Posted on 07/20/2005 9:13:07 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
SEATTLE — More than 400 scientists have signed onto a growing list from all disciplines who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”
Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in PBS’ “Evolution” series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.
“The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. “We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen this past year.”
In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”. The list includes over 70 biologists total.
The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, two prominent, Russian biologists from Moscow State University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology and Honorary Professor at Moscow State University; both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems,” said Professor Voeikov.
“Lately in the media there’s been a lot of talk about science versus religion,” said West. “But such talk is misleading. This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds.”
Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.
Revelations 6:12-14
12I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
And later in chapter 9:
A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up....a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed...A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter...
If this never happens, then rest assured that you are correct, if it does, then I pity you
"Is Darwinism dead?"
Not yet...almost.
You KNOW I wasn't even a participant in the thread you're referencing, but you, and your kooky Mystery Religion zealot friends, were , and at that time you had no objections to the post you're now complaining about. How weird is that??? Hahahaha Critical thinking 101: for those not suffering from cognitive dissonance: If someone didn't post anything at all in a thread, it is impossible that he could have added any words to anything.
Is it any wonder they're laughing at you "liar! liar!" parrots over here:
"You might be a "fundie atheist" if...:
[12] You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!"
[130] You address Christians as "liar","sheepherder", or "looney toon".
[203] ...And if they say they don't see the logic in that question, they MUST be lying!
[207] When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question. ..etc.
*
What does anything that you posted have to do with the questions that I asked? If ID is a theory, as you claim, then you should be able to answer the questions. If you can't answer those questions, just admit it. Falling back onto religious mythology and completely dodging a legitimate question only makes you look intellectually dishonest.
What doesn't if have to do is a better question.
If ID is a theory, as you claim, then you should be able to answer the questions.
I did
Falling back onto religious mythology
Mythology? So the Bible is mythology now? I don't believe I was under that impression.
and completely dodging a legitimate question
How did I dodge?
only makes you look intellectually dishonest.
So now I'm intelectually dishonest, am I? Asking someone a question, then calling them "intellectually dishonest" when they give you an answer only makes it look like you have no better defense
Since you already KNOW I wasn't even a participant in the thread you're referencing, and therefore couldn't have "fabricated the quote" you're referencing, I can only conclude that you must think those reading your rants are just as irrational as you are and incapable of critical thought. You no doubt have plenty of evidence to believe that, or you'd never be able to get away with such illogic.
You (bottom) 0.001 percenters make me laugh. You hadn't noticed that Freerepublic is a creationist site?
Demensio: "[Matchett-PI] "quoted" [a quote].. "
Which is it, ace? I "fabricated" the quote OR "quoted" the quote?
LOGIC 101: No matter how badly those who suffer from cognitive dissonance want to be able to continue holding polar opposite beliefs simultaneously, the harsh reality is that you will have to pick one or the other - it can't be both.
Demensio: "[Matchett-PI] "quoted" [a quote].. "
Which is it, ace? I "fabricated" the quote OR "quoted" the quote?
LOGIC 101: No matter how badly those who suffer from cognitive dissonance want to be able to continue holding polar opposite beliefs simultaneously, the harsh reality is that you will have to pick one or the other - it can't be both.
Demensio: "[Matchett-PI] "quoted" [a quote].. "
Which is it, ace? I "fabricated" the quote OR "quoted" the quote?
LOGIC 101: No matter how badly those who suffer from cognitive dissonance want to be able to continue holding polar opposite beliefs simultaneously, the harsh reality is that you will have to pick one or the other - it can't be both.
To paraphrase a line from a David Mamet film: "They're all theories; that why they're called 'theories'."
"That's a tricky one to answer really. "
All the remainder of your answer aside-
The reason it's tricky is because it isn't a question that science wishes to answer. Even though it's father, Empiricism, does.
And accepting Newtons law of gravity is still a long way from claiming what causes the mechanism to work. And in that regard, I accept Newtons law of gravity as "scientific"
We can observe the effects (larger objects keep smaller ones in orbit. What goes away, is drawn back.) of gravity, though we do not know it's cause.
While evolution claims to know the cause, without (and I say this in this manner because if it was -without a doubt-witnessed, it'd be in ALL the papers.) any direct observations. bass Ackwards.
"Choosing to reject empirical evidence"
Which is what I state evoltionary theory does. Rejects empiricism.
I don't reject empirical evidence, I just feel that empiricism (at least of the kind currently practiced) is incomplete.
As an example: What is the scientific evidence of something as basic as "Happy"? How does one catagorize "Happy" using only tangible evidence?
A new philosophy is needed. One capable of asking "why?"
I read plenty of books, thanks. (and no, not just Harry Potter or other novels)
I just happen to also take time to get outside and actually think. Not sitting in a room, saying "Well, Professor Smith said this would happen. It LOOKS like it happend when I did it. He must be right."
A basic philosophy class (ironic, considering science's roots) would do you well.
Got that in a readable format?
Another slot in Pascual's Roulette Wheel.
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.