kenapa ya, creationist begitu mengebu-gebu pengen membantah evolusionist?
apakah demi kebenaran?
rasanya kok tidak, kerjanya melulu berupa reaksi atas temuan2 evolusionist.
sebenarnya, apakah teori evolusi bertentangan dengan paham agama?
sejauh ini rasanya tidak.
toh, bisa saja memandang bahkan jika teori evolusi benar, itu sebagai cara Tuhan (kalau memang ada) untuk mencipta dunia.
selama ini, tidak pernah juga kulihat pohon mangga tumbuh dengan tiba-tiba.
butuh proses kan?
kenapa juga tidak dibutuhkan proses berjuta tahun untuk menjadi pohon mangga yang ada sekarang ini?
bahwa mungkin pohon mangga berasal dari sesuatu yang paling tidak masuk akal, misalnya berasal dari kambing yang berevolusi jadi pohon mangga.
 

Dari discussion group tentang evolusi. Biar rada seimbang sudut pandangnya

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond," (Charles Darwin, Life and Letter of Charles Darwin, vol. II, From Charles Darwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863). One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution.

The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniest particles of life, and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man." (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp. 298-99).

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein, ("Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105). This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

The Problem of the Origin of Proteins

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence.

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in billion different ways (this is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros). Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things. The probability is practically nil.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."(H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 158 (3d ed. 1968), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 304).

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."(W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, 186 (4th ed. 1942), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 305).

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task. (J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 1988, pp. 81-82).

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. (Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 148).

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. (Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 130).

An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science News revealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acids could turn into proteins:

….no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. (Simpson, Sarah, "Life's First Scalding Steps," Science News, Jan. 9, 1999, 155(2):25).

So, did cell and protein evolutionize? No, they didn't.

http://www.friendster.com/group-discussion/index.php?t=msg&th=171122&start=0&

Maap diaut-aut deui kang, tapi ada artikel soal schizophrenia dan evolusi


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21201390-2,00.html

hahaha... gak salah kalo:


nice posting 

uppss... ketauan ga obyektif yahh... maksudnya biar imbang tadinya... salah dong

Lagi baca ini. Baru page 2, panjang euy 

beuh dari cangkul jadi desktop kompi bawaannya

by the way gw ngedukung kreasionisme total aja deh biar seru dikit

Evolution is no Threat to Buddhism
http://home.btclick.com/scimah/

In the western world there are two opposing views of the origins of the species - theological (creationism)  and scientific (evolution).

Creationism
Creationists believe that species are unchanging and derive their forms by reference to a divine blueprint. Theology has long been dominated by the ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato, who taught that the species were invariant, deriving their characteristics from reference to 'essences' or 'ideal forms' which were fixed, eternal and inherently existent. To a Creationist a rose is a rose is a rose, and would smell as sweet by any other name. There is no way a rose bush could fade into a strawberry plant, or a cherry tree, or a tangle of brambles, or a mountain ash, or a raspberry cane, or a hawthorn bush, or an apple tree. These are all totally distinct and immediately recognisable species - separate types of plant with nothing in between. Theologians base their time reckoning on the chronology of the Bible which states that the world all its species were created in six days of a single week around 4004 BC .

Evolution
Evolutionists believe that species arose by gradual change from simpler forms. Strawberry plants, cherry trees, blackberries, raspberries, hawthorns and apples all have a family likeness because they all arose from a common ancestor, which resembled a primitive rose. Hence botanists call this plant family the ROSACEAE.

Similarly all primates (including humans and apes) have a common ancestor. Going back further, all species of mammals diverged from a common ancestor,  and so on into the dim and distant past until we reach one common ancestor of all lifeforms, which originated the DNA coding which is universal for all plants, animals, fungi and bacteria on earth. Consequently, to evolutionists the biological species concept does not reflect any underlying reality. A species is purely a snapshot of an interbreeding population of organisms at a particular epoch in time, and as time progresses the characteristics of that population will gradually change in response to selective pressures.

Buddhism
Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. According to most schools of Buddhism there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent..

The two main creationist objections to evolution are:
1 Disagreement with Genesis
2 Blurring of the theological distinction between human and animal

Neither of these pose any threat to Buddhist philosophy. The first objection is based on the need to maintain the truth of a particular creation story in order to preserve the underlying basis for all Biblical truth. This is not a worry to Buddhists because there is no corresponding Buddhist creation myth, and Buddhist philosophers have always accepted that the universe is many hundreds of millions of years old.

The second theological objection is that evolution states that there is a continuum between ape and man, ie human and animal.(A favourite anti-evolutionary slogan is  'Don't let them make a Monkey of You!). This is not a problem for Buddhists,  who believe that both humans and animals possess sentient minds which survive death. However it is a major problem for theologians. The church has always taught that only humans have immortal souls, whereas animals are automata whose minds cease at death. Humans and animals were created separatedly and hence are totally different types of being.  But if there was a gradual transition between animal and man, as the evolutionists claim,   then such theological beliefs fall apart.

The theologians are left with three alternative unpalatable viewpoints:

- Both humans and animals are and always have been automata (the materialist's position).
- Both humans and animals are sentient beings whose minds survive death (the Buddhist position)
- At some arbitrary date in the past the apemen were suddenly equipped with souls.

The undermining of the doctrine of the distinction of human from animals is probably an even greater threat to the theological viewpoint than doubt about the literal truth of Genesis, and does much to explain why theologians of any persuasion have never been able to come to terms with what Daniel C. Dennett [REF 1] has described as Darwins's Dangerous Idea.

Evolution and dukkha.
No matter what philosophical knots the theologians may be forced to unravel,  from the Buddhist viewpoint the theory of evolution has considerable explanatory power, in particular demonstrating why dukkha (the sensation of unsatisfactoriness) is a pervasive experience of all sentient beings throughout the evolved biosphere.

- Sean Robsville