Diferencia entre revisiones de «Answers in Genesis»

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
Explorar historial interactivamente
← Ir a diferencia anteriorIr a siguiente diferencia →
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
VisualWikitexto
Abelaphar (discusión · contribs.)
29 ediciones
Sin resumen de edición
Abelaphar (discusión · contribs.)
29 ediciones
Sin resumen de edición
Línea 15: Línea 15:




'''Respuestas del Genesis''' ('''Answers in Genesis''') es una Iglesia [[Apologética]] [[Cristianismo|Cristiana]] [[Sin ánimo de lucro]] enfocada particularmente en el [[Creacionismo de la Tierra Joven]] y una interpretación [[Literalismo Bíblico|literal]] de el [[Libro del Génesis]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp Feedback 21 May 2004] Answers in Genesis</ref> La Organización tiene oficinas en [[Reino Unido]] y los [[Estados Unidos]]. Tuvo oficinas en [[Australia]], [[Canadá]], [[Nueva Zelanda]] y [[Sudáfrica]], pero en 2006 se escindieron para formar la [[Iglesia Internacional de la Creación]] ([[Creation Ministries International]]).
'''Respuestas del Genesis''' ('''Answers in Genesis''') es una Iglesia [[Apologética]] [[Cristianismo|Cristiana]] [[sin ánimo de lucro]] enfocada particularmente en el [[Creacionismo de la Tierra Joven]] y una interpretación [[Literalismo Bíblico|literal]] de el [[Libro del Génesis]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp Feedback 21 May 2004] Answers in Genesis</ref> La Organización tiene oficinas en [[Reino Unido]] y los [[Estados Unidos]]. Tuvo oficinas en [[Australia]], [[Canadá]], [[Nueva Zelanda]] y [[Sudáfrica]], pero en 2006 se escindieron para formar la [[Iglesia Internacional de la Creación]] ([[Creation Ministries International]]).

==Opiniones sobre la Ciencia==

Respuestas del Génesis (RdG) rechaza la mayoría del [[consenso científico]] relacionado con la [[cosmología]], [[geología]], [[lingüística]]<ref name="Tower of Babel">{{cite news | url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp | title=Babel |publisher=Answers in Genesis | date=June 2002 | first=John | last=Whitcomb | accessdate = 2008-09-06}} Also in ''Creation'' 24(3):31–33 June 2002</ref>, [[paleontología]] y [[biología evolutiva]]. En su lugar, apoyan varias hipótesis sobre cómo el universo, la Tierra y la vida pudieron originarse en los últimos 10.000 años. RdG afirman presentar argumentos científicos para apoyar sus visiones eminentemente teológicas de la creación,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend?] Answers in Genesis</ref> que en algunos casos son similares a los del movimiento del [[diseño inteligente]] (DI) <ref name="IDMovement">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement The Intelligent Design Movement], Answers in Genesis</ref>. Sin embargo, critican al DI por no mencionar al [[Dios en el Cristianismo|Dios Cristiano]] y la Edad de la Tierra.<ref name="IDMovement"/>

Respuestas del Génesis enfatiza una aproximación a la [[apología]] basado mas en una [[suposiciones apologéticas|suposición]] que en una [[evidencialismo|evidencia]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0610.asp Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?] Answers in Genesis</ref> Esto no significa que nieguen el papel de la evidencia científica, si no que consideran que todos los científicos parten de [[axiomas]] o presunciones, que rigen la manera en que se interpreta la evidencia. Para ellos, esta opinión es una manera de [[realismo crítico]].

Dado que sus ideas contradicen mayoritariamente el actual consenso científico, se les considera una [[pseudociencia]] por la comunidad científica.

===Visiones Cosmológicas y el Problema de las Distancias entre Estrellas===
Respuestas del Génesis cree que todas las estrellas y los cuerpos celestes, incluída la Tierra, se formaron hace unos 6.000 años aproximadamente.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp The sun: our special star<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Rechazan las teorías [[científicas]] de la [[cosmología física|cosmología]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang Get Answers: Astronomy and Astrophysics] Answers in Genesis</ref>

A young universe is challenged by the [[starlight problem|distant starlight problem]], which presents the dilemma of how light from objects millions or billions of [[light year]]s away could be observed in a young universe. Some creationists have attempted to answer this with explanations involving God [[Omphalos (theology)|creating light en-route]], or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the past, an argument also referred to as [[c-decay]]. Answers in Genesis rejects both of these proposed solutions<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay Arguments we think creationists should NOT use<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and tentatively prefers a model proposed by creationist physicist [[Russell Humphreys]]<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp How can we see distant stars in a young universe?] Answers in Genesis</ref> called "White Hole Cosmology". This [[creationist cosmologies|creationist cosmology]] requires that the [[Milky Way]] lie near the center of the universe, a suggestion which AiG believes is supported by claims of [[redshift quantization|quantized redshift]]s.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show], Answers in Genesis</ref> Creationists [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]] and Samuel R. Conner has rejected Humphreys model on scientific grounds.<ref name="RossCriticism">{{cite news | url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main | title=Starlight and Time Review | publisher=[[Reasons to Believe]] |date=March 22, 1999 | first=Hugh | last=Ross | accessdate = 2007-02-19}} RNCSE 24 (1): 31-32</ref>

Humphreys claims are not accepted by the scientific community. According to scientists [[Björn Feuerbacher]] and [[Ryan Scranton]]:
:"Humphreys... fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else), but that is far from the only problem with the model. In particular, Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e.g., the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth."<ref>Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#humphreys Evidence for the Big Bang], [[talk.origins]] January 25, 2006.</ref>

The idea of the Milky Way existing near the center of the universe is similar to [[modern geocentrism]], but AiG has intentionally distanced themselves from claims that the planet Earth is the exact center of the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1 Astronomy And The Bible]</ref> AiG believes that the creationists' distant starlight problem is similar to the historically significant "[[horizon problem]]" of the [[Big Bang theory]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]</ref> While the [[scientific consensus|general consensus]] of cosmologists is that the horizon problem is solved by [[cosmic inflation|inflationary theory]] as a model for the universe,<ref>[http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html The Horizon Problem]</ref> there is no creationist consensus on the solution to the distant starlight problem.

===Origin of life and evolution===
Answers in Genesis' beliefs are in agreement with scientific consensus that [[evolution]] and the [[origin of life]] are separate fields of study.{{Fact|date=August 2008}} Answers in Genesis proposes '[[baraminology]]' to classify life forms based on the description in Genesis 1 to reproduce “''after their kind''”.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/kinds.asp Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology)] Answers in Genesis </ref>

Answers in Genesis believe that evolution by natural selection can only cause variability by reducing the genetic information or shifting existing information around. This is distinct from the evolutionary view that mutation followed by natural selection causes both increases and decreases in the amount of genetic information. Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about [[natural selection]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Get Answers: Natural Selection<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They state that "''...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.''", citing an example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box Bears across the world<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as [[gene duplication]] and [[polyploidy]] provide new information and that duplicate genes can mutate rapidly, which may change their function. Answers in Genesis denies that copying genes provides new, usable information, arguing that such duplicated genetic information is merely an additional copy of the original information.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp Copying confusion<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Novel information appearing in an organism's genome has been described by scientists, one example being [[nylon-eating bacteria]] that evolved a new enzyme to digest [[nylon]], a polymer that wasn't invented until 1935.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S |title=Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers |journal=Nature |volume=306 |issue=5939 |pages=203–6 |year=1983 |pmid=6646204 |doi=10.1038/306203a0}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Yomo T, Urabe I, Okada H |title=No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=89 |issue=9 |pages=3780–4 |year=1992 |pmid=1570296 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=1570296 |doi=10.1073/pnas.89.9.3780}}</ref> Scientists repeated these results in the laboratory when they forced a strain of ''[[Pseudomonas]]'' to evolve nylon-digesting enzymes by leaving them in an environment which contained no nutrients other than the man-made by-products of nylon.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I |title=Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution |journal=Appl. Environ. Microbiol. |volume=61 |issue=5 |pages=2020–2 |year=1995 |pmid=7646041 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=7646041}}</ref> AIG has responded to such evidence by stating that "''there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance''", providing several points in support of this claim.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Another focus for the Answers in Genesis' critique of evolution is that a naturalistic [[origin of life]] is virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell. They state that while the idea of [[spontaneous generation]] of cells was all but abandoned after [[Louis Pasteur]]'s work, [[abiogenesis]] remains one of the key conjectures of [[chemical evolution|prebiotic evolution]]. They calculate the probability of a [[Cell (biology)|cell]] spontaneously coming into existence as less than 1 in 10<sup>1057800</sup>,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp Cheating with chance<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> similar to estimates of some other scientists, such as biochemist [[Michael Denton]]<ref>''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis'', (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323</ref> and Sir [[Frederick Hoyle]], and believe this requires a better explanation than 'mere' chance. Probability arguments that require the abiogenesis of a cell are criticized by scientists as artificially limiting the biological and prebiotic mechanisms in the development of life. They contend that the mechanisms of evolution, such as [[natural selection]], can occur prior to origin of the first cell. They state that selection of self-replicating macromolecules, such as RNA,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Wright MC, Joyce GF |title=Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function |journal=Science |volume=276 |issue=5312 |pages=614–7 |year=1997 |pmid=9110984 |doi=10.1126/science.276.5312.614}}</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp Cairns-Smith: detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> cumulate small probabilities and that creationist statistical analysis does not describe the true probability of complex chemicals evolving into a cell.

Revisión del 18:20 3 sep 2008

Plantilla:Infobox Organización


Respuestas del Genesis (Answers in Genesis) es una Iglesia Apologética Cristiana sin ánimo de lucro enfocada particularmente en el Creacionismo de la Tierra Joven y una interpretación literal de el Libro del Génesis.[1]​ La Organización tiene oficinas en Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos. Tuvo oficinas en Australia, Canadá, Nueva Zelanda y Sudáfrica, pero en 2006 se escindieron para formar la Iglesia Internacional de la Creación (Creation Ministries International).

Opiniones sobre la Ciencia

Respuestas del Génesis (RdG) rechaza la mayoría del consenso científico relacionado con la cosmología, geología, lingüística[2]​, paleontología y biología evolutiva. En su lugar, apoyan varias hipótesis sobre cómo el universo, la Tierra y la vida pudieron originarse en los últimos 10.000 años. RdG afirman presentar argumentos científicos para apoyar sus visiones eminentemente teológicas de la creación,[3]​ que en algunos casos son similares a los del movimiento del diseño inteligente (DI) [4]​. Sin embargo, critican al DI por no mencionar al Dios Cristiano y la Edad de la Tierra.[4]​

Respuestas del Génesis enfatiza una aproximación a la apología basado mas en una suposición que en una evidencia.[5]​ Esto no significa que nieguen el papel de la evidencia científica, si no que consideran que todos los científicos parten de axiomas o presunciones, que rigen la manera en que se interpreta la evidencia. Para ellos, esta opinión es una manera de realismo crítico.

Dado que sus ideas contradicen mayoritariamente el actual consenso científico, se les considera una pseudociencia por la comunidad científica.

Visiones Cosmológicas y el Problema de las Distancias entre Estrellas

Respuestas del Génesis cree que todas las estrellas y los cuerpos celestes, incluída la Tierra, se formaron hace unos 6.000 años aproximadamente.[6]​ Rechazan las teorías científicas de la cosmología.[7]​

A young universe is challenged by the distant starlight problem, which presents the dilemma of how light from objects millions or billions of light years away could be observed in a young universe. Some creationists have attempted to answer this with explanations involving God creating light en-route, or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the past, an argument also referred to as c-decay. Answers in Genesis rejects both of these proposed solutions[8]​ and tentatively prefers a model proposed by creationist physicist Russell Humphreys[9]​ called "White Hole Cosmology". This creationist cosmology requires that the Milky Way lie near the center of the universe, a suggestion which AiG believes is supported by claims of quantized redshifts.[10]​ Creationists Hugh Ross and Samuel R. Conner has rejected Humphreys model on scientific grounds.[11]​

Humphreys claims are not accepted by the scientific community. According to scientists Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton:

"Humphreys... fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else), but that is far from the only problem with the model. In particular, Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e.g., the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth."[12]​

The idea of the Milky Way existing near the center of the universe is similar to modern geocentrism, but AiG has intentionally distanced themselves from claims that the planet Earth is the exact center of the universe.[13]​ AiG believes that the creationists' distant starlight problem is similar to the historically significant "horizon problem" of the Big Bang theory.[14]​ While the general consensus of cosmologists is that the horizon problem is solved by inflationary theory as a model for the universe,[15]​ there is no creationist consensus on the solution to the distant starlight problem.

Origin of life and evolution

Answers in Genesis' beliefs are in agreement with scientific consensus that evolution and the origin of life are separate fields of study.[cita requerida] Answers in Genesis proposes 'baraminology' to classify life forms based on the description in Genesis 1 to reproduce “after their kind”.[16]​

Answers in Genesis believe that evolution by natural selection can only cause variability by reducing the genetic information or shifting existing information around. This is distinct from the evolutionary view that mutation followed by natural selection causes both increases and decreases in the amount of genetic information. Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[17]​ They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.", citing an example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.[18]​ The mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy provide new information and that duplicate genes can mutate rapidly, which may change their function. Answers in Genesis denies that copying genes provides new, usable information, arguing that such duplicated genetic information is merely an additional copy of the original information.[19]​

Novel information appearing in an organism's genome has been described by scientists, one example being nylon-eating bacteria that evolved a new enzyme to digest nylon, a polymer that wasn't invented until 1935.[20]​[21]​ Scientists repeated these results in the laboratory when they forced a strain of Pseudomonas to evolve nylon-digesting enzymes by leaving them in an environment which contained no nutrients other than the man-made by-products of nylon.[22]​ AIG has responded to such evidence by stating that "there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance", providing several points in support of this claim.[23]​

Another focus for the Answers in Genesis' critique of evolution is that a naturalistic origin of life is virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell. They state that while the idea of spontaneous generation of cells was all but abandoned after Louis Pasteur's work, abiogenesis remains one of the key conjectures of prebiotic evolution. They calculate the probability of a cell spontaneously coming into existence as less than 1 in 101057800,[24]​ similar to estimates of some other scientists, such as biochemist Michael Denton[25]​ and Sir Frederick Hoyle, and believe this requires a better explanation than 'mere' chance. Probability arguments that require the abiogenesis of a cell are criticized by scientists as artificially limiting the biological and prebiotic mechanisms in the development of life. They contend that the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, can occur prior to origin of the first cell. They state that selection of self-replicating macromolecules, such as RNA,[26]​[27]​ cumulate small probabilities and that creationist statistical analysis does not describe the true probability of complex chemicals evolving into a cell.

  1. ↑ Feedback 21 May 2004 Answers in Genesis
  2. ↑ Whitcomb, John (June 2002). «Babel». Answers in Genesis. Consultado el 6 de septiembre de 2008.  Also in Creation 24(3):31–33 June 2002
  3. ↑ ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend? Answers in Genesis
  4. ↑ a b The Intelligent Design Movement, Answers in Genesis
  5. ↑ Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple? Answers in Genesis
  6. ↑ The sun: our special star
  7. ↑ Get Answers: Astronomy and Astrophysics Answers in Genesis
  8. ↑ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
  9. ↑ How can we see distant stars in a young universe? Answers in Genesis
  10. ↑ Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show, Answers in Genesis
  11. ↑ Ross, Hugh (March 22, 1999). «Starlight and Time Review». Reasons to Believe. Consultado el 19 de febrero de 2007.  RNCSE 24 (1): 31-32
  12. ↑ Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton, Evidence for the Big Bang, talk.origins January 25, 2006.
  13. ↑ Astronomy And The Bible
  14. ↑ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
  15. ↑ The Horizon Problem
  16. ↑ Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology) Answers in Genesis
  17. ↑ Get Answers: Natural Selection
  18. ↑ Bears across the world
  19. ↑ Copying confusion
  20. ↑ Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S (1983). «Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers». Nature 306 (5939): 203-6. PMID 6646204. doi:10.1038/306203a0. 
  21. ↑ Yomo T, Urabe I, Okada H (1992). «No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation». Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (9): 3780-4. PMID 1570296. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.9.3780. 
  22. ↑ Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I (1995). «Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution». Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61 (5): 2020-2. PMID 7646041. 
  23. ↑ The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste
  24. ↑ Cheating with chance
  25. ↑ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323
  26. ↑ Wright MC, Joyce GF (1997). «Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function». Science 276 (5312): 614-7. PMID 9110984. doi:10.1126/science.276.5312.614. 
  27. ↑ Cairns-Smith: detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis
Obtenido de «https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&oldid=19908884»