Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

This quote says it all:

“The only way the Darwin-only lobby can spin these kind of survey results,” added Chapman, “is to claim that the public is just ignorant. But that view is untenable in light of the more than 300 scientists who have publicly expressed their dissent from Darwinism, to say nothing of the many scientific articles that have been published critiquing the theory.”

[dangus]

I'm very curious to know what the 300 scientists wrote.

[orionblamblam]

> I'm very curious to know what the 300 scientists wrote.

Probably something along the lines of, "Our 300 voices outweigh the voices of several hundred thousand other scientists who understand that evolution is an established fact."

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Tell ya what: I'll do some research and get back to you, okay? I'll start at the first name and work down.

Dissent

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Probably something along the lines of, "Our 300 voices outweigh the voices of several hundred thousand other scientists who understand that evolution is an established fact."

Many scientists, no doubt, choose to not express their religious beliefs, or disbelief of Darwinism, due to the backlash they would receive from their peers.

And another thing - a theory can't be a fact. I would venture to guess that nearly 100% of scientists would tell you that.

[John H K]

Also I suspect you'll find most of the "300 scientists" are from fields not directly related to evolution; you won't find any paleontologists, and very few biologists (at least ones with degrees from places other than tiny diploma factories.)

[Lost Highway]

It's a trick question. There is no scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution! <\sarcasm>

[John H K]

Well, a few more actual biologists than I expected (though many are from small/obscure/non-prestigeous colleges) but the list is still mostly people only tangentally related to evolution.

And there isn't a single paelontolgist on the list, unless I missed a couple (person actually out in the field digging up fossils and examining them) which should tell you something.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Starting with the first name on the list, we have Dr. Schaefer.

Since 1987 Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently named the third-most cited chemist in the world.

Here's a link to a paper he wrote:

Is Evolution a Good Theory?

An excerpt:

Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity precisely predicted the appearances of Halley's comet in 1910 and 1986. On the latter occasion I was on sabbatical from Berkeley at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The newspaper (informed by classical mechanics and the law of gravity) told me exactly when I had to wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy the wonder of Halley's Comet. And in fact, the theory of gravity never fails for the macrosopic objects to which it is applicable. A second successful theory, the atomic theory,is grounded in Schroedinger's Equation and the Dirac Equation. Atomic theory is able to make many predictions of the spectra of the hydrogen molecule and the helium atom to more significant figures that may be currently measured in the laboratory. We are utterly confident that these predictions will be confirmed by future experiments. By any reasonable standard the theory of gravity and the atomic theory are good theories, well deserving of A grades. In comparison with these quantitative theories of the physical sciences, when it comes to Hawking's second requirement for a good theory, the standard evolutionary model fails, and should be given a D grade at best.

[ghost of nixon]

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that letting students examine the pros & cons of evolution as a theory would be unhealthy (undermine their understanding of science). I say the opposite - it would be an excellent subject to enhance their understanding of science and scientific theories.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Pingo

[asformeandformyhouse]

I'm against evolution being taught in schools because I don't think any religion should be taught.

[LiteKeeper]

AMEN!

[LiteKeeper]

And there is no scientific evidence for it either - Evolution is a philosophical position - and it's proof is not subject to the scientific method.

[microgood]

"Our 300 voices outweigh the voices of several hundred thousand other scientists who understand that evolution is an established fact."

I thought evolution was a theory, not established fact. Certainly how we got to be on this planet cannot be explained by evolution (unless you believe in the primordial soup explanation, which is nothing but speculation), although it may explain how some of us have a different number of wisdom teeth when we are born.

[mgstarr]

I think these people are onto something also:

http://www.flat-earth.org

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Interestingly enough, it was intellectual scholars who created the flat-Earth myth. The myth gained momentum when Darwin became popular, because the evo's incorrectly attributed it to Creationists in order to discredit them. Go figure.

[orionblamblam]

> Many scientists, no doubt, choose to not express their religious beliefs, or disbelief of Darwinism, due to the backlash they would receive from their peers.

Doubtful. Scientists love to blab and argue... over things that there is actual doubt about.

> a theory can't be a fact.

Uh-huh. Like the "theory or relativity?" I look forward to your after-action reports from when you try to argue with a nuclear bomb that it can't be a fact.