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."
Something in life has hurt you deeply. I am sorry for that.
In truth? In truth, religious fanatics would still have us in the dark ages. Imagine teaching children that airplanes are held aloft by angels. Teaching that man and dinosaurs co-existed. That the earth is 6000 years old and the center of the solar system. How much punishment would a child get for claiming that the earth was round?
Actually I got on these threads about here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653075/posts?page=304#304
Since you have been here longer, you might know the affiliation of RightWhale and MineralMan.
OK, I am open -- provide a scientific alternative to TTOE. And not by the trite "anything that is researched" definition (which means there can be a "science of astrology" eveny by their example).
I am ready.
As for the game, it was flawed as well. Took my son to see Roger Clemens return to the Astros and they lost 4-2.
LOL. Just whom do you think you are fooling?
Consider: "I question doctors because they all use X-rays when a kid comes in with a possibly broken arm. Doctors and their humanistic supporters are fighting hard to prevent X-rays from being removed from their clinics as the Church of N-rays urges."
"The questioning of X-rays is a deeply held faith", say faith believers. "There is not a single mention of X-rays in either the Qu'ran or the Bible; if Allah or God wanted us to see X-rays, He would make our eyes able to see with X-ray vision." The only true vision is via N-rays. Neither Jesus nor Mohammed nor Buddha predicted X-rays, but some "scientific elites" still claim that they exist. This is a 'theory' without any foundation.
Modern medicine is largely based on comparative experiments on humans and animals which track evidence impirically [sic] and develop charts and trends. Evolution is not permitted to be compared to anything without garnering snide tin foil hat comments.
Hmm. I suspect this is inaccurate. Tin, Sn, is atomic number 50. Heavier than iron Fe at 26, but much less than lead PB at 82. Usually the foil hat types use Aluminium, only 13. Al is much cheaper and easier to get than tin, which is expensive and not in supermarkets. X-rays also differ in their energy, usually measured in keVs.
It is hard to keep track of all the faith denominations and sectarian differences about tin, aluminium, lead, and the like. Teach the controversy. Some say only tin is effective, some say aluminum. So many schisms. Satan is devious, so baptism is probably the only answer. Personally, I prefer MRI, based on Scripture.
They have an alternative, but its not scientific. And they don't like to talk about it directly.
But the cat was let out of the bag. The Wedge Document outlines a strategy for pushing religion, and it was leaked. It says, in part:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ...There is no scientific alternative to TTOE. As has been the case for 150 years, there is a religious fight against the theory of evolution, but on the science side things are pretty well worked out. Scientists are now fighting over the small details; Darwin formulated the big picture pretty accurately.We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...
Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
(A science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions; I can hardly wait. Paging Nehemiah Scudder; pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)
I never wear a tin-foil hat. I know better. Tin-foil hats are a government conspiracy.
Tin Foil Hats Found to Amplify, Not Reduce, Government 'Mind-Control' Signals
Tin foil hats on, everyone - or maybe not. Tests carried out by MIT students have found that tin foil hats actually amplify 'government mind control' signals sent at frequencies which match those allocated to the US government.
Several hat designs were looked at and "a 30 db amplification at 2.6 Ghz and a 20 db amplification at 1.2 Ghz, regardless of the position of the antenna on the cranium" was found.
The students suggest that the government itself may have spread the rumour that the hats protect individuals from incomming transmissions in order to enhance their mind control programme.
First, I am not sure of your source for "there should be larger amounts of evidence in the fossil record and there is not." There actually is a huge amount of evidence. There is enough evidence to sink the ark, literally. Much of it is faunal (critters, not hominid), but a sizable amount is in the "fossil man" category. I have actually studied a lot of the hominid casts personally; not the new ones, as I left grad school quite a while ago, but all of the major ones extant a couple of decades ago.
The "severely flawed" statement depends more on the nature of the evidence than the amount.
First, a moving picture at 32 frames per second appears continuous, but there are 32 gaps per second. Its pretty good at 16 frames, and adequate at 8. There may be a lot of gaps, but the data still forms a coherent picture. To hear anti-evolutionists talk, there would be no frames, and that is absolutely not correct. We may not be at 32 frames, but we are getting an adequate picture with the data at hand.
Secondly, it the data largely point in a specific direction, less is needed. When the data point in all directions, uniformly, no amount will be enough. The theory of evolution has most of the data pointing in the same general direction. The big picture has been largely settled; scientists are now working out some of the smaller points. There will still be surprises, but with the introduction of genetics, which confirmed the existing theories rather than overturning them, it looks like the overall theory of evolution has been well established.
Sorry the baseball game didn't work out as well as you might have liked, but I bet it was fun anyway.
The question is what did chimpanzees evolve from?
Evidence? Schmevidence. Just what the hell do you think you are doing with this evidence?
If faith can remove mountains and make all men blind, it is unlikely that puny 'evidence' is going to shake anyone from the deep worry that they might be mortal and not gain everlastingness.
Fear is a much greater motivator than evidence.
All of my E.coli are somewhat inclined toward the geological record--after careful training--so I feel confident in saying, "We thank you."
Miocene ape-like critters. We had a thread on the best fossil from this time period a few days ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652178/posts.
Original article (pdf file). Very thorough research. I recommend it highly.
Well, straighten them out! (Bunch of slackers.)
The problem is that if we are at 8 fps with 8 gaps and we go to 32 fps the creos will say we have more gaps now than before; proof of the failure of evolutionary theory.
A good assumption. That statement would never be made by one that knew anything about science unless he were an anti-evolution fanatic pushing an agenda with false implications.
I meant to write <10,000 year old Earth.
You mean you have failed to understand any of the scientific reasoning on the age of the earth since you do not have a firm grasp on science and math.
Or maybe it was just a fricken typo. Sheesh.
Whoops!
What a difference a > vs. a < makes.
Organizing E.coli is harder than herding cats. Trust me.
We all just had a little conference. They reminded me of Benjamin Franklin's thought: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." This preceded Darwin, but surely he foresaw the evolution-deniers.
Question: do you happen to know if our primate cousins also depend on E.coli? Escheria or a different strain?
Noted.
Check out: Gravity is only a theory, at www.re-discovery.org
It is hilarious, using all the anti-evolutionists' misdirections and half-truths.
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.