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."
Let's not forget those champions of metaphysicality, medical doctors, who evidence-interpret all the way to the bank.
You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't.
Your contention that evolution (and everything else) is metaphysical is itself metaphysical, and has nothing to do with the real world.
"The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences"
The RUSSIAN Academy of Sciences????
Perhaps Lysenko isn't dead after all. We KNOW we can get 600 "scientists" to sign a statement that your cars cause global warming, but that doesn't necessarily reflect scientific evidence or the consensus of MOST scientists.
Courtesy ping...
Abstract thought is the enemy.
Yes, abstract thought is the devil's tool. Oops, that was an abstract thought. And so was that...and ... Oh no, I'm caught in a metaphysical dilemma. But that was an abstract thought too... I need to stop thinking abstractly...oops, did it again... I can't stop.
Oh, I don't think that all interpretations are of equal value at all.
Coded information independent of the physical properties of the message carrier has *never* been observed to arise spontaneously. That is as scientific a statement as you can get.
The creationist interpretation is far superior.
And your contention that creation is metaphysical is itself metaphysical and has nothing to do with the real world.
You think that you can attribute something that you posted to me?
I guess that makes sense to an evolutionary mind somehow.
Not surprising.
Abstract thought isn't the enemy. Pretending that abstract thought is 'science' is a gross error, however. It is required for belief in 'evolution as science' and is therefore a gross error in that context.
No need to give up abstract thought entirely. Just recognize that it isn't science.
That shouldn't be too terribly difficult.
Neither has the creation of life from dirt been observed. On the other hand, a disappearing Statue of Liberty was observed by lots of people. Your point?
The creationist interpretation is far superior.
Where have I heard that before...hmmmm.....lemme think now....could it be............the Church Lady?????
The point is that evolution is metaphysical since it assumes that coded information has arisen independent of the message carrier, an event that has *never* been observed.
No need to give up abstract thought entirely.
I wasn't planning on doing so...and since I think it's impossible to do so, I really don't have any choice in the matter.
You think OJ was guilty?
Sounds good. It's crap, but it sounds good.
Good. I was concerned since you were obviously caught in a metaphysical dilemma and said that you "need to stop thinking abstractly". I could tell that you were pretty far gone already.
The reason that OJ was found 'not guilty' is because *evidence* must always be interpreted metaphysically. There were two ways to interpret the evidence, guilty or innocent. The evidence didn't change, only the interpretation of it was subject to abstract thought. The jury said 'not guilty'. That metaphysical outcome may or may not represent reality however. The point is that it is a metaphysical outcome.
Same w/ the creation/evolution debate. The evidence is the same. Only the interpretation of it is subject to abstract thought.
Evolution is metaphysical. If every scientist in the whole world believes it, that does not mean that it represents reality any more than the fact that a jury found OJ 'not guilty' means that he actually is innocent.
Does this make sense to you?
Awesome defense of your position.
Can't argue w/ that.
Does this make sense to you?
Nope. I think it's all nonsense. And I think OJ's guilty.
Evolution is metaphysical
I posted this already, but you obviously don't agree, so here we go again.
From a google search, "Define:Metaphysical":
You are calling everything metaphysical. That is not accurate. If you read these definitions "metaphysical" takes over beyond the normal way of looking at things: "highly abstract and overly theoretical" or "beyond the physical realm" or "realities which are outside those of science" (but I don't agree with the examples given) or "beyond what can be grasped by the senses."
Science stays away from the metaphysical as much as possible. I think you just hate evolution so much that you are blasting away at the scientific method and all modern learning based on it in an effort to avoid having to deal with apes for ancestors.
I will take another shot at this, now that I have more time. Your statement is psychobabble and is devoid of content. Evolution has been observed directly by human eyes. An example we see is viruses that are resistant to antibiotics. How did this resistance arise? It must be from "coded information" that indeed arose "independent of the carrier."
TToE is no more metaphysics than Astronomy or Gravity
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.