Outta here...
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."
Of course, in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is the least trustworthy. Anyone studying law enforcement will experience a demonstration of how eyewitness testimony diverges from videotape of the same event.
But the main problem with your position is the assertion that testimony is somehow more "real" than physical evidence -- a position that is ludicrous at face value.
"And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?"
Obfuscation.
It's OK if you don't understand what I posted, but you should at least admit it.
But then, by your own criteria, any explanation of that concrete, observed fact, would be "metaphysical". IOW all of science other than "concrete facts," is "metaphysical".
What you're saying now is that "drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'". Therefore it doesn't matter whether the subject of a theory -- the phenomena being explained -- occurred in the "unobserved past" or in the "observable, repeatable" present.
So I take it you're now abandoning this "unobservable past" criteria?
Has the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster not yet witnessed to you, my son?
If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.
...It happens that all the laws used to describe planetary motions are time invariant. They have no preference for past or future and work exactly the same in either direction. Therefore, if using them to determine past planetary arrangements is "metaphysical," then so must be using them to predict future ones.
But I think a hard-nosed engineer and astronaut like Alan Sheppard would be more than dubious if you told him that all the decisions about when to launch Apollo 11, when to burn the rockets to escape earth's orbit, and etc, where based on "metaphysical" conclusions about the moon's future position.
We have a humpty-dumpty on our hands, defining words to mean whatever he wants them to mean. A recycled troll who will eventually be banned again.
Thanks for the education. Don't be a stranger here... :o)
It's not dead. (Its total lack of movement is due to it being tired and shagged out after a long whiney.)
What is even more remarkable is that the more advanced plants also run faster and therefore got to the top sooner.
No. Convergent evolution refers to convergence of function, not convergence of genes. You really are bluffing this stuff, aren't you.
Hadn't noticed that one. I often overestimate the intelligence of the trolls.
Yes, maybe because I'm a bluffer myself I can spot the bluffer's errors. Mistaking functional convergence for genetic convergence is the error of someone without evolutionary biology 101. (which is all I've got, so those are the only errors I can spot)
So, all a murderer has to do, to get off if GourmetDan is on the jury, is make sure there are no immediate witnesses to the deed. The murder can occur inside a locked vault, and the suspect be found in there when it is opened covered in blood, surrounded by the stabbed bodies of his victims, clutching a blood-soaked knife, but it would be an unwarranted inference of an unobserved event to conclude that the suspect murdered the victims if he denies doing it. As the sole witness if he asserts that a demon materialised in the vault and killed everyone but him before pressing the knife into his hand and then disappearing, who are we to gainsay him with our atheist insistence on naturalistic explanations for dead bodies? (BTW, the physical evidence supporting common descent is at least as convincing as the hypothetical murder case that I allude to)
Very good!
Unfortunately, you throw proverbial pearls before very real swine.
Since no one observed the Gospels being written, you don't believe in Jesus?
Further, Rodanism leads to Mitsuo Tsudaism.
Mitsuo Tsudaism leads to Peter Fernandezism (Mothera)
Peter Fernandezism leads to Kyra Sedgwickism (War of Love).
And Kyra Sedgwickism leads to (if you didn't see this one coming, seek psychiatric help) Kevin Baconism.
Is it Friday yet?
That's exactly why OJ was found 'not guilty'. It *was* a metaphysical question. You also confirm my statement.
So many things I could say, but I think it would all be wasted. I'll just put you into the group of those who think it was a just verdict.
And Kyra Sedgwickism leads to (if you didn't see this one coming, seek psychiatric help) Kevin Baconism.
BWAAAAHHH...thats just great...
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.