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."
Good post, Jimi.
I only looked at the first dozen 'Steve's, but are we really counting Political Science and Linguistics PhDs?
Really?
Props to the "scientist" from my alma mater on the list with a doctorate in Social Psychology.
You did not supply a source for that article, so I don't know if you wrote it or if someone else did. In any event, Dr. Collins is a devout man and a molecular biologist. However, to suggest that he supports so-called "intelligent design" is a misrepresentation of the facts at best. Dr. Collins understands that evolutionary theory is science and that intelligent design is not. He might be called a "theistic evolutionist". He believes as a matter of faith that the Lord created the universe, but he understands how modern science demonstrates an old earth and the evolution of species. This article, like so many other creationist sources, plays by a fast and loose set of rules.
Inadequate answer. But you are correct. He (John Sanford) is a young-earther. If you read the testimony here it's clear, however, that this is primarily for religious reasons. (Why else, except BIBLICAL LITERALISM, would he readily allow that the earth might be less than 10,000 years old, but give a flat "no" to the suggestion that it might be less than 5,000? His lower limit is obviously based on the literalistic, Usher-type Genesis chronology.)
Q. First of all, do you have a personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. I do have a personal opinion.
Q. And what is that personal opinion specifically as to the age? And I'm interested only in the age, not an explanation.
A. I believe that I was wrong in my previous belief that it's 4.5 billion years old and that it's much younger.
Q. How old is the earth, in your opinion?
A. I cannot intelligently say how old it is except it's much younger than I think widely believed.
Q. Give me your best estimate.
A. Less than 100,000 years old.
Q. Less than 10,000?
A. Conceivably.
Q. Conceivably less than 10,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Conceivably less than 5,000?
A. No.
Q. So it's somewhere between 5 and 10,000 years of age?
A. Between 5 and 100,000. But I would like to--
Q. No, I'm asking the questions.
A. Okay. You ask the questions.
Wow.
So what is the supposed scientific evidence that the Earth is between 6-10,000 years old?
I'm sure the creation scientists have something other than the Bible.
When I said "theory", I was referring to the scientific method, which is pretty much irrelevant when discussing evolution, global warming, or ethanol.
Aw, js, you'se is breaking the rules. In olden times, people were allowed to get angry with their gods if the rain god, for example, did not come through. In modern times, you praise God if you think you got what you wished/prayed for [and especially if your neighbor, brother-in-law or political opponent got what he 'deserved'], but you are not allowed to shake your fist at God when He or She ignores your prayer or when He caused or allowed some huge personal or social disaster.
We have PC now, and gods have to be treated with political correctness. Gods can only do good; and even when bad things happen that is because gods know more than you do, and it is 'really' for good in the overall scheme of things. So, there. It is really very simple. Get on board.
I am glad you agree that it is scientific theory.
It's an unproven story, probably based on oral history swollen in the telling from one generation to the next.
Well put.
Dumbest post of the year award.
Impressive numbers of scientists signing petitions means SQUAT. Show us real evidence and, for God's sake, use the scientific method to produce results.
The honest ones will acknowledge that the Bible is all they have, and that it's sufficient for them. The dishonest ones are amusing.
He didn't really type what was posted. Science is mostly in error and the keys you tap rarely make it to the next computer as the same key.
He problably typed something like science and evolution are glorious manifestations of God.
From the link:
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)
Trouble comprehending theory and trouble comprehending parody...
It was most likely invented by humankind. Arose during the development of language, starting, maybe, about 12,000 years ago, and refined ever since then. By humans.
Ideas about gods and demons have many illogical components.
Holcaust-deniers and evolution-deniers sing from the same hymnal on this one.
"...no other explanation...considered." Well, should we teach the theory of demon possession in medical school as an equal to pneumococcal infection in diagnosing pneumonia? Should we teach the geocentric theory as an 'other explanation' to the heliocentric theory?
Your suggestion would open the door to having everyone's pet theories brought into the schools. Personally, I think gravity--which is supported by social and scientific elites-- has no transitional forms, and it is actually invisible pixies that make things fall down. There is no evidence against the Pixie Theory!
I found your post #107 to be both amusing and sad at the same time, because it reminds me of some folks with whom I made a passing acquaintance...and what I relay is their really convoluted view of God...
Many years ago, my older son, was diagnosed with a rare, usually fatal type of leukemia...the time I am speaking about, is when he was in a military hospital, receiving treatment, and was in a ward of the hospital, which carried a designation of being a semi-intensive care unit...it was not as strictly run as intensive care, but not as casual as the regular wards...
While my son was there, a soldier came in, who had been in a very bad traffic accident, and had internal bleeding, and several severe fractures....he had gone to surgery, all the bleeding was stopped, his fractures were set, and he was just in this semi-intensive care unit, for observation for a day or two, before going to a regular ward...
His family came in, accompanied by their pastor, and several other members of the church congregation...they were very vocal, very loud, and nearly hysterical over their family members accident and injuries...now, the soldier was fine, and just being observed...the family, the pastor and church members held a prayer circle around the man, and really carried on in such a manner, that they had to be told, to quiet down and that only two people at any given time could visit the man...well, they were quite unhappy about this, but complied(as they well had to), or risk being put out of the hospital....
So many of them came to the small waiting room...they were still carrying on...and all the while, assured one another and themselves, that God, had certainly saved this soldier from certain death, and that God had done this in response only to their prayers(no credit due to the doctors, who actually did the hard work of saving the man)...
They then wanted to know why I was there...I had spent the entire day with my very ill son, and was in the waiting room, just trying to drink a cup of coffee, and take a break from my vigil...I saw no reason not to tell them about my son..well, that was some mistake...because now, they wanted entrance into my sons room, to all pray over him, as they were convinced, that if they could form a prayer circle around him, they could instantly cure him...
They then went on to a most ludicrous supposition...they came up with the idea, that God allowed the soldier to be in the car accident, which would lead the family and church members up to the hospital to be with him, and this in turn would lead them to me and my ill son...and that this was Gods real purpose, in having them at the hospital...that they were called upon, to 'cure' my son...I could not believe what I was hearing...in other words, God allowed or caused something bad to happen to the soldier, so that these people could gain access to me and my son, and carry out some 'healing'...I was truly astounded that people actually thought like this...
When I refused to allow them access to my son, they got very upset, and quite angry with me...I was accused of a number of thing...they thought I was quite a terrible person to deny them access to my son, that I did not wish for my son to be cured, and that other bad things may happen to our family...
Well, that was it...I told them to leave me alone, and please not talk to me at all...I was quite appalled at how much influence they thought they had with God...and appalled at how they so casually accepted that God had caused the soldiers car accident so that they could be lead to me and my son...a classic example of folks believe that bad things may come from God(the soldiers accident)but that we should not question it, because after all God knows more than we do, and there was a greater good involved(curing my son of leukemia, by hands on prayer)...
Sadly, this was not the only group who tried to impose their 'religious' will on me, during this time...
I've realized the only non-Biblical arguments I've seen for it are jabs about how the 4.5B year estimate is unreliable due to dating.
I've yet to see a positive scientific argument for a >10,000 year Earth.
My notion of God is not illogical.
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.