Raymond B. answered • 07/29/19
Math, microeconomics or criminal justice
There's several viewpoints:
theistic evolution, where a deity directs the evolution, rather than random chance. These theistic evolutionists are called Late Earthers in contrast to Young Earthers who stick to the Biblical Genesis account literally. At the Scopes Trial the major scientist who was a Young Earther was Price, a 7th Day Adventist. More recently, the inventor of the MRI was a medical doctor who was also a Young Earther. He was denied the Nobel Prize, solely because he didn't accept Darwinian evolution.
There's also a book Science of God authored by a Jewish MIT physicist who argues the theory of relativity explains how 6 days of creation correspond to billions of years, due to a time difference at the point of the Big Bang and the Earth.
There are also non-Darwinian evolutionists such as Steven J. Gould who gave us punctuated equilibrium, similar to Huxley's saltations. Darwin told Huxley to stay away from that idea as it sounds too much like Creationism.
Lord Kelvin was the major opponent of Darwin. Kelvin was a major physicist who argued the earth was too young to explain gradual evolution. More recently Nobel Laureate Crick made the same argument, denying evolution on earth and arguing life must have been seeded from outer space. Sir Fred Hoyle, an astrophysicist make a similar argument in a book coauthored with Buddhist Chandra Wickramasinghe, that life originated on earth from outer space, and did not evolve on earth.
Henry Morris in the US started a christian group defending the Young Earth Biblical position.
There are also "Intelligent Design" arguments such as by lifelong former atheist Antony Flew, who coauthored a book with an evangelical. He uses Thomas Aquinas like design arguments combined with modern science to argue that life on earth is impossible without a Designer. Alter any of the fundamental constants of nature even slightly and life on earth would be impossible. That's the Anthropological Principle.
Schools are so afraid of any violation of separation of church and state, they will avoid allowing any criticism of Darwin, even by atheist scientists. A University of Arizona Professor Fodor wrote a book What Darwin Got Wrong, which argues natural selection is a logical fallacy as a basis for evolution. Fodor is an atheist and evolutionist but denies natural selection as a possible mechanism for macroevolution.
You won't get an unbiased viewpoint in public schools. They are too afraid of lawsuits to ever even show any skepticism of Darwin.
Then there's philosophy of science, with the major classic philosopher Karl Popper. He gave the definition of pseudo science as the "theory" that can never be falsified. Any theory that merely adapts new evidence and can never be tested and potentially falsified is pseudo-science, not real science. Popper included Marxian economics, Freudian psychology and Darwinian evolution among the pseudo-sciences. Evolutionists were so critical, Popper backed off on Darwin, but you knew he really believed Darwin was pseudo-science. In fact many philosophers, even evolutionists, admit natural selection is a meaningless tautology saying nothing more than whatever survives survives. Popper was not religious or a Christian.
Darwin's Black Box is another major book by biochemist Behe, on how random evolution can't explain the design of complex life forms. But in public schools, the libraries will censor books like his.
I suggest you visit a couple web sites: [email protected] or icr.org or google Yale professor David Gelernter who objects to the Darwinist brainwashing in colleges. Galileo? He was the scientist who ridiculed a pope, yet half the cardinals still sided with him as to his heliocentric theory. Meanwhile, the atheist physicist of Galileo's time still promoted geocentrism of Aristotle. Civility matters. Atheists were as into believing the sun revolved around the earth as any catholic or christian.
