Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory

Discovery Institute ^ | 02.20.06

[Falconspeed]

F-

There goes my third grade g.p.a.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Stultis]

The statement reads: “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.”

Strangely creationists and IDers seem to think assent to this statement somehow supports their position.

On the contrary the vast majority of evolutionary scientists could assent to this statement (even if they might not affirmatively chose to do so).

"Hyper selectionists" -- those who hold that natural selection (along with random mutation) is the effectively the only important factor in evolution, even adaptive evolution -- have always been a distinct minority by my reading of both the history of the science and its current state. They are the only group that would disagree with the strict substance of this statement.

The hype (and that's all it is) surrounding the promotion of this "dissent from Darwinism" is based on a blatant equivocation between "Darwinism" and "evolution". There's no such thing as "Darwinism" in terms of a singular, let alone dominant, modern scientific theory of evolution. "Darwinism" is a boogey man invented by antievolutionists, and then equated with evolutionary science wholesale. (They only started to talk about "Darwinism" because people were snickering at ominous and hyperbolic invocations of "secular humanism" which continued for years after the last actual "secular humanist" met, or failed to meet, his maker.)

[SteveMcKing]

Technically you were right, since inorganics don't contain carbon then neither can they yield them. Though CO2 is classified "inorganic" as an exception...

[js1138]

"Random" is a strong word. I am not aware of any evidence for or any example of a mutation that anticipates need. Rates of mutation can be accelerated by stress.

[Sloth]

That statement doesn't conflict with the one in the article. A person could conscientiously be a signatory to both.

[Stultis]

Heck, even Darwin himself could have unhesitatingly agreed to this statement. After all he argued that natural selection was the principle, but most definitely not the only, factor in evolution. He argued with followers who thought it was, and with critics who thought it should be so considered. (e.g. Russell and Mivart.) And he certainly thought that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." He spent half his life doing just that.

[ConservaTexan]

"Until they provide some proof and hard evidence, the idea that evolution is not true will continue to remain on the fringe."

Wasn't there a large number of "thinkers" in the late 1400s that thought the world was flat? Christopher Columbus was fringe right up to the moment that he was right. One should never confuse strength in numbers with truth in numbers, especially with words like "groupthink" and "paradigm" in the dictionary.

[Stultis]

That's an odd comparison to make, seeing as how radical Islamists are also antievolutionists.

[andysandmikesmom]

Placemarker for further reading...

[Stultis]

Wasn't there a large number of "thinkers" in the late 1400s that thought the world was flat?

No. There wasn't.

[metmom]

Just so you don't feel left out ping

[AndrewC]

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

On the contrary the vast majority of evolutionary scientists could assent to this statement.

Have at it. And this should not just apply to evolutionary scientists, but those that argue here on behalf of "it". How about you first, then all of Darwin Central. I agree with the statement.

[moog]

Thanks, I think:). I've got a lot of stuff to do, so I'll get back to it later.

[Holdek]

First, no, there wasn't many "thinkers" of renown caliber who thought that the world was flat at that time, and Christopher Columbus did not "prove that it was round."

And to the point, historically, when scientific ideas have been overthrown they have done so by scientists, not religous organizations/schools of thought.

[Stultis]

Assuming that this is even true, 154 biologists, out of thousands who support evolution, is at best less than 10%. Probably closer to say 5% of biologists don't believe in evolution.

Add to that the fact that the statement doesn't even suggest, let along require, disbelief in evolution. It doesn't even require disbelief in "darwinism" (as most scientists, not fundamentalists, would understand the term.) It only requires rejection of hyper selectionism, that is rejection of the claim that natural selection is effectively the ONLY mechanism of evolutionary change. Nearly all evolutionists reject that anyway.

[isthisnickcool]

Didn't all life come from the black rock in Mecca?

[Stultis]

Have at it.

So you think that one should endorse a statement, just because they technically agree with it, even when they KNOW for a fact that their assent will be cynically misrepresented and used for the purpose of confusion rather than clarification? (Actually you I can see thinking that.)

[AndrewC]

So you think that one should endorse a statement, just because they technically agree with it, even when they KNOW for a fact that their assent will be cynically misrepresented and used for the purpose of confusion rather than clarification? (Actually you I can see thinking that.)

Hey, you made the statement. Back it up. You spoke for them("On the contrary the vast majority of evolutionary scientists could assent to this statement"), now speak for yourself. Do you assent to the statement?

[ConservaTexan]

Back to my point, numbers do not = TRUTH/fact. At least you better hope not, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.1 billion Christians worldwide.