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."
Walter ReMine is a creationist, one of the leading proponents of "Baraminology" (under the term "discontinuity systematics"). Much like creation "science" is now ID.
I don't know why anyone would trust anything he has to say about science? I think your link just reinforces this.
No, in order for a new gene or set of genes to move to fixation, all members of the population that do *not* carry it and their offspring must be lost and replaced by new population members that carry it. No small feat. And the more differences, the higher the cost. Eventually, you just can't get here from there.
The only reason it is 'fascinating' is because you get to use your imagination to 'imagine' what may have happened.
But ultimately that's all it really is, 'imagining' unobserved 'events' that never really happened.
If you think you have some contrary evidence, present it and I will demonstrate where the evidence leaves off and the interpretation starts.
Again, I see this as nothing more than a game. It is a simple matter to manufacture ANY alternative interpretation as a "refutation" to the interpretation presented. My offer to demonstrate this stands. I could walk into any science class on any campus and disagree with everything the professor presents, offering up a variety of "alternative explanations". Does that invalidate any of those classes? Of course not. For some strange reason, universities keep churning out scientists who seem to be able to get real results from all those arbitrary interpretations.
At the risk of igniting your volatile temperament, you asked in your post 853 on this thread, for a link to transitional organisms. The site I linked to contains thousands of transitional species by their scientific names.
If you don't want to know, then don't ask. I realize that many creationists have committed themselves to the anti-science cause, and then call their approach "scientific".
I'll merely paraphrase what Ann Coulter wrote in "Godless", "even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist".
Actually, all the offspring of any population are eventually lost.
How about the cost of replacing the human race after all but five are lost? Natural isn't he only kind of selection.
Nope. The laws of gravity are evidence. They can be observed over and over and over again. They are totally scientific.
The 'theory of gravity' is not evidence. It is metaphysical because it attempts to explain evidence.
What makes evidence is the *observation*, NOT the 'interpretation'. That's why you guys incorrectly believe evolution is 'evidence-based', you are operating from a false definition of evidence.
It's not a game. It's deadly serious. You just can't see it.
Sorry, you misunderstood the concept.
If you actually have a concept, explain it.
So do you oppose the teaching of the Theory of Gravity, or consider it non-scientific? In fact, are you willing to throw out all science that is not based on direct observation?
you are operating from a false definition of evidence.
Maybe you can clear all this up for us then. What is your deinition of evidence? References, please.
It's not a game. It's deadly serious. You just can't see it.
I'm not sure what the "it" is to which you refer, but the game I mentioned is the one where you make any evidence-based assertion and I refute it with a fantastic baseless equally-valid explanation.
Now you've got it! The two theories (evolution/creation) are merely two different metaphysical interpretations of the same evidence.
That's the point. Evolution is just as metaphysical as creation.
Good job Spanky!
From a google search, "Define:Metaphysical":
Looks like your Ark is taking on water...
Your questions are too metaphysical.
googlewait.
He has his own definition of metaphysical. For example, forensics is metaphysical and criminal trials are metaphysical exercises.
:)
You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.
So what part of that definition did you not understand?
Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?
Mammals and extinct relatives
Biarmosuchia
Eotitanosuchia
Dinocephalia
Anomodontia
Theriodontia
Gorgonopsia
Therocephalia
Cynodontia
Diviniidae
Mammalia
Procynosuchidae
Galesauridae
Thrinaxodontidae
Cynognathidae
gomphodonts
Chiniquodontidae
Probainognathidae
Tritheledontidae (Ictidosauria)
Personally, I'd like to see more pictures.
References like this are hard to find.
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.