Posted on 02/21/2006 4:17:18 PM PST by MRMEAN
In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.
The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.
The petition was started in 2001 by the institute, which champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a "teach the controversy" approach, like the one scuttled by the state Board of Education in Ohio last week.
Institute officials said that 41 people added their names to the petition after a federal judge ruled in December against the Dover, Pa., school district's attempt to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh, the horror!
Because evolution is the religion of secular biologists.
So if this were about a petition supporting Global Warming and it was signed by, say, biologists and computer scientists instead of meteorologists, would we all be saying "So what?" or "Ah HA!"?
I just love all the "qualifiers" placed upon the reporting of such petitions. Its as if they want you to believe that the petition does not say what it does say.
Funny how we do this.
Evolution as a theory has much proven but much more to prove. Intelligent Design has a lot they can argue but have to address the known constants of science that could support their assertions. Sometimes its just how people phrase the arguments.
I have friends in science who agree that there is a God but He used evolution to do what He did. This denies God His power to be God and pretty much says God has to conform to what Man thinks of Him and how He operates. I also have friends that while they believe in a Creator they skip the science part of it all to quickly.
You can't convince me of chance with the irreducibly complex proof that exists in our world, but you can show that Science has a lot of answers. Some in academia and science have simply chose another religion that itself does not have all the answers but they follow it believing it either has them or will have them. Others follow a faith that says science supports their already learned foundations in a God who Created it all.
Yep ..and not too many folks graduate college lest they firmly tow the party lyin'
|
I wonder how many of those who signed actually aren't against evolution per se. They may be simply against turning scientific theory into dogma. Isn't it crucial in science that you doubt and challenge a theory--even the 'established' one?
How you can get a medical degree and be against evolution is beyond reason.
Unless you went to Bob Jones University.
Physicists have no use for evolution. They prefer to assume that fundamental things remain constant as they were in the beginning because it would be a serious problem explaining anything that changes the very morning of your dissertation defense.
They don't need evolution. Biologists and social scientists and maybe historians have a use for evolution, but I have never seen why psychologists seem to think they need evolution.
I would not want a doctor that DID NOT believe in Evolution to work on my or my kids.
How would evolution be of any use to a doctor? I suppose it could, after a fashion, be accepted by those who make antibiotics, but what actual use would it be?
I'd actually disagree with the NYT on this point; really in terms of living with evolution day-to-day and seeing the evidence for it most often, paleontologists and even geologists are more directly connected with evolution than most biologists.
A doctor can set a broken bone without knowing about evolution. But, for a few evolution-related items: (a) how does he counsel parents about the likelihood of inherited birth defects? And (b) what animal tissue should be used for transplants? Also if he's doing medical research, the idea of creationist doing biological research is too absurd to contemplate.
This guy's just an old crank. You can find 1 or 2 percent of any population are just cranks, so this petition is meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.