Are There any Unbiased Scientists that Don't believe in evolution?

Question

Does anyone know of any unbiased (non-christian) scientists that refute the theory of evolution? I know there are some.

Answer 1

greenfish. What is the viable alternative to the theory of gravity? No one has refuted the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is not a matter of belief, but of the evidence. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the fact of evolution; the change in allele frequency over time in a population. There may be some scientists who do not think evolutionary theory is not a good explanation of the facts, but they have yet to propose any alternative evidence that supports any alternative theories. I read the scientific literature, being an ethologist and I have found no peer reviewed evidence but in support of the standard theory of evolution. There may be some discussion of relevant concepts within the theory, but the overarching theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and is the backbone of biology.

Answer 2

The thing to ponder is: If we did evolve from monkeys or amoebas or anything else, how did thoses creatures get on earth? How did they come into being? How did the Earth itself come into existence? If there was a big bang, where did the objects in space come from?

Answer 3

??? Evolution is proven through experiments and observation. Is it biased to beleive in something thats true?

Let me give you an interesting statistic. 95% of Elite scientists are atheists.hmmm I wonder why? Maybe they are not biased... I mean to be a good scientists you can't be baised because then you would be delusional, ignoring facts and assuming things to early most of the time... wouldn't you?

Evolution is not flawed because evolution states that all life evolved from microscopic life and singular celled life forms. it has been shown that comets have all the key ingredients to spark life  and create dna as well. All it needed was a good hosts like an ocean and it can thrive in and spark life.  So evolution is not flawed. Creationism is because it calims when God created the world he created the plants before the sun. r****d science and insects were created after mammals He created light before a sun or moon.

Answer 4

Biased or otherwise, a true scientist will never believe in Adam and Eve theory, Christian or otherwise.

They are always on a lookout for scientific explanation for the begining of the human race and although arguable and not accepted by all, The Evolution Theory of Darwin is embraced by most scientist.

Answer 5

There was an atheist teacher at my college, named Mr. Webb, who did not believe in evolution.  I believe he was arguing something along the lines of the Big Bang Theory and we just sort of appeared here.  Never took one of his classes because it wasn't my department but a friend of mine said that that was what he believed.

Answer 6

I don't see how someone can get a degree in anything close to human science without believing in it.  It affects everything in the sciences.  It has made so much make sense.  I don't see why there can't be some meeting of the minds about its role in religion.  I see it, I don't understand the problems each side have about it.

Answer 7

The common belief that intelligent design is incompatible with evolution is off the mark, at least when the original version of intelligent design is considered.  The idea has been hijacked by fundamentalists of both the religious and the secular sort, and the debate is a straw man thing on both sides.

___Intelligent design doesn't get involved in the physical workings of evolution, only the whys of it.  The two questions lie in different domains, and cant' really touch one another.  Intelligent design involves philosophical aspects of evolution, and science the physical aspects.  And science can't answer philosophical questions.

___In practical terms, modern science has worked so well as a means to effectuality in the world, that we takes its metaphysical presuppositions for granted very broadly, and forget that they are presuppositions.  Some of those metaphysical presuppositions have to do with the distinctness and "independent existence" of ordinary-sized material objects.  But based on the very same presupposition, Hume "proved" in 1740 that causation and other sorts of physical connection and continuity in the world were products of human mental associations, and gave a foundation for modern scepticism.

___Now modern science is largely about causation, and mathematics is an integral part of it.  And if the presuppositions that allow modern science to be a mathematical enterprise are the same ones that "prove" that causation is merely a figment of our imaginations, they of what absolute value is modern science?

___Of course there are ways around this, but they are complicated.  Down and dirty, there is common sense, that compels us to proceed with our practical knowledge if it works, even if we can't get all of the bugs out of it when we try to push it as if it were absolute knowledge.

___Secular Humanism is a movement that is 600 years old, and it's naive to think that its adherents aren't as likely to get extreme as religious adherents.  Sure, religious fundamentalism and creationism get a bit difficult to bear at times, but it is in the very sophistication of modern science that the greater danger of science-as-absolutism resides.  For most people it's easy to dismiss creationism, and it poses little danger to mislead them.  But the limitations of science haven't been around long enough historically to be very well known, and their nature is still under debate.  

___Modern science has trouble accounting for the fullness of human consciousness.  It has trouble dealing with the spontaneity of living things, and with adequately with anything involving values and morality.  Quantum physics hasn't been around long enough for its implications to become ingrained into the common culture (never mind figuring out what they really are),  Modern science is a bit hobbled by the mathematics that gives it its strength when it comes to observing stable entities, for mathematics can't describe unstable entities in their own terms, only in terms of stable values and predictable variables.  But some quantum effects are fundamentally unstable and unpredictable.  

___And science has to be mediated by language, that linear stringing-together of distinct grammatical elements that is essentially inadequate for describing the integrated world of objects connected by their attractive properties.  "Scientific evidence" is just one element within this linguistic structure, and has practical, but not absolute, authority.  "Gravity" is a separate entity, an "invisible force" only by stipulation and for mathematical convenience, but in fact, an elastic connectedness is a property of all matter, especially significant at the scale of medium- and large-sized material objects, and to conceive of a world of material objects, each of which extends to infinity with respect to this one property, is unintelligible to us, though that is how the world exists.  (The world doesn't have to conform to the requisites of our intelligibility in order for it to exist; it exists on its own.)

___This intelligent design debate is rather silly, in fact.  Intelligent design, in its moderate form, is merely an often-clumsy attempt to put a finger on the narrowness of the standard model of evolution.  The standard model of evolution works for living matter only, and obviously not for minerals, but intelligent design, in a moderate form could be restricted to THAT transition, the transition from "dead" matter to simple life.  The Miller-Urey experiment only showed a possibility that  early buliding-blocks of life could be formed, but it didn't explain why how "dead" matter could take on the activity of self-preservation.

___How many ways are to point this out?  Science describes HOW things are in the world, not WHY.  Responsible advocates of intelligent design don't try to REFUTE evolution.  They don't have to.  They are just trying to point out that evolution can't be used to prove things beyond the reach of its domain.

Answer 8

your question is biased because it is assuming that all scientist believes in evolution. well, science is a very wide field and there are scientist that do not believe in evolution, there are also scientist that believes that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Answer 9

I would have to disagree with you unless they are ignorant or reading the popular propaganda.  There is a huge market for "intelligent design" and other misguided theories.  Many of the authors are purposely distorting logic in the many examples I have read.  I am a Christian, by the way, and that is why I have read so many of the anti-evolutionary theories.  Of course there are people who don't understand the subject well enough to recognize some of these well constructed but seriously flawed ideas.

Answer 10

There are, but not usually biologists, or any other kind of scientist whose specialty is closely related to evolution.  Most creationists are either a fundamentalist in whatever religion they worship (just as not all Christians are creationists, nor are all creationists Christian) or don't know all that much about evolution.  The debates about evolution within biologist circles are about the details, not about whether it exists.  That's because nothing about biology makes any sort of cohesive sense _without_ evolution.  Without evolution, biology is just a bunch of facts and figures with no idea behind it all.  It would be like trying to practise medicine without really knowing how the body works, but just knowing that if you do this, then that will feel better.

Answer 11

Scientists don't "believe in" evolution.  The evidence supports the theory.

There are several important disagreements among anthropologists, but all anthropologists recognize evolution as the principle behind the changes that have occured in plants and animals on the planet.

There is no scientific evidence that refutes the theory of evolution.

Answer 12

yeah i am one. there no such thing as an unbiased anything otherwise they would be a budhist, christian, muslim, athesist, etc etc. evolution- try finding me any other species like humans that use their creative mind to create non existing tools to manipulate the environment. for example like an airplane. it didnt exist till someone created it but me another species that does such a thing.

Answer 13

The definition of a scientist is one that "believes nothing but suspects many things."   The scientist must go where the evidence dictates & many staunch Christian, Jewish & Muslim scientists will tell you evolution is fact.

Contrary to what many fundamentalist theologians tell people, religion doesn't exclude rationality & evolution.  The simple fact is that we don't know everything about gravity, but know enough to prove it exists.