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."
That is one of the main methods used to make 'evolution' appear stronger than it is. Talk about imaginary past events as though they are real. It fools the little evos every time.
That's why you are confused. It's not that difficult to understand.
In reality, the concrete evidence is the same with the only difference being the interpretations that are layered over that evidence.
I used this example on another thread: If a genetic marker is found in both cows and whales, but is not found in horses, tell which category each animal goes in: 1) will definitely have the same marker. 2) definitely won't. 3) not enough data. People, pangolins, 'possums, pigs, platypuses, camels, cats, hippos, rhinos, elephants, zebras, giraffes, dogs?
The ToE can answer questions like this. So far, it's answers have always been confirmed by actual genetic testing.
This obviously has nothing to do with past events.
Creation is equally valid as an explanation of the evidence as evolution. The evos are terrified to admit that fact though because they realize that they would lose all credibility if it became widely known.
No. Neither the ID nor the creationist faction of the anti-evolution coalition can answer the above questions (or many others of a similar nature) correctly. This shows that neither one is as powerful as standard biology. This fact, coupled with the fact that neither one is a scientific theory, shows that they have no place in science classes.
"Do you have an actual rebuttal to show that I have not provided what you have asked? "
I cannot find anything more in "what you provided" than more of the same old "if we could find it you would see" argument.
The reason they never find transitional fossils is because they are not there to be found.
It is what I said since in the line just above that you cut out I said: "Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable."
Does your attention span extend beyond the next line in a post?
Nope, only if they are past, unobserved and not repeatable, like evolution.
Evos merely want to include metaphysical 'explanations' as though they are *facts* because it allows the deception to be continued.
Without deception, the facade crumbles.
No, 'fossil reworking' means that if it is ever found, it will be explained away. Lots of out-of-sequence fossils are found and explained away by 'reworking'.
Just like inverted geological sequences (like the Lewis Overthrust) are explained away as the product of 'overthrusting'.
Just like missing geological sequences are explained away as simply 'missing'.
The ToE is *always* correct. It is assumed so 'a priori'.
That's what 'science' is all about. Only naturalistic theories are allowed *by definition*.
Nope, you are assuming that common descent is true and then 'deduce' this and 'trace' that.
It's all based on the assumption that common descent is true.
Evolution doesn't predict anything. You can't have a rabbit in the Cambrian because the presence of a rabbit means it isn't the Cambrian.
You do realize that fossil reworking most often explains 'older' fossils in 'younger' strata. Now, the only reason that happens is because it is easier to assume that 'older' strata existed first and was then eroded and the fossils became embedded in 'younger' strata than it is to admit that a 'younger' fossil is embedded in 'older' strata.
Or to admit that the strata really mean nothing at all.
Evolution has been falsified many times. It is the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism that keeps it alive.
You categorize animals according to their ability to interbreed, not based on genetic markers.
It is only because you have assumed 'common descent' that you think genetic markers mean anything.
Where they are similar, they are purported to be 'conserved'. Where they are different, they are assumed to be 'not conserved'.
Means nothing at all.
Perhaps you could provide a list of "anomalous fossils" that have been "explained away."
Perhaps it would help if you described what you believe a "transitional" would actually look like. In other words, if you were looking for a "transitional", what would you be looking for?
Never when creationists are under oath. Dr Behe fell flat on his face and bailed out on you guys.
I'm wondering who the new spokesperson will be. The Pope doesn't agree with you and you won't accept a Muslim. Hmmmm...
So, criminal forensics is "metaphysical" again. Although eyewitness testimony isn't. Even though there's a wealth of evidence showing that physical forensic evidence of "past, unobserved" events is typically MORE factually dependable than eyewitness testimony.
Also, you never answered on this "past, unobservable" criteria: Are Newton's Laws of Motion, and the many other scientific laws which lack any directional preference as to time, "metaphysical" or not?
Evos merely want to include metaphysical 'explanations' as though they are *facts* because it allows the deception to be continued.
No. Just the opposite, in fact. We've consistently distinguished facts, on the one hand, and explanations of facts on the other. Your constant wavering over your criteria for what is "metaphysical" suggests that your unable to keep the fact/explanation distinction in your mind.
"before I and my conversion experience, I HATED people to talk to me about Jesus and all that stuff, so I know exactly how people feel about it".
Me too Susie, but we know where we would have gone if it wouldn't have been for the Holy Spirit drawing us to God, but then it was up to us to accept Jesus or reject Him.
We can only be seed planters...God bless & hang in there & fight the good fight.
Thank you.
susie
It is only because you have assumed 'common descent' that you think genetic markers mean anything.
'Assume' is not the right word here. Anything that is based on evidence is by definition not 'assumed'.
And I'll guess you know that the Discovery Institute (Behe, et al) excepts common descent? And that DI is the ID preeminent, world renowned in certain circles, ID think tank.
So where's the evidence the universe is 6000 years or so old?
excepts = accepts
The interbreeding criterion is used to define species and to some extent genera. The genetic markers are an observed fact that should be accounted for by any theory of life. so far, only ToE is capable of doing so.
It is only because you have assumed 'common descent' that you think genetic markers mean anything.
They're there, deal with it.
Where they are similar, they are purported to be 'conserved'. Where they are different, they are assumed to be 'not conserved'.
Means nothing at all.
Maybe it is meaningless, but the fact is that their presence or absence in a given species can be predicted from their distribution in other species.
When a theory makes specific, true predictions, it's evidence that the theory is on the right track.
Nada, y nada, y nada.
I think we're often wrong to denounce creationists as Luddites. I sometimes think even a Luddite would possess the instincts to recoil from the intellectual relativism, and often downright nihilism, contaminating the antievolution movement.
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.