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."
I see the conflation of "lack of evidence" and "ignorance of evidence".
Quite common among true creos.
Simply research fossil 'reworking' and you can find as many examples as you want.
Why do you think the 'reworking' concept was developed? Because fossils are found in the 'wrong' places.
Sorry you got confused again and got it backwards.
There has been no wavering on my part, just real and feigned confusion on yours. But I understand that you have to pretend that the problem is on my end, otherwise you would have to question your beliefs. Oh well.
Sorry, just because it is 'based' on evidence doesn't mean that it isn't 'assumed'.
Except in the evolutionary dictionary, that is, where it is a requirement.
That's part of the deception.
And Behe 'excepts' common descent?
Actually, there is no evidence that the universe is not 6,000 years old. If you can tell the difference between evidence and intepretation, of course. I'm betting that you can't.
No, sorry. Many separate species can interbreed. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc are considered separate species, yet can interbreed.
And again, they aren't 'markers' without an 'a priori' assumption of common descent. Sorry that you can't deal with that.
Present all the evidence you want. I'll teach you the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretations of evidence'.
All you saw was a perceived need for a baseless retort. Congrats. You did it.
Just confusion on your part.
But hey, a snappy comeback beats arguments and evidence every time.
It's the evo primary response.
But all arguments, and any evidence that we might dare to draw inferences from, are all "metaphysical" according you you, because they involve "abstract thought". And what's more, they can always be interpreted in more than one way and so MEAN NOTHING. Why argue seriously any further once you've revealed yourself as an intellectual relativist and nihilist?
Yikes! Evil earth spirits are in on the evolution conspiracy too!
Seriously though, are there any "anomalous fossils" that have been "explained away" that you can actually identify? Maybe a secret stash of Precambrian rabbits hidden away in Area 51?
Don't look.
Whatever you do, don't look.
Instead, start a discussion about whether 'reworked' fossils have been 'explained away'.
Yeah, that's it.
No, sorry. Many separate species can interbreed. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc are considered separate species, yet can interbreed.
Don't forget the wholphin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7508288
Nope. For example endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) can be identified by the fact that they have the genes for reverse transcriptase. This does not depend on any assumptions about phylogeny.
The observed fact that ERVs are found in the same place in the genomes of different species is also independent of any phylogenetic assumptions.
It's also a fact that if species are classified by whether they contain various ERVs or not then they always form a tree structure; again, this is independent of any phylogeny.
It's the last fact, that the ERV-derived tree always matches the phylogenetic tree that was constructed using non-genetic data (anatomy, behavior, geographic distribution, etc) that makes ERVs (and other genetic markers like pseudogenes) so interesting.
To sum up: by using nothing but gene sequencing, living organisms are naturally organized into a tree structure. This tree just happens to be the same as the phylogenetic tree already constructed by techniques that don't use genetics. Common descent is the simplest and obvious explanation for these facts.
By your obfuscation, I take it you don't in fact have any examples of "anomoulous fossils" that have been "explained away." (And btw, you obviously don't know what "fossil reworking" means.)
It's gotten bigger!
If you cannot effectively counter claims that your arguments and evidenctiary inferences are metaphysical and cannot uniquely support evolution, then you merely prove me correct.
But the 'intellectual relativist' and 'nihilist' charge is cute.
Sounds really cool and I bet the little evos loved it.
"But the 'intellectual relativist' and 'nihilist' charge is cute."
And accurate. You don't understand what abstract thought is, or what metaphysical is, or what science is. You are the poster child for the postmodernist assault on reason.
True enough. What I said was that interbreeding is a criterion used for species and genus classification.
There is no agreement among experts whether the domestic dog is Canis familiaris or C. lupus familiaris, or whether red wolves are simply hybrids of coytes and gray wolves. Variety-subspecies-species is a fairly arbitrary distinction. And don't forget the chihuahua and great Dane, which have to be considered different species because they can't mate.
I don't have time for your childish games. I could just as easily ask you the same question. Hell, I'll raise the bar: try to prove ANYTHING to me and I'll teach you just how easy denial is. Ignorance is bliss, happy boy.
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.