mutation needed for a species to evolve may take generations to come into place and it needs that selective pressure for it to happen. But it still happens.
If you want to answer more questions though in rebuttal of intelligent design. Go to http://talkorigins.org/
yakin jeh 99% btul…dalil mane?…ehehe
Edrei, can you explain how monkey mutation can produce a modern human? I mean the inter-species not only intra-species mutation.
Rebuttal to ID is base on current scientific foundation. Who set those criteria? How long it has been established? Why not scientific definition itself undergo evolution process..Now U trust, tomorrow we never know.
*advisor suruh aku amik satu lagi class bernama Human Evolution.Adeh..tgh tak larat sekarang ni..tgklah nanti.
Edrei, I am happy to say that I am in complete agreement with you on those two issues. They demonstrate the beauty, grandeur and systematic plan of such an omniscient supreme Being
I’m sure Ummi’s professor would be laughing his head off after listening to her Straw Man arguments. They are indeed very naive. But…
Your example does not negate the position of Intelligent Design. ID proponents accept the developmental progress of species, even more so on a microscopic level. The difference is in the mechanical theory proposed by Darwin, namely that of Natural Selection, and later addition called Genetic Mutation.
You’ve failed to take note of this difference between ID and Creationism every time I read your comments. I’m not sure whether its pure ignorance or an attempt to use a Red Herring. But to simply run away and leave a link to TalkOrigins… that seems to indicate your incapability to comprehend the real issue being debated by ID and Darwinists.
Mat: At what point does it prove the presence of an omnipresent being? Seriously?
Intelligent design states that there is a being at work that created the system, i.e God. The argument does not rule out what comes before the Big Bang, it states of what happened after. Rather than a steady state existence or God just going “click”, there is a series of adaptive changes, in this case, there is a series of genetic changes over time that results in a rise of a new species especially from a common ancestor (the same argument that can be thrown into why cuttlefish eyes are perfect and ours isn’t in the over argued “eye paradox”).
I’m referring you to talkorigins because to argue the same things that scientists have been proving right for years is just wasting my breath. If I had the time to properly discuss every point, I would do so in a civil manner. If you want to, I have my email here and we can discuss it further.
A few questions from me to whomever have faith in Darwinism:
1. What’s your stand on the discovery of tons of things that were supposed to be the ‘missing link’ ?
2. Do you understand what Darwin meant when he said, “Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur”?
3. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” If I ask you, which one is easier to find, a missing person who is still alive, or a dead person who has been burried somewhere in this earth. Which one is harder?
I would like to challenge Darwin himself, but since he’s dead, any Darwinist, “please prove to the world that EVERY complex organ existed (now and before), MUST have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. List all the modifications occured.” If you failed to prove even one of them, then I’ll just consider you guys are a myth. How does that sound?
4. If mutation can create an evolved being that are BETTER than what it was, please provide one example to me. I need a macroscopic level of example because people can claim a lot of things regarding the microscopic level of examples since many people don’t really understand how things work down there, including the claimer.
5. Why do you guys kept talking about ‘Intelligent Design” when you guys are clinging onto the notion of ‘Natural Selection’. Are you guys not know that natural selection itself suggested something ‘common’ or ‘natural’ and nothing so intelligent? I have read about the ’sorting’ thing that the ‘natural selection’ does, but it strikes me that if the selection is not always the same, then it does not sound so ‘natural’ to me.
6. How do Dariwinist/Evolutionist explain the existence of different human races across the globe? How about different races at the same place for hundreds of years?
Regarding Edrei’s comments, I have some questions for him/her as well. I’m sorry for posting this question to you. I’m not trying to attack you, just some arguments from me. Please correct me where i’m wrong since i only had some education about the theory of evolution from my readings and some lower level discussions. Thanks.
1. You said, “Unless of course you’re calling medical science a farce, then well…tell that the next time someone you know suffers from a genetic disease”
- I’m guessing that you are referring to someone being genetically mutated since that’s what Darwinism usually talks about. Well according to Darwinism, that’s a good thing right? Because from mutation, the organism will evolve into something better through adaptation. (I know about the idea of good and bad mutation, but how do we say a mutation is good or bad? Wait until someone died because of it and call it a bad mutataion?) Then for Darwinist, maybe mutation is no longer should be considered as suffering, but maybe the goal of this life.
2. You said. “In this case, selective pressure (antibiotics) force the bacteria (TB for example) to adapt to their environment. Since only the ones immune to antibiotics will survive, they will be the ones that will grow to a whole new generation. And again repeat the process with a new antibiotic”
-whatever happened to the ‘natural selection’? If we are talking about bacterias in a greater sense, then maybe you can argue here that it was the survival of the fittest, which is also the natural selection. But then, if a different ’selective pressure’ as you said, being applied, will the same bacteria survived? Or will they die and another kind of bacterias survived?
But if we discuss it on the more complex level, say the system inside the bacteria’s body, then if natural selection has really changed the bacteria to be adaptive, then all other bacteria should be able to adapt somehow using their own natural selection. It might takes a few hundreds years for that to occur or it might not happen at all? Any Darwinism ideas on this?
How could someone prove that it is a kind of evolution? How long did it take for the change to occur? Further, you argued that it will repeat the process with a new antibiotic. Are you sure that it will happen? Or is it just a bold assumption? Are you not afraid that the resistense to such antibiotics (and only such) is just the trait of that bacteria? And maybe that is why the bacteria existed after all. Because God want to create a source of medicine to every kind of sickness.
3. You said, “the same argument that can be thrown into why cuttlefish eyes are perfect and ours isn’t in the over argued “eye paradox”
- The notion of cuttlefish eyes as perfect from you seems like you are believing that the evolution has stopped since there existed a perfect condition of something. Things that has been perfected should not evolve anymore since how can a perfect thing evolve into something that is more perfect than that?
check this out
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-11-22T141111Z_01_L09265541_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-TURKEY-EVOLUTION-DC.XML