Teori evolusionisme

Evolusi sampai saat ini merupakan teori yang masih menjadi perdebatan diantara para ilmuan di seluruh dunia. Teori tersebut menyatakan terjadinya sebuah perubahan pada makhluk hidup atau spesies secara gradual (perlahanlahan). Perubahan yang dihasilkan membutuhkan waktu yang cukup lama dalam menghasilkan spesies atau makhluk hidup yang baru. Teori evolusi menjadi sebuah teori yang tenar ketika dipopulerkan oleh ilmuan Inggris Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Evolusi adalah konsep terpenting dalam biologi. Bahkan, seorang ahli genetika, Dodzhansky dalam Luthfi dan Khusnuryani (2005) mengatakan bahwa tidak ada yang masuk akal dalam biologi kecuali ditinjau dari sudut pandang evolusi. Teori evolusi menjelaskan mengapa jutaan spesies dapat eksis. Prinsip ini mempersatukan keseluruhan sejarah kehidupan. Secara ringkas evolusi menyatakan bahwa keanekaragaman bentuk kehidupan muncul sebagai hasil perubahan susunan genetikanya. Organisme-organisme modern merupakan keturunan dari bentuk-bentuk kehidupan sebelumnya yang mengalami modifikasi. Studi evolusi biologi memerlukan banyak pemahaman mengenai genetika, biokimi, embriologi, biogeografi, geologi, biologi, paleontologi, bioologi molekuler, dan lain sebagainya. Penolakan terhadap teori evolusi terkait dengan pernyataan Darwin bahwa spesies berkembang dari spesies yang sederhana ke makhluk hidup yang lebih kompleks. Darwin menyatakan bahwa mutasi adalah sumber keragaman yang selanjutnya melalui seleksi alam akan menyeleksi varian yang survive, selanjutnya evolusi terus berlangsung dan dapat menghasilkan spesies yang sangat berlainan dari spesies asalnya. Pernyataan evolusi Darwin ini mendapat tanggapan di kalangan ilmiah maupun masyarakat awam. Banyak tulisan ilmiah maupun pandangan tentang evolusi yang menyangkal peran mutasi bagi seleksi alam, mutasi dianggap tidak berperan karena mutasi bersifat acak, tidak terarah sehingga 1 2 menghasilkan mutan yang merugikan, kondisi gen di alam sebagian besar adalah homosigot, mutasi lebih banyak menyebabkan gen dominan menjadi resesif. Para kreasionis penentang evolusi memperselisihkan tingkat dukungan evolusi di kalangan ilmuwan. Discovery Institute telah mengumpulkan sekitar 600 ilmuwan sejak tahun 2001 untuk menandatangani petisi “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” (Ketidaksepakatan ilmiah dari Darwinisme) untuk menunjukkan bahwa terdapat sejumlah ilmuwan yang meragukan “evolusi Darwin”. Pernyataan petisi ini tidak secara jelas menyatakan ketidakpercayaan pada evolusi, melainkan skeptisisme kemampuan “mutasi acak dan seleksi alam untuk bertanggung jawab terhadap kompleksitas kehidupan (Wikipedia, 2008). Berdasarkan hal ini tampak bahwa penolakan teori evolusi didasarkan peranan mutasi gen dan seleksi alam. Mengapa penganut kreasionisme menentang bahwa mutasi gen dan seleksi alam bukan merupakan faktor terjadinya proses evolusi? Alasan penolakan mereka berdasarkan alasan bahwa mutasi gen selalu merugikan, akan tetapi alasan ini tidak berdasarkan hasil empiris di tingkat penelitian molekuler. (Nusantari, 2013) Namun seiring dengan perjalanan waktu teori evolusi mengalami penyempurnaan atau modifikasi hingga sampai saat ini. Seperti halnya teori evolusi Darwin menjadi teori evolusi sintesis modern. Teori tersebut hingga sampai saat ini menjadi populer dikalangan masyarakat umum. Didalam gagasan teori evolusinya yang Darwin jelaskan dalam bukunya the Origin of Species terdapat dua pokok gagasan yang Darwin jelaskan dalam bukunya tersebut. Pertama adalah spesies-spesies yang ada sekarang ini merupakan keturunan dari spesies moyangnya

Ideological Prolegomena of the Soviet-Russian Activity Theory

The article examines the system-methodological and conceptual foundations of the psychological activity theory that arose in the Soviet Union under the influence of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The author demonstrates the process of incorporation of Marxism-Leninism dogmas into the canonical form of the activity theory as a scientific knowledge that does not need any scientific confirmation. The pseudoscientific discourse that arose at the same time served to strengthen the position of the ideologists of the bureaucratic system, who found “objective confirmations” of the truth of Marx’s teachings in the data of psychological science. The scientific community, subjected to ideological transformation, tried to defend itself from the destructive influence of ideology, giving rise to special forms of relations in the scientific and psychological environment, which led to the struggle and confrontation of scientific schools and groups. As a result of ideological expansion, psychological knowledge has become to some extent a tool for the bureaucratic system to overpower scientific dissent. That was clearly manifested in the discussion on the results of the Zagorsk experiment, in which an incorrect, partially falsified, attempt was made to prove the development of the human psyche of children born deaf and blind. The influence of ideology can also be traced in the confrontation of scientific schools in physics, genetics, biology and physiology. The article discusses prospects and new trends in the development of the activity theory after exclusion of the ideological concepts of Soviet socialism from its systemconceptual foundations. We observe the formation of new psychological concepts that reflect non-classical and post-non-classical forms of scientific rationality. Attempts are made to create and study the models of the psyche developed within the framework of the theory of organized complexity and the concepts of autopoietic self-organization and evolution.

Dissent and Its Discontents

This introductory chapter presents the philosophical approach used in this book to deal with the problematic epistemic and social consequences of some scientific dissent. It challenges approaches to this problem that focus on finding criteria to identify what the authors have termed normatively inappropriate dissent (NID), and it calls for a reframing of the problem that highlights some of the epistemic and social conditions actually contributing to making NID more damaging: scientific institutions and practices that undermine warranted public trust in science and a misunderstanding of the role of science in policy making. It also offers an overview of the book and specifically describes each of the chapters.

Post-Normal Techno-Anthropology

This paper identifies, explains, and illustrates the meaning of Post-Normal Techno-Anthropology as a two-step methodological strategy for analyzing policy-relevant scientific dissent in different segments of science, techno-science, and technological innovation. The first step focuses on epistemological and ethical analyses of the dissenting parties’ positions, and identifies conflicting arguments and assumptions on different levels. The second step involves scholarly discussions on how the analyses of policy-relevant scientific dissent can inform decision-makers and science advisors’ phronetic judgments. Dissenting views on climate change of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is used as an illustrative example.

Uncertainty and Dissent in Climate Risk Assessment: A Post-Normal Perspective

Uncertainty complexity and dissent make climate change hard to tackle with normal scientific procedures. In a post-normal perspective the normal science task of "getting the facts right" is still regarded as necessary but no longer as fully feasible nor as sufficient to interface science and policy. It needs to be complemented with a task of exploring the relevance of deep uncertainty and ignorance that limit our ability to establish objective, reliable, and valid facts. This article explores the implications of this notion for the climate science policy interface. According to its political configuration the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopted a "speaking consensus to power" approach that sees uncertainty and dissent as a problematic lack of unequivocalness (multiple contradictory truths that need to be mediated into a consensus). This approach can be distinguished from two other interface strategies: the "speaking truth to power approach," seeing uncertainties as a temporary lack of perfection in the knowledge (truth with error bars) and the "working deliberatively within imperfections" approach, accepting uncertainty and scientific dissent as facts of life (irreducible ignorance) of which the policy relevance needs be explored explicitly. The article recommends more openness for dissent and explicit reflection on ignorance in IPCC process and reporting.