+
=
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."
Aha. God was so powerful that he created the Universe in the Big Bang, yet He also created Satan? When He could have chosen not to create Satan? And yet Satan is very powerful and the final outcome of Armageddon has to await 1000 years (a blip on the 13 billion years since the big bang). And all this 'understanding' started with a snake suddenly moved to start speaking in a language known to Eve? And all this became important before Adam's first argument (in some language) with Eve over 'what's for dinner'?
In searching for the origins of logic, Genesis is hardly the first place to look! Credit to the Greeks.
Thank you for your kind comments...Unfortunately the outcome was not positive...my son died about one year after this event...
I could not cure my son, but I could make sure, that nosey parker people were kept away from him, and that is something that I did...my son had many prayer groups from many different churches praying for him, and many different priests and ministers who were invited by him, and by me tend to his spiritual needs...he was 15, and knew how terribly ill he was and knew he would probably not survive...so he armed himself with prayers and guidance and kind thoughts and kind words from those 'religious' people he knew and admired....
When he died, he was entirely at peace with his situation...he fully trusted that the Lord, would keep him in His care....he did not need these nosey, loud, uncharitable folks for support...he had support from true loving people, who had his welfare in mind, and did not need another 'cure', to boost their tally count of those that they had saved(which is exactly how I regarded these awful people who wanted to barge in on my son)..
Ah, you have picked exactly the correct word...they were indeed, 'buffoons'....
I have long acquaintance with them. And they are all cut from the same flawed mold.
I may have missed something. What was the point illustrated?
On crevo threads I have read so often of "the evolutionist, Nazi, Marxist, communist, humanist, secularist, 'anti-Christian' conspiracy to fluoridate the water supply and destroy all morality". Are you aware of this plot?
Re #26 -- Adam and Eve were blonds? I don't think so either.
In case you hadn't noticed, although we "darwin fundamentalists" indeed don't agree with the political agenda behind the statement -- attempts to include antievolutionary ideas in science curricula on the basis of intellectual affirmative action rather than demonstrated merit in the professional marketplace of scientific ideas, and ultimately to use such as a "wedge issue" to wage explicitly religious culture war in science classes -- we DON'T actually disagree very much with the literal words of the statement.
Few... Correction... Almost certainly NO evolutionists (even "darwin fundamentalists") hold that natural selection plus random mutation is the sole mechanism driving evolution; and we all believe that evolution should be treated as any other important scientific theory, i.e. that it's substance should and does remain vulnerable to the acid skepticism of science.
Sorry to disappoint you.
If we could accept the notion that the Big Bang happened on say for the sake of reference, January 1, 13 billion 6 thousand years ago.....
I cannot help myself wondering just what the New Year's Eve party was like on 31 December 13,000,006,001 BC! I suppose that nobody showed up, but if they knew then what we know now, it might have been a serious hoot.
Sorry, I'm stupid, but my solar powered calculator stopped doing scientific notation calculations for me earlier this week. That was right after one of those Thermodynamics Law thingys stopped supporting my perpetual motion calculator keyboard.
You know, sometimes I think that people post a link, declare what is contained in the link, and then dont believe that other people will actually read the linked material...I dont rely on anyone, to tell me, what is contained in a link, nor how it should be looked at...I read most linked material...and so, apparently do a lot of other posters...and hence, some people get caught, misrepresenting what is actually in the linked material...not a good tactic...
Darwin Central, "the conspiracy that cares," apologizes for this. Holocaust denial, although most occurences are "natural," is an occasional and unfortunate side effect of the brainwashing we're sometimes forced to employ.
In our defense most of this has to be done to protect other, much more nefarious conspiracies. After all, the definitive disproof of evilution doesn't even begin to make sense until you first understand the truth about the Hollow Earth, UFO's, and several other shocking truths that I dare not mention.
Well the microprocessor was statistically and mathematically impossible in the not so distant past. How long before we are accomplishing feats only a god could do? Or, do we already in the eyes of past civilizations?
I think he might have hit the wrong inequality sign.
I am saddened that you suffered this loss. I am saddened that your son did not reach his full adulthood.
There are some unpredictable/random events in life. I refuse to attribute either good outcomes to a god or bad outcomes to a satan. Or fail to blame bad outcomes on a god who might have prevented them.
I do not have the same faith beliefs as you, but I think this goes out the window when we have real human caring involved. Human caring counts more than all the doctrinal issues ever conceived. As you elegantly said: he did not need these nosey, loud, uncharitable folks for support...he had support from true loving people, who had his welfare in mind, and did not need another 'cure', to boost their tally count of those that they had saved (which is exactly how I regarded these awful people who wanted to barge in on my son).
Wishing you peace.
Thank you so much...your kind words, are of comfort to me...
No, what's totally predictable is that your 'explanation' of the TOE (and 'evidence') will be 'defined as true', consistent with a created genome that is in decline and/or metaphysical extrapolations that are untestable.
You are the ones who don't know that there is no unique evidence favoring the TOE.
If no unique evidence, then no basis for your certainty.
Yah, I was right, but it's still not enough for you.
I'll just have to be satisfied w/ being right.
And evo reasons for opposing YEC are metaphysical as well, so where's the supposed advantage of your position?
You had some unique point that applied only to me, I presume?
Or did you just think you could pretend you did?
+=
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.