Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which 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."
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
Nice feint, but you attacked her because of what she wrote. Her title is not researcher.
Oh yes. Scientific research at its finest.
I think he attacked her for not having a basis for what she wrote.
Thanks for the enlightening post. Question: Does he only reference Christianity or all religions / faiths?
Nice feint, but you attacked her because of what she wrote. Her title is not researcher.
I commented on the quality of the research; in the sections on evolution, it was not good.
When you do a book, it is your responsibility to do the research. That means, scholarship. If you cite a reference, cite it correctly, not what somebody else says about it. Read the original article, know what it says, and cite it correctly.
Didn't a lot of the citations go back to the New York Times?
This may not sink in on him.
She certainly does have a basis for what she writes. It is political.
The book does not appear to be a research paper.
The book does not appear to be a research paper.
I'm glad you admitted that.
To me, a book that doesn't have good solid research is useless. What is there to trust if the research is not solid? Opinion? Everybody has opinions.
Without documented research, opinions are not worth much.
She writes that there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. Where did she get that?
I pity your literary universe.
I don't know. Where did you get it?
I pity your literary universe.
No pity needed. I do science for a living.
But when I step back from science, I have a degree in English Literature to sustain me with less demanding genres.
I know the difference between the two. Unfortunately, the evolution sections of Ann's latest book do not come up to the standards of good, quality research. Don't believe me? Just follow her references back to the originals, and see what they say. It is not rocket science, you can do it for yourself.
And living must be poor. ;^)
It does...the fossil record is missing the gradual changes that it should show if evolution were true. I think if Darwin were alive today he would admit that his theory is false. But the doubt thoughts can talk to people's minds and cause them to believe anything.
And living must be poor. ;^)
I drive a good Ford truck, not a Yugo or a BMW, and get to haul the horses into the hills now and then to do a research trip.
Wouldn't trade it for all the creation science you could shake apologetics at, that's for sure. Bunch of armchair scholars. "Its in the book." "No, you're wrong, its not in the book." "No, its there, but it means this." "No, it means that!"
Thanks, but I'll head for the hills and catch sunrise through the redwoods, or see more stars at night that most folks believe exist.
Some might call that "poor living" but I sure wouldn't.
Not exactly. :-) You should do so well.
You haven't seen stars until you've seen them at at least 50,000 ft. Then you can reach out and touch the face of God.
I've done much better.
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
If you were at 50,000 feet I bet you were too busy to be looking at the stars. Or you should have been! When I drive an airplane I keep my eyes on the instruments or on what's coming at me from the front. Start lolly-gagging and you're a statistic.
Still doesn't support your claim back in #394, "And living must be poor. ;^)"
I think you're blowing smoke, myself.
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.