there a credible scientific theory that opposes evolution?
Answers
Answered by
0
Not a credible one.
There are however debates within evolution as to the mechanisms, the unit of selection and the influence of evolution on behaviors as well as physical structures.
The other options have either been discredited (falsified in the vernacular of science) or are unscientific.
The most widely quoted alternative is Intelligent Design, described as creationism in a cheap tuxedo. It does not stand up to serious scientific study and most of the early examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to have suitable available evolutionary pathways and developmental time for the structures to have evolved. The ID community claims that it is denied a voice (see expelled as an example) but as the proposal is not falsifiable papers get rejected. Saying "I can't see how this structure evolved ergo ID" is not considered good science as it does not exhaust all lines of inquiry.
That is not to say that evolution will last for ever. Newtonian mechanics fails at a sub atomic level, so there is still a small shred of hope for the deniers out there. The problem is that Newton was still right at the level he described, just as all the evidence shows that Darwin was right about the pressure of natural selection. The modern synthesis then adds in Mendel's gene theory and along with a huge amount of statistical analysis and here we are with the closest thing to an absolute proof in the life sciences.
There are however debates within evolution as to the mechanisms, the unit of selection and the influence of evolution on behaviors as well as physical structures.
The other options have either been discredited (falsified in the vernacular of science) or are unscientific.
The most widely quoted alternative is Intelligent Design, described as creationism in a cheap tuxedo. It does not stand up to serious scientific study and most of the early examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to have suitable available evolutionary pathways and developmental time for the structures to have evolved. The ID community claims that it is denied a voice (see expelled as an example) but as the proposal is not falsifiable papers get rejected. Saying "I can't see how this structure evolved ergo ID" is not considered good science as it does not exhaust all lines of inquiry.
That is not to say that evolution will last for ever. Newtonian mechanics fails at a sub atomic level, so there is still a small shred of hope for the deniers out there. The problem is that Newton was still right at the level he described, just as all the evidence shows that Darwin was right about the pressure of natural selection. The modern synthesis then adds in Mendel's gene theory and along with a huge amount of statistical analysis and here we are with the closest thing to an absolute proof in the life sciences.
Similar questions