Temporary of Science

Related with Cross Dispute of Darwin’s Theory

M.Sueb, Dianing Eka P , Lina Arfiani, Dyah Afiat M, Bonny T, Rulyana Salma R

dds1_a@yahoo.com

Biology Department, FMIPA, The State University of Malang, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

In this topic explain that Science has behavior or characteristic that called
Nature of Science. Over the course of human history, people have depeloped many
interconnected validated ideas about the physical, biologycal, psycological, and social
worlds. The means used to developed these ideas are particular ways of observing,
thinking, experimenting, and validating. Science and theories have strong ties. Both are
built on the basis of facts which logically processed using verified propositions. The
aim is to benefit mankind. We took one characteristic of science, “ The Temporary of
Science” and “ Science is Secular”. The example of this case is about Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution. Charles Darwin theory is only a theory of science. If we look from
its temporary, we can find that this is not exactly true, but it is the truth that we accept
now, and sometime if there is a new theory defeat Darwin’s theory. therefore we can
also accept the new theory. That’s why science is temporary. The conclusion of this
research is that Nature of Science has nine characteristics, they are: science demands
evidence, it using foundation of critical thinking, temporary scientific explanation,
science is relevant to the tradition, it is based on mathematics, science is secular, it is
not religion, seeking to promote the welfare of mankind, and God is not part of science.
In these observations we take the data qualitatively. We use a method that supports our
observation that the direct observation method by interviewing the informant who we
choose. We use some of the steps prior to enter into an interview.
Keywords : nature of Science; themporary; evolution; Darwin

INTRODUCTION its environment. The means used to

Over the course of human history,
people have depeloped many
interconnected validated ideas about the
physical, biologycal, psycological, and
social worlds. Those ideas have enabled
succesive generation to achieve and
increasingly comprehensive and reliable
understanding of the human species and
developed these ideas are particular
ways of observing, thinking,
experimeting, and validating. These
ways represent a fundametal aspect of
the nature of science and reflect how
science tends to differ from other modes
of knowing. (Silk, 2009)
Science and knowledge are two
different terms. Soetriono and Rita

1
SRDm Hanafie (2000, 140) argued that
science is knowledge but not all
knowledge is science. Knowledge is the
formation of associative thinking that
linking or having a mind with reality or
with other thoughts based on the
experience of repeated without any
understanding of the essential and
universal causality. Science is the
accumulation of knowledge that
explains the causality of an object by a
particular method is a systematic unity.
(Bishop, B.E. 1996).
Science and theories have strong ties.
Both are built on the basis of facts
which logically processed using verified
propositions. The aim is to benefit
mankind. Science is built from the
theories and theories aim not merely to
discover hidden facts, but also a way to
find out your facts, organize and
represent that fact. Therefore a good
theory is a theory that the
conceptualization and explanation is
supported by the facts and can be
applied in real life. If on the contrary, it
is thus classified as pseudo-theory
theory. A good theory must satisfy two
elements: first, the theory is in
accordance with the realities of life and
both theoretical conceptualization and
explanation is supported by the facts
and can be applied in real life (Hasri,
2010).
The objectives of the research
are to understand the characteristic of
nature of science that has been widely
accepted among scientist and to
understand the temporary of Darwin
Theory.
METHODS
In these observations we take the
data qualitatively. We use a method that
supports our observation that the direct
observation method by interviewing the
informant who we choose. We used
some of the steps prior to enter into an
interview. These steps were as follows:
1. Choosing a theme
In this interview we choose a theme
that is characteristic of science in
accordance with the theme of our
papers. In particular we will discuss
about science that are temporary in
which we take the example of Darwin's
Theory of evolution.
2. Setting up the equipment
needed. The tools we need in the
interview are:
• Books
• writing tools
• Recorder
• Photos
• And notebook
3. Selecting sources
In this interview we chose the five
speakers who have expertise in the field
if we discuss that in the sciences.
The five sources we choose are:
1. Mrs. Nunung Wulandari
2. Mrs. Kurniawan Dwi Aviariza
3. Mr. fachturrohman
4. Two students of biology class of
2006, which had received education
about the theory of evolution.
4. Make the Questions
To be in our interview went well then
we prepare some questions to the
informant. Our question is as follows:
• What would you say That faith and
God is not part of the nature of science?
• How do you think of Darwin's theory
of evolution?
• How do you think about Mendel's
Theory?
• What is a Theory of the old and have
been torn down with the Emergence of
2
a New Theory. Can still be Considered
science?
• What do you think That science?
5. Conducting interviews
In conducting our interview resource
persons to meet directly at the place that
has been agreed. For that we make
promises.

RESULTS

Based on our research we got some data as follows:

Tabel 1

Respondents based on their faith and islam is not part of the nature of science.

Table 1 showed that the respondents gave their opinions about faith and Islam is not
part of the nature of science. There were some respondents that agree with this matters
and there are not agree with it. And one of the respondents answered it relatively.

No Matters Responses

1 What would you • Science did not accept something that could not
say that faith be seen directly. But carry them always in
and Islam is not needed of faith and God.
part of the • Agree because science did not accept something that
nature of could not be seen directly. But carried them always in
science? needed of faith and god.
• Agree because, Science supported faith. Science was
faith and faith was science. God commands people
have knowledge. So faith, God, and science were
inseparable. Because of mutually supporting each
other.

• Not agree, because the science supported faith.

Science is faith and faith is science. God commands
people have knowledge. So faith, God, and science
were inseparable. Because of mutually supporting each
other.
• Relative. God could not be science. God is not
tangible because it was by western scientists
everything important intangible did not exist. But
scientists are different from eastern western scientists.

Table 2

3
Respondents of the opinion of Darwin’s Theory

Table 2 showed that the respondents gave their opinions about Darwin's theory of
evolution. There were some responses that agree with it and their opinion were
Darwin’s theory good and according science is valid and true.

No Matter Responses

2 How do you • I did not agree, that discusses Darwin's theory

think of of the origin of human beings werere not able
Darwin's theory to explain the missing link. While Darwin's
of evolution? theory of natural selection on finch bird I
agreed.
• Agreed, because of our ancestor, we were a
homo sapient now, according to existing
theories. Also because I have not found a new
theory, if I found a new theory I just did not
agreed.
• Theory Darwin's good because no one has been
undermined.
While many were against it but nothing worked. I was
very impressed with Darwin because Darwin's morale
was very high.
• Darwin's Theory according science was valid and
true, because his theory obtained on the basis of
scientific measures were correct. But the results of the
theory is right or wrong is relative and can not be
concluded.
• I agreed with natural selection and adaptation as has
been proven and there were facts that support.

4
Table 3
Respondents of the opinion of Mendel’s Theory

Table 3 showed something about Mendel’s Theory. Some respondents opinions was
Theory Mendel more relevant than in Darwin's. Mendel and Darwin's theory is
different. Their different in view points. Darwin's theory is based on morphological
observation whereas the theory of Mendelian genetics is based on observation.

No Matter Responses

3 How do you • Theory Mendel more relevant than in Darwin's Theory

think about as supported objects that could be observed and has
Mendel been proven.
Theory? • Mendel and Darwin's Theory could not be equated
because they have a different point of views.
• Mendel and Darwin's theory was different. Their
different viewpoints. Darwin's theory is based on
morphological observation whereas the theory of
Mendelian genetics was based on observation
• Mendel's better than Darwin because the object was
exist and can be proved and can be learned. While many of
Darwin's observations of damaged materials such as
fossils Darwin lot of damages.
• I think so, reasonable and logical because the
existing evidence

5
Table 4
Respondents of the existency or the old theory

Table 4 showed that theory of the old and have been torn down with the emergence of a
new Theory. Can still be called a science. and some respondences think so.

No Matter Responses

4 What is a Theory • I think so, reasonable and logical because

of the old and the existing evidence
have been torn • Yes, because decision theory was based on
down with the scientific measures.
emergence of a • Still, because the nature of science was to
new Theory. Can continue to grow as long as the steps to find
still be called a the theory through the procedure of science,
science? although there was a new theory.
• Still as long as the data taken with the work
illmiah then fixed science.
• Still, the theory generated based on the fact.

6
Table 5
Respondents of the opinion about Science

This table explained about how is Science. respondences said that Science is science of
living things, natural,phenomena and said Science is a process while the theory is used
as a tool of human thought in logic, systematic, science. reasoning, sistematikly. Theory
could be wrong but it remains a science.

No Matter Responses

5 What do you • Science was the science of living things, natural

think that phenomena
science? • Science was Science learning nature based on
scientific method and supported by empirical
data.
• Science is something that is obtained through
the stages and scientific procedures which
reveal natural phenomena and supported by
empirical data. Product sains the rationale, legal.
So science is a process. While the theory is used
as a tool of human thought in logic, systematic,
science. reasoning, sistematikly. Theory can be
wrong but it remains a science.
• Scince was the study of nature and the
surrounding biotic and abiotic. Saintist must
have a scientific nature, honest, meticulous,
patient.
• That's not to quit but science could still continue to
grow over time. What if the hypothesis is tested many
times should produce the same. New could be called
science

7
DISCUSSION
In a simple science to mean a body of
knowledge (body of knowledge) that
emerged from the systematic grouping of
various scientific discoveries since ancient
times, or so-called science as a product.
Items referred to are the facts, principles,
models, natural laws, and various theories
that form the universe of scientific
knowledge usually likened to a building in
which the various results of scientific
activity is composed of various prior art.
Science can also mean a special method to
solve the problem, or so-called science as a
process. Scientific method is a very decisive,
science as a process has been proved
effective to solve scientific problems that
also make science continues to develop and
revise a variety of existing knowledge.
(Dibartolomeis , 2003)
1. Charactheristic of Nature of
Science
Some people try to link the science with
religion, or science with myth or later, says
that science is western culture. Therefore,
we should understand what the real nature
of science. Here we include nine nature of
science that has been widely accepted
among scientists.
1. Science demands evidence
All scientific explanations must eventually
be based on valid evidence. Without
evidence, the proposed explanation is
nothing more than speculation. When you
say that your faith in a strong supporting
evidence, then you really do not believe,
because you need proof. By saying such
things also, you have to position science as a
faith. You have misconceptions. Science
demands proof, so science is not faith.
(Rutherford , 1994)
2. Science wearing foundation of critical
thinking
The progress of science would not have
happened if scientists do not question old
assumptions, examine and reexamine old
data, and find fault with the old theory that
led to the explanation of a new and better.
When you say you supported the belief of
modern science, you put your faith in
dangerous positions. Your confidence will
undergo a process of critical thinking as
questioned, examined and searched his guilt.
In addition, this brings the danger position if
the support of modern science is proven
wrong later on due process of critical
thinking in science. (Anonim3 , 2009)
3. Temporary scientific explanation
No matter how strong the evidence and the
experiment, all scientific explanations are
temporary. He accepted for the present but
can be rejected or be extended if there is
new evidence that had denied it. In this case,
science is looking into the future. When you
enter your confidence with the support of
science, you make the nature of your
conviction to be temporary and you should
be ready some time to admit that your
beliefs are wrong.
4. Science is irrelevant to the tradition
In science, a fact that provided the customs
tradition is irrelevant. Science does not care
about tradition. If you have a tradition of
eating should be on the ground, and science
found that the tradition of eating on the
ground was dangerous, then science will not
accept that tradition as something that is
right thing to do. The history of science is
full of traditions of various tribes who were
scattered because it has been proven to fail
and incorrect. If you try to maintain your
tradition, do not try to link it with science.
Because such a case, it will carry on
scientific assessment. Tradition you are in a
position of danger. If the scientific
assessment finds that your tradition is
wrong, you inevitably have to accept that the
scientific world does not support your
tradition. (Anonim1. 2009)
5. Science is based on mathematics
Mathematics is a tool built by logic thinking.
Mathematics is independent of reality. There
are appropriate mathematical reality, there
are no suitable reality. Appropriate
mathematical reality is the one used by
science. And science continues to observe
the development of mathematics and if
nothing can be taken for scientific
explanations, then science will use them. For
example, before people think that linear
algebra is the mathematics that do not fit
reality. But then to try out the linear algebra
in the puzzle of quantum physics, scientists
had predicted many things and showed that
linear algebra turns out to be used to explain
reality. All formulas are built from a clear
definition. Mathematics is not a numbers
game like numerology. Mathematics is a
reasoning system that involves equations
which are held together in the axioms,
definitions, theorems, lemmas, conjectures
and postulates. If you try to apply the math
in your beliefs, then you make it susceptible
to analysis. Few found the lack of
consistency, then your belief can collapse.
6. Science is secular
Science regardless of race, religion, culture,
gender or language. Science can be done by
anyone without experiencing discrimination.
There is no such thing as Greek science,
Islamic science, science china, female
science, science white, western science and
so forth. Scientific principles derived from
pure human intellectual power, not based on
race, etc. mentioned above. Some countries
look better in science, because they are more
respected and enrich science in society, not
because they are white, or because they are
atheists. Science may be likened to the sport.
Every person is entitled to exercise. In short,
science is one of Human Rights.
7. Science is not religion
The strength of science lies in thinking
creatively and critically in harmony. The
parties propose something new, others
criticize. Religion on the contrary, free from
criticism and relied entirely on an
assessment of the past that should not be
changed.
8. Science seeks to promote the welfare
of mankind
Throughout history, science has produced so
many advances for mankind. Science can be
divided into two basic science and applied
science. In physics for example, basic
science study the electromagnetic and carry
on terapannya namely radio, television,
phone, internet etc.. In chemistry, pure
science studying the properties of methane
molecules, are applied to make the methane
as fuel for cooking. In biology, pure science
study the evolution of viruses, this is trying
to find a drug that could destroy the virus
evolutionary chain. Some parties may utilize
science to make such bombs or suicide
bombers rammed science products, such as
aircraft, to a high rise building. But science
will never accept this evil purpose. All
scientific papers will not write in the
benefits of research that is to destroy the
country / religion / race / gender specific.
But it will almost always be found if the
Benefits of Writing aims to promote the
welfare, both in the discovery of new drugs,
new technology or anything else. The rest
sometimes add an invitation to conduct
further research. (Anonim2, 2009)
9. God is not part of the Science
Science is materialistic and naturalistic.
Something that can not be proven or not
there is in principle, like gods, can not be
used as an explanation. For example, when
rain falls, science will not accept an
explanation if it rains caused by the grace of
god. Science will study the process of falling
rain, why can go down and so on. When
natural disasters, science does not accept the
assertion that the disasters caused by the
wrath of god, but science will find an
explanation why it can occur naturally as the
story, the causes of and then give
suggestions to avoid similar incidents
happening again. With the understanding of
the properties of this science, we hope the
reader can position exactly between the
beliefs, myths, the authority, the forecast
figures and so charismatic as a source of
knowledge. Science is one of the sources of
human knowledge, and so far, is the best
source. ( Murtadin, 2008)
In this explanation of nature of science we
just take two characteristhic to be the
example. Tha two characteristic is the
temporary of science and Science is seculer.
The main charactheristic that will be taken
as the main basic is the temporary of
science, and “science is seculer” is only the
adding characteristic to support explaning
the topic.
Darwin Theory
“Evolution is an essential concept for
anyone who considers science to be the
best way to understand the natural world. It
is a fully established as any scientific
principle can be and is the great unifying
theme in all of biology, as integral to
understanding the cosmos.” ( Fishman,
2008 ).
according to Darwin's theory of evolution,
humans are animals or animals that
advanced than animals or other species. In
1842 Darwin's theory has developed the
framework in a book as thick as 250 pages
that were completed in 1844, which later he
published a book entitled The Origin of the
Species by Means of Natural Selection in
1859 and another book titled The Origin of
Men in 1871 which became known by the
term Darwin's Theory of Evolution.“Darwin
believe that the similiarity between apes and
human was the consequence of shared
uncestry, but so little was known about the
origin and behaviour of apes and other
primates that he did not appreciated the full
extend of the connection between humans
and other primates. Today 170 years after
Darwin first met Jeny, we have a firm
understanding of the phylogenetic
relationship between our selves and other
primates.” With regard to the origin of life,
Darwin briefly explained that: “ Darwin’s
viewes, in the desecent of man, and
selection in relation to sex (5), charles
darwin suggested that affrica was the
worldplace for humankind. the following
passages and capsulate for us darwin’s
thinking about the place of human in
primate phylogeny and about the uniquenes
of modern human.” (Goodman, 2010)
1. Life comes from organic substances
which gradually been changed into
organic macromolecules is expected to
begin from the ocean.
2. Chemical evolution starting from
primordial atmosphere with beraksinya
inorganic materials with energy from
lightning forming macromolecular
compound as the components forming
cells.
3. Macromolecule-macromolecule will
progressively concentrated in the basin,
due to the relatively dry conditions with
the help of ATP and enzymes, an
accelerated reaction to form the
membrane structural and internal ibril as
part of a primitive cell which is a
 possibility of the formation of life on the
stage first.
4. Possible start of the evolution from sea to
land by using the analogy of the
development of invertebrates from water
to land.
5. The development of living things in
stages over a long period of simple
shapes into complex shapes.
6. The mechanism of evolution through
natural selection carried out by the events
of gene mutations that occur randomly
and unexpectedly on tigkat a population.
Darwin's theory based on natural
selection can produce major changes in
the organism after a long time even at a
certain time to produce new spesies. He
also said that all organisms that includes
all plants and animals that exist and never
have grown from a few or even one one
very simple forms through a process of
reduction with modification through
natural selection. (Sleister , 2007)
4. Cross dispute Darwin's theory of
evolution
“Mendel does not mention darwin in his
Pisum paper but his states unambiguously in
his introduction that his objective is to
contribute to the evolution controversy
raging at the time. It requires a good deal of
courage indeed undertake such a far-
reaching task; however, this seems to be the
one courage way of finally reaching the
solution to a question whose sicnificance for
the evolutionary history of organic forms
must not be underestimated ”. (Mendel,
1866) Charles Darwin recognized as the
father of the theory of evolution, have put
forward the idea since 1859 ago, in his book
The Origin of Species. However, cross
disputes about the theory of evolution still
persists today. In a poll in the United States
that belong to the most advanced countries
in the world, about 50 percent of
respondents remain skeptical of evolution.
For the field of Science and Technology,
this is not a problem. Because the rejection
or recognition of a theory, scientifically is
normal. Because the theory is the
assumption based on empirical observations,
both from field and laboratory. Darwin's
theory is tantamount to the theory of
relativity, or theory of the continental shelf
or the electron theory as well. Oes That is,
theory can be broken or also confirmed.
There are no absolutes in science. Also from
Einstein's theory of general relativity for
example, show, something which can
relatively be absolute, or vice versa. But
disputes about the cross-Darwinian theory of
evolution, become very interesting, because
it involves a variety of major religious
figures in the world. Also, Darwin is the
man, who can go wrong. A number of his
theory was successfully broken, wrong alias.
However, theories about the origin of
species, in the eyes of the scientists is the
idea that proved to be valid until today.
Indeed mockery or satire scientists who cons
of evolution theory, which likens humans
came from monkeys, more understandable
layman as actual fact. But if you look at the
results of human genome research,
scientific, Darwin's theory still remains
valid. Observations in the Galapagos
archipelago over the past two decades, set
forth by Darwin in what he called rough
conclusion 490 pages thick, published as a
book titled "The Origin of Species".
Observations, if traced further, based on
scientific field biogeography, paleontology,
morphology and embryologi. Biogeography
is the study of the distribution of living
creatures, paleontology science of living
things that have been destroyed, morphology
is the science of form or figure of living
things, and embryologi is the science of
living things at the stage when the fetus.
(Shane , 2009).
To prove this theory we make observations
and interview methods of the theory of
Darwin which is temporary. Resource
persons we interviewed is biology
professors in University of Malang. This is
the result of interviews we've done.
The respondents give their opinion about
faith and Islam is not part of the nature of
science. There are some respondents that
agree with it. And one of the respondents
answered it is relative.
The respondents give their opinion about
Darwin's theory of evolution. There are
some responses that agree with it and their
opinion are Darwin’s theory good and
according science is valid and true.
About Mendel’s Theory. Some respondents,
Theory Mendel more relevant than in
Darwin's. Mendel and Darwin's theory is
different. Their different viewpoints.
Darwin's theory is based on morphological
observation whereas the theory of
Mendelian genetics is based on observation.
Theory of the old and have been torn down
with the emergence of a new Theory. Can
still be called a science. And some
respondents think so.
Respondences said that Science is science of
living things, natural phenomena and said
Science is a process while the theory is used
as a tool of human thought in logic,
systematic, science. reasoning, sistematikly.
Theory can be wrong but it remains a
science.
CONCLUSION
The Nature of science has 9 charactheristic :
1. Science demands evidence
2. Science wearing foundation of critical
thinking.
3. Temporary scientific explanation.
4. Science is based on mathematics.
5. Science is secular.
6. Science is not religion.
7. Science is irrelevant to the tradition.
8. Science seeks to promote the welfare of
mankind
9. God is not part of the Science.
Darwin’s theory as an example of temporary
science is not always true, but now we
accept it has the truth because there is no
new theory is formed yet.
REFERENCES
Anonim1. (2009). Global freemasonry 05.
(Online),
(http://www.globalfreemasonry.com, access
on March, 13th 2011).
Anonim2.(2009). Charles Darwin Theory of
Evolution.(Online). (http://charles-darwins-
theory-of-evolution-not.html, access on
March, 10th 2011).
Anonim3 .(2009). Charles Darwin Theory.
(Online).
(http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/cont
ent/science, acces on March, 28th 2011).
Hasri, (2010). Science Demands Evidence.
(Online).
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_met
hod, acces on March, 28th 2011).
 Humans. America : Wayne State University
Bishop, B.E. (1996). Mendel’s Opposition School of Medicine.
to Evoluting and to Darwin. America :
America Genetic Assosiation.
Rutherford, F.James. (1994). Science For
All Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dibartolomeis SM, Mon´e JP (2003).
Apoptosis: a four-week laboratory
investigation for advanced molecular and Shane J (2009). Using NSTA’s standards for
cellular biology students. Cell Biol Educ 2, science teacher preparation as a
275–295. comprehensive framework for
understanding and teaching science. J Penn
Fishman, Ronald. S. (2008). Evolution and Acad Sci 82, 102–106.
The Eye. America : American Medical
Association. Silk, Joan B. (2009). Nepotistic
Cooperation. Nepotistic Cooperation in
Gene complex: m-dy mRNAs encode Non-Human Primate Groups. America : The
transmembrane proteins with similarity to Royal Society.
C. elegans cuticulin. Mol Genet Genomics
267, 564–576. Sleister HM (2007). Isolation and
characterization of Saccharomyces
Goodman. (2010). Phylogenomic Evidence cerevisiae mutants defective in chromosome
of Adaptive Evolution in The Ancestry of transmission in an undergraduate genetics
research course. Genetics 177, 677–688