That would be difficult in any event given the preponderance of evidence now that some kind of evolution has happened. But yes, the credulous clamor of a certain segment of the population for scientific proof of God makes the whole enterprise rather suspect. Another bit from that Dembski article:
Is intelligent design's appeal international? Does it cross religious boundaries? Or is it increasingly confined to American evangelicalism?I don't know if I'd say "increasingly" but I'd certainly go with "so far, largely."
That would be difficult in any event given the preponderance of evidence now that some kind of evolution has happened.
Absolutely. That evolution happened is for all intents and purposes, a fact. I think one can (and some do) legitimately ask, "Is that all there is?" but to leap from that question to conclude without evidence that an intelligent designer is responsible for everything to the exclusion of evolution strains credibility to the breaking point. The scientific answer is, "At this point, there is no evidence for anything else."
Following that vein, I would be dishonest to omit the following. I looked at CalConservative's list from post 100. It is a list of 100 scientists who agree with the statement, "I am 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 implication was clearly, as I stated above, that because some scientists were urging careful consideration and evaluation, the whole notion of Darwinian evolution should be junked. There is also a clear lack of endorsement for anything else.
Frankly I was skeptical of authenticity of the list. I suspected more quote-mining and carefully considered word-smithing. So I picked at random Dr. Marvin Fritzler at the University of Calgary, and fired off an email. The email and response are reproduced verbatim below.
As a purely amateur endeavor, I am actively engaged in several online debates defending the theory of evolution against proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Recently, your name appeared on a list of scientists who, it was claimed, have abandoned the theory of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation as sufficient to explain the diversity of life. The list appears, among other places, at this link: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
To make this as absolutely brief as possible, would you characterize this as an accurate representation of your position? I have read the Univerity of Calgary's bio, as well as your own faculty page, but was unable to find any information, so I decided to contact you directly. I would like your permission to post your response on FreeRepublic.com.
Thank you for your time,
Condorman
And here is the response I received:
Thanks for your email and being part of the "debate/dialogue". I would encourage you to be more accurate in your statements. Below, you state "your name appeared on a list of scientists who, it was claimed, have abandoned the theory of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation as sufficient to explain the diversity of life...".
Your assertion is inaccurate because it misquotes the statement I 'signed'. The web piece you cited states:
"...100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." and "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I am not aware of any statement that I signed or supported that states I have "abandoned the theory of evolution...".
That is your rewording and misinterpretation of the statement. See: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf
Do the current concepts of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation explain or account for the diversity of life on this planet? Wow! For an objective scientist that's a no-brainer. Anyone who believes these theories explain all biological diversity, information content in genomes, and a finely-tuned universe have a lot more blind faith than I do.
I don't mind if you post my response.
Marvin Fritzler PhD MD
Professor of Medicine
I realize that this moderate view is somewhat of a shock to the die-hards on both sides of the debate, and I expect flack on all sides. I argued with myself for a couple of days over reporting this, but I firmly believe I would be guilty of fabrication by omission if I failed to post our exchange. I believe from my sample of one that the list is genuine in that the scientists listed DO endorse the given statement. I also think it would be a mistake to hasten to any conclusions based on same. As Dr. Fritzler was quick to point out, that statement is NOT a rejection of evolution, nor is it an endorsement of anything else.
I'm wearing asbestos underpants. Flame on.