100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism

U.S. Newswire ^ | 9/25/2001 | Mark Edwards, Discovery Institute

[AndrewC]

I did. I'm sorry.

You used up one of your atta' girls. You have a million left. Keep teaching and I'll have to use my casio.

[longshadow]

If 100 scientists are willing to put their names to a critique of evolution, it seems evolution is not the uncontrovertible law its proponents claim.

A hundred scientists, from a wide variety of disciplines, many of which are outside the life sciences, saying they support further scrutiny of Evolution does not make it controversial. When, and if, a preponderance of scientists in the life sciences deem it disproven based on objective evidence, it will have to be revised in accorance with that evidence, or failing that, chucked on the scrap heap, the same as any other theory that can no longer fit the evidence. And not a moment sooner.

BTW, no proponent of "Evolution" has characterized it as a "Law" to my knowledge. It is a theory. Every scientist knows this.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If 100 scientists are willing to put their names to a critique of evolution, it seems evolution is not the uncontrovertible law its proponents claim.

Evolution is not an incontrovertible law. It is a theory. Most of the folks on these threads don't know what evolutionary theory says or acknowledge that there are many differences of opinion among scientists who research it.

Most of the anti-evo's here made up their own theory of evolution as a straw man to rage against. The simple fact is that evolutionary theory is not well understood, even by scientists, and that makes it an easy target for the anti-science crowd. Evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Unfortunately it's perfectly compatible with atheist horses!!t as well.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Looks like you beat me to it.

[BMCDA]

Evolution is NOT a law. You seem to confuse the meaning of "theory", "fact" and "law" as they are used in science with their usage in the vernacular.

In science, theories are explanations of scientific facts.
Scientific facts are what have been carefully observed to be the case (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt).
Scientific laws on the other hand are only descriptive (NOT prescriptive), they describe the behaviour of nature.

So you see evolution is a fact and a theory but no one ever claimed it was a law.

[Tribune7]

Evolution is not an incontrovertible law. It is a theory.

That's how I always felt about it. Would you object to macro-evolution being taught in our schools specifically described as an unproven possibility?

Most of the folks on these threads don't know what evolutionary theory says or acknowledge that there are many differences of opinion among scientists who research it.

Most of the folks on these threads have been taught a theory of evolution which doesn't hold up to independent thought.

Most of the anti-evo's here made up their own theory of evolution as a straw man to rage against.

No, they were taught a theory of evolution which had a lot of holes in it and debating was forbidden in their classrooms.

The simple fact is that evolutionary theory is not well understood, even by scientists,

Then why try to teach it to uninterested 10th graders?

and that makes it an easy target for the anti-science crowd. Evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

I don't have a religious objection --although the version given to me in junior high and high school was specifically Godless. If someone-- scientist or not --, however, points out a problem with a theory which experts are unable to answer, that person shouldn't be mocked or ignored. It wouldn't hurt scientist to be a little skeptical.

[BMCDA]

I completely agree with your post, only your last sentence seems a bit strange to me. You may not like that evolution is compatible with atheism but you have to consider the fact that everything in science is perfectly compatible with that so called "atheist horseshit".

[Tribune7]

So you see evolution is a fact and a theory but no one ever claimed it was a law.

If the facts upon which a theory is based are found to be fallacies, does that undermine the theory?

[BMCDA]

On which fallacious facts is the Theory of Evolution based in your opinion?

[Tribune7]

On which fallacious facts is the Theory of Evolution based in your opinion?

Ernst Haeckel's illustrations of the development of the embryo have been presented for years as factual evidence supporting evolution. They've turned out to be false.

How the coloring of England's peppered moths developed was another fact that was misrepresented.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Doesn't anyone around here sleep anymore?

On which fallacious facts is the Theory of Evolution based in your opinion?

Ernst Haeckel's illustrations of the development of the embryo have been presented for years as factual evidence supporting evolution. They've turned out to be false.

How the coloring of England's peppered moths developed was another fact that was misrepresented.

One of the reasons that the evo's post links in these threads is because evo theory is based on a great many observations. Its very difficult to get a feel for them in a quick read. Its also true that few mechanisms that cause mutations are well understood. Many of the folks who work in the field don't believe that most of the mechanisms are even known.

The reason anybody cares about evo theory or why uninterested 10th graders would study it, is because its has practical uses in the biotech industries, especially diagnostic testing, new drug development and treatments for disease. Evo theory helps to organize what is known in biology and provides a framework to speculate about how certain biological processes can be manipulated.

My comment about the atheists stems from my opinion that they are indirectly the cause of the anti-science backlash. Every time someone argues that Faith has no valid place in the world, they turn to scientific methods to try to make their point.

Its past my bedtime so I'll catch up with y'all in the morning. God bless you all.

[gordon_gekko]

The evidence against the the theory of evolution is voluminous and credible. Read Micheal Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for an intruction to the the intelligent design critique of evoltutionary theory. Any scientific theory, to be considered a scientific theory rather than metaphysical speculation, must have the following characteristics: a)Falsifiability: that is to say the theory must produce corrolaries that are capable of being disproven experimentally (Freud's theory of the subconcious is not a valid scientific theory becuse it is not falsifiable), b)Testability: a valid scientific theory must capable of generating tests derived from the main theory (based on this criterion, Freduianism again fails the test), c)Repeatability: scientists rate the solidity of various scientific theories by their degree of observed repeatability. The Law of Conservation of Energy is an extremely solid scientific theory based upon millions of repeated succesul obervations of it operation in Nature. Based on the criteria listed above the current variants of Neo-Darwinism fail all three tests. The repsonse of the Neo_darwinist scientific establsihment has been to issue ex cathedra pronouncements about the "fact of evolution" and systematically use the prestige of their positions to discredit legitimate scientific critics of Neo-Darwininian theory. This tactic will not work in the long run. Neo-Darwinism is in the same postion intellectually as Ptolemaic astronomy was in the begining of the Renaissance. It is a scientifically sterile theory that will eventually be discarded.

[SpringheelJack]

You are misquoting and misinterpreting the Bible. The passages say world not earth. The Greek word for world is "cosmos", the Greek word for earth is "geos". The passages are allegorical.

The word "kosmon" does appear in the relevant passage of Matthew. However, in the parallel Greek passage found in Luke (4:5), the word used is "oikoumenos," which does indeed mean "inhabited earth."

[PatrickHenry]

This thread is getting way too long, and we should have had a thread II around 100 posts ago, as a courtesy to the dialup crowd. I've learned from past experience not to create a continuation thread for one which I didn't initiate, so I'll just kinda drop out here and await developments.

This thread is too darned long!

[Wm Bach]

You should have succeeded in locating the fish it exists. To you it is all a childish game but you learn nothing because you think you can win some semantic contest. You will never know the truth if you really do not care to. You ask make believe questions to score make believe points and no one really cares.

You cited a particular species of fish, a fish whose existence would be quite a stunning scientific specimen if it existed, being one species which simultaneously exists on different continents, but miraculously, all evidence of that one species of fish has disappeared. You can't even cite where you read about this so-called fish. YOU brought up this fish, no me. I asked real questions of your make believe post and now you're smarting from being publicly taken to task for it. Oh well...

[AndrewC]

which does indeed mean "inhabited earth."

Thank you for pointing that out. Yet the interpretation of "Ecumenical" is of a world, i.e. an abstract idea, not earth(not in the sense of dirt) a concrete thing.

3625 oikoumene {oy-kou-men'-ay}

feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by
implication of 1093); TDNT - 5:157,674; n f

AV - world 14, earth 1; 15

1) the inhabited earth
1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in
distinction from the lands of the barbarians
1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
1c) the whole inhabited earth, the world
1d) the inhabitants of the earth, men
2) the universe, the world

Thus the use in Luke of that term would apply only to the kingdoms known at that time, which would not include New World civilizations, nor probably Asiatic ones. The conclusion to be drawn then, in my mind, would be allegoric in tenor.

[drjimmy]

The greatest physicist of all time was not Einstein, but Heisenberg.
Are you certain?

[AndrewC]

I watched a nature documentary on television that went into the caves and filmed the blind fish. It struck my interest that they mentioned finding the same species in different locations on different continents.

In my search for your blind fish on different continents, I ran into this bit of information. It has some troubling aspects for me. One, changes over a million years are not enough to garner the epithet of "new species". Two, it is apparent that an adult of a single species can be naturally blind or sighted and pigmented or colorless, a "very wide" range in characteristics. Three, the article does not state whether the blind variety(Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus) can have fertile progeny with the sighted variety(Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus). It might be apparent to most people that the definition of species requires that to be true, but I've learned here that one cannot accept anything at face value. Now the link UM Biology Research Finds Way to Reverse Evolution of Cave Fish Blindness

COLLEGE PARK, Md. - The old cliche "the blind leads the blind" may no longer apply to a population of cave fish. Eye parts lost during the past million years of evolution were restored in just a matter of days after a lens transplant from a sighted surface-dwelling fish of the same species (Astyanax mexicanus), according to a University of Maryland biology research report featured in the July 28 issue of Science....

Additional Information on the species

[AndrewC]

This may be the fish you are talking about, except that the blind part may apply only to one continent, North America.

The genus Astyanax is very rich in species and subspecies. The distribution of Astyanax is strictly New World and can be found in suitable habitats from southern Arizona, New Mexico and Texas south to Patagonia (Argentian) on the Atlantic coast. On the Pacific slope it can be found from Columbia to central Mexico. One species, A. fasciatus, ranges almost the entire range of the genus and is composed of many subspecies or geographical races. The northern race, A. fasciatus mexicanus, is to be the subject of this article.

Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus in the Aquaria and the Wild