Replies

[The same six or seven guys get headlines year after year, and it's supposed to constitute a trend suddenly. If you listened to the critics, the theory has been on the verge of collapse for, oh, about a hundred and fifty years now. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.]

Click here for the names of over 400 scientists who oppose Darwinism. Don't wait too long, the list is growing.

Congratulations, you fell for the false propaganda!! How proud you must be.

No, actually, that's not what those 400 folks (not all of them scientists) actually agreed to. Thanks for playing, and for spreading yet more creationist lies.

Come back when you acquire a clue of some sort.

Here's a quick rebuttal to your nonsense:

To start with the last point first, the Discovery Institute does not list "hundreds of scientists who now regard [Darwinism] as in intellectually bankrupt theory." What it has is a list of hundreds of people, not all scientists (and most of the scientists are not in fields relevant to evolutionary theory) who agree that "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Charles Darwin (who thought natural selection was the principle but not sole mechanism of evolution) could have signed that statement. Richard Dawkins could have signed it (if he didn't suspect the motives of the people gathering signatures); after all, like any modern biologist he's heard of genetic drift. The statement does not say that "Darwinism" is "intellectually bankrupt," or that humans do not share ancestry with monkeys (and mushrooms), or that the causes of evolution are "supernatural" or require intelligent guidance, or that mutation and natural selection do not, after all, account for a very great deal of the complexity of life. There are signers of the statement who hold to any or all of these positions, but it would hardly be reasonable to infer either that all the signers subscribe to any of them, or that those who do have scientific reasons for rejecting these aspects of evolutionary theory.

Also see:

Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License. Debunks a bogus list of "doubters."
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.

And from a previous exchange concerning this same list:

[bondserv:] The 400 scientists have signed a refutation to Darwinian evolution.
[Ichneumon:] No they haven't. Why are you lying about what they actually signed?
[bondserv:] A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Just in case you are considering calling me a liar again,
[Ichneumon:] If you persist in asserting that this is actually "a refutation to Darwinian evolution" when it clearly is not, then yes, you're still a liar.
I have one question that will refute any argument you may try and pose. Would a Darwinist sign this document?
Yes. I'd sign it. (Or at least I fully agree with it -- I might be hesitant to actually sign it, since I'm aware that it is worded in a manner that deceitful creationists could dishonestly spin and purposely mislead the public with; as indeed they have.) A scientist is always skeptical of all paradigms, and careful examination of the evidence should always be encouraged.
Oops, it seems that your question which was supposed to "refute any argument I may try and pose" has just exploded in your face.
The point, which you seem to have enormous trouble grasping, is that skepticism and a willingness to carefully examine evidence is *NOT* the same thing as "refutation" of any position, as you falsely claim. You are posting falsehoods about what those scientists actually agreed to. Just as I said. I stand by that post 100%.

Could someone please explain to me why the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists don't seem to be capable of basic reading comprehension?

I have theories, none of which are especially flattering to the subjects thereof ;)

Could someone please explain to me why the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists don't seem to be capable of basic reading comprehension?

Your question is unnecessarily complicated. May I suggest:

Could someone please explain to me why ~~the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists~~ some people don't seem to be capable of basic reading comprehension?

First, I have never stated that Darwinism is intellectually bankrupt. Please, do not overstate my position. Nor attempt to discredit me with arguments that you have had with others. For all I know, there may be a natural causality for evolution. I am quite happy with the statement in Discovery Institute document:

I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged

A truly careful examination however should be open to the possibility that a natural causality may not be found.