Posted on 02/23/2006 6:54:02 AM PST by truthfinder9
WorldNetDaily reports that 514 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution. The list include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists who hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines.
The statement, says the report -- which includes endorsements 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 made in PBS's "Evolution" series which claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory [evolution] to be true."
"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (DICSS).
West said Darwinist "efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list." As a matter of fact, due to the growing number of scientific "dissenters," West said the Institute was encouraged to launch a website for the list.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with DICSS. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."
Other prominent signatories, according to the report, include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen, evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum - the oldest still published biology journal in the world - Giuseppe Sermonti and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
The problem is that the common usage of the terms "evoluion" and "Darwinism" are not confined to science. The terms have expanded to include the philisophical and even the theistic. For example, "Darwinism" can mean evolution by natural selection, sometimes mean what scientists call the "synthetic theory of evolution" (the union of genetic theory with natural selection theory), sometimes mean gradual evolution, and sometimes "Darwinism" means evolution itself. Sometimes "evolution" is used as a purely scientific idea, and other times it is confused with evolutionism, a naturalistic ideology that excludes the possibility of divine intervention. Also, even within the science of evolution there is a myriad of complexity and dissparate levels of proof (e.g.,inter and intra species evolution, etc.).
The truth is the neither the Intelligent Design pundits nor the "Evolutionists" are arguing science. It is, at its core, a philisophical debate.
"Actually, the REAL number is 293. Those in mathematics, computer sciences and such do not count. HOWEVER, even 514 out of hundreds of thousands of natural scientists is hardly a large number."
To maintain honesty, it should be pointed out that these 514 have doctorate degrees.
This group does not include any scientists with lesser degrees.
Make it 515 because I'll sign.
Why do the others not count?
But were any of them named "Steve"?
So silly.
Yes i think so too. It is a religion vs atheists debate.
Evolution and Creationism have become the flagships of atheists and theists and are currently shooting mud at each other. They cant sink eachother cause they are only representations of far deeper philosophy's.
Im religious but have no issue with evolution.
Why would I, I believe in God so i already believe everything is part of God. Including evolution.
Evolution is going on all around you. You just aren't living long enough to notice the changes. Breeding of animals is a form of evolution in which man has played an active role instead of letting nature role the dice. Ditto for various flower hybrids.
If you want something that evolves a little faster and more naturally, try bacteria. Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. While most bacteria die off when exposed to a new antibiotic, a few remain resistant and the resistance is passed on to successive generations of bacteria.
In other words, the question:
Did God create us or evolution?
Should be translates as:
Did the artist create the piece of art or the blowtorch?
Then the truth comes out that some indeed do.
Next forms of argument:
1. They're not real scientists, because (see first form of argument).
2. Whatever degrees they got, they're the wrong degrees, because (see first form of argument).
3. Whatever schools they went to, they were the wrong schools, because (see first form of argument).
4. Doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them to matter, because (see first form of argument).
And they say it isn't a religious position? Yahhhh hahahaha.
(Did I predict this thread pretty well?)
I'm confident you could find 500 ministers (from liberal churches) that would sign a statement saying they were skeptical that Christ was the physical son of god.
Many believe he was 'filled with the spirit' of god, but not actually the son of god.
Would this prove anything?
Nope.
"Who cares "out of how many"? Since the consensus always seems to be that "virtually all scientists agree with evolution as Darwin envisioned it", any number is huge and 500 willing to sign a paper is even more significant. The more pertinent question might be, "How many more feel this way, but declined to sign the paper?""
I note also that the evolutionists usually say that no scientist with a real degree believes creationcrap...if they do, then they must have received their degree from a degree mill. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard that particular false ad hominem here....
Yeah, I love the people who say "I have a degree from MIT and I don't believe in evolution" and thirty posts later you find out they're mechanical engineers or economists.
"The truth is the neither the Intelligent Design pundits nor the "Evolutionists" are arguing science. It is, at its core, a philisophical debate."
Correct. I note also that scientists are notoriously poor at doing philosophy...or, rather, they are willing do to very poor philosophy and not even know it. at least the ID guys have credentials in philosophy which allows them to participate in a debate which is, as you note, really philosophical.
I love to ask those simple questions...get's people's panties all in a wad.
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
[Last revised 2/23/06]Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
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.