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."
You are exactly right.
On the other hand, the Public Schools, Courts, politicians, and Darwin apologists are not exactly what I would consider to be open minded about rational criticisms either.
I've read about Darwin. He was compelled to publish because others were coming to similar conclusions. He needed to be the first one to undermine traditional teachings. Perfectly understandable if you have an ego the size of infinity.
Actually, he may have been a good guy, but others in his wake, are guilty of an educational tsunami, and are clearly unrepentant. Of course the real egotists were persons such as Pasteur, who by the way actually did something with his intellect.
But what now? Debate gets thrown over to Huitzilopochtl or other blood thirsty icons? Where is the sense in that?
They curtail freedom of speech or a denial of rational debate at the point of a gun with even the most logically evasive politically appointed jurist even so much as nuances a disapproval.
It is unAmerican, and it is plain and simply willful ignorance. Ignorance which the public education frauds are determined to impose on posterity, by hook or crook.
The draft dodging tenured professors at our nations universities are even more despicable with their tactics.
But as I recently posted elsewhere...I'm just some guy.
The National Enquirer covered the OJ trial much better than WND (or the other one also supported by the Young Moon Creationists.)
You mean their search for the truth and an understanding of how we came to be?
Regardless, it sounds like your 'disbelief' is based on your religious indoctrination and not on the physical evidence.
And trouble representing parody on this board....
There is little doubt about that.
Much more open minded than YEC fanatics.
I've read about Darwin. He was compelled to publish because others were coming to similar conclusions. He needed to be the first one to undermine traditional teachings. Perfectly understandable if you have an ego the size of infinity.
Which creationist website did you read about Darwin on?
You can go back to howling at the moon now. ;>)
At least some of the supporting physical evidence has been manufactured or manipulated. How much? I can't know because I can't trust the people doing the research. The tactics (I see) supporting Evolution in Universities are the exact same tactics I see supporting Liberal Social policies. Ridicule, denial of funding and tenure, name-calling.
I PROMISE, I want to know the truth. One of my pet peeves with the Right is when we ignore facts that we find uncomfortable or defend politicians doing the indefensible because they have an R by their name. I don't want to be one of those people. If Evolution is right, I want to believe it.
If God doesn't exist, I'd like to know about it. It would keep me from missing the first quarter of the early NFL games.
That cry is heard over and over. This is not "freedom of speech" issue. Creationism (and its retarded cousin, ID) and all other mythology can be discussed in the proper forum. It should no more be discussed in a science class than astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in a physics class.
It is unAmerican, and it is plain and simply willful ignorance. Ignorance which the public education frauds are determined to impose on posterity, by hook or crook.
It is science. Willful Ignorance is the refusal to look at scientific evidence because it appears to violate a religious concept.
Which creationist website did you read about Darwin on?
I did not even know that there was such a thing as a creationist web site.
Now that you mention it, certainly there would be.
See, I don't know everything.
Actually, there was an issue that Darwin's work would not be first published way back when. He held back for a long time. There was a contemporary of his who drew similar conclusions, but his name escapes me right now. It will come to me, or I'll go get my trusty old Biology principles book out.
Of course, I just make things up out of whole cloth most of the time, so you got me huh.....
Found a reference for you, below.
I wonder if you have ever read any books on these subject matter at all.
Read the link below concerning Alfred Russel Wallace. You'll actually have to read a little to find the link.
Chump!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
So you know of records that show one species morphing into another?
That's news to me...and I think to most everyone else on the planet.
That is why I said "almost" :-)
Look up the definition of science.
I do not think that it includes judges forbidding active debate about observable things.
Here is a head start for you below.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/science
Thank you for the correction. You are right about Usher's date; I was wrong.
Calendric dates are rather interesting. There is an international understanding for using the Gregorian Calendar, rather than the Hebrew or Muslim lunar-based calendars, or calendars developed in Asia, based on some "moment to start". Acceptance of the Gregorian calendar did not come easily--many countries rejected it in 1732. There were riots.
The Julian calendar was equally approved "by the Church", and believers of that time struggled to reconcile the little details about how the earth actually moves around the sun. Reality vs faith was recognized by Pope Gregory, and he relied on the "elite" astronomers of his time. They did a good job. Good science triumphed over previous faith doctrine.
Today, BCE = Before the Common Era is internationally recognized for dates. It represents no insult to Jews nor to Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Confusianists. It is used in all religio-cultural traditions as a common basis.
Is there a reason why you are upset about this?
Did you read the case where the students were suing wikipedia because they got F's on their research project by referencing wikipedia?
Chump.
I told you to do your own digging, but you rely on wikepedia..... I simply gave you a point in the right direction.
Suit yourself.
Ignorance is bliss.
What is obesrvable about the process of Creation? By definition it is unobservable (unless something has *poofed* into existence in a recorded way that you know of).
We have evidence, we have theories that attempt to explain that evidence. Creation is not a theory. It is a belief.
Of course man coming from "clay" is much more understandable.
I didn't need to do any digging to know that you mischaracterized Darwin. And when challenged you provide Wikipedia as a reference. Nowhere did it support your mischaracterizations.
You were the one that referenced Wikipedia. I just pointed out that students were flunking for using Wikipedia as a source. Of course, you also remember that recent scandal where democratic congressional staff aides were stuffing and stripping Wikipedia to present a more favorable picture of their bosses.
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.