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."
What degree does that dude from Nigeria have?
Not all. I couldn't find where to order the DVDs.
I notixe the usually effluent Radix is silent. And I thank God that Heinlein invented Scudder. He was right about "if this goes on..."
It's just a fun essay, and nothing about DVDs. Totally free.
There is an annotated version with references. Too lazy to look it up. Try Google Schempp+gravitas.
Why not? We already allow the "theory" of evolution to be taught in Jr. High School. In case you didn't notice, the teaching of medicine works better when the human body and its components are treated as organized matter that performs specific functions, with little care for whether it took millions of years or only a few days for the organized matter to come about. Please explain how the "theory" of evolution explains organized matter performing specific functions better than intelligent design. Be sure to cite peer reviewed sources.
Oops, shoulda finished the thread first. But it's still a good book. ;-)
I try hard not to wade into these things because no ones mind will be changed here. However, I just want to make one point. I taught Biology in the Bible Belt. I always had at least one student stand up and say they didn't want to learn about evolution because they didn't believe it, it went against their religious beliefs, etc.
The kids WANTED to discuss it, but we really could not. I think it's wrong, when a topic brings that much controversy, that there is no option to explore it. Personally, I don't have any desire to teach ID because I don't think it's really science. I tried to tell those students that the state required that they learn about evolutionary theory, not that they believe it, and if they wanted to be able to make an intelligent arguement to persuade anyone, they needed to know exactly what evolution was about.
And, the entire biology curriculum (and I suspect this is true everywhere) is based on evolution as a fact. So, if a parent doesn't want their child to learn about it, they will pretty much have to opt out of biology entirely.
I personally don't think that learning about evolution (if the parent is talking to the child and taking care of their religious upbringing) is going to turn them away from God. I am a born again Christian, and I cannot say I'm positive exactly how God created the earth and us. He certainly has abilities I cannot even fathom. But, I do understand the concern of parents who feel like the school systems are trying to indoctrinate their children and change their values/beliefs.
If evolution were the only bone of contention between parents and schools, then maybe we would be able to just suggest they wear tinfoil hats. However, we read stories every day of examples of schools stepping over the boundaries.
Just my 2 cents, worth a little less than you paid for it.
susie
Why is that the question?
susie
Ha!! I never asked about these ass clowns.
I know all about the Discovery Institute, how their "statement" is a massive logical error, how the DI conned some of the people who signed this thing by not telling them that they were going to use it to sell medieval thinking, and how it was apparently written so vaguely that scientists could agree with it without agreeing with the Genesis crap or "I"D creationism which is has been used to promote.
In fact, given the way it's written, even the strongest defender of science and evolution and Darwinism could sign it in good conscience (because no one believes that natural selection is the only process responsible for life's diversity, and every scientist desires the careful examination of evidence, which is why we know, for example, that the flood in Genesis, taken as actual history, if a pathetic joke, because we carefully examined the evidence. Something creationists never do.) Such a scientist could sign that statement in good conscience, that is, if he were unaware of the lying, filthy bastards at DI and the evil plans which they have to wedge religious nonsense into science classes and poison the minds of children with their "thinking."
The list is lousy with fundies, Moonies and other religious kooks. It's being used by an evil organization, the Discovery Institute, who lie about what it is and what it means, in order to con unsuspecting people into thinking that there's an actual controversy over the legitimacy of evolutionary biology. Given some of the blinkeringly stupid comments on FR on these crevo threads, they have many co-conspirators in perpetuating this lie.
The purposes for which it's put is hardly convincing as a statement of science.
No, can't help on that one. Had only one course in primates and with the large number of critters we never got into the fine details such as that.
Since you are a teacher of biology, please provide a specific example.
Actually, from your post, it appears you tried to get across to your kids that you did not believe in evolution and neither should they. I hope you no longer teach biology.
In Genisis, God all ready anticipated this when He said, "Lets us remove them from the Garden, lest they become Gods as Us."
I believe this is describing the end time when God intervenes, as described in Revelaton.
If he had anticipated it, why did he ever put them in the Garden to start with?
'Course, we can all see that Darwin was talking solely about NS and Sanford was talking about random mutation and NS, so Darwin's quote doesn't even apply.
But don't worry. You looked real smart making the equivocation and the simple-minded evos will never notice the error.
Then we also see that you provide no details or arguments to rebut Sanford's position, just the same tired buzzwords that the evos swallow whole, 'parrot', 'ignorant', 'incompetence', 'idiocy', etc etc etc.
But again, you looked real smart doing it and the evos will never notice the lack of content. Quite effective for keeping the simple-minded evos in line. Must be why it is the preferred response.
Snippy, eh? By the way, you forgot to thank me for supplying you with a solid reference for your bald assertion. You're welcome anyway.
And evo reasons for opposing YEC are metaphysical as well
Uh, no. It's the physical evidence. Besides, it's hardly just "evos" who reject YEC. It's not even principally "evos" who do so. Historically it was certainly not "evos" who initially who did so. The notion of a young earth (and of a global, geologically significant flood) was decisively falsified and abandoned by pre-Darwinian creationist scientists who were biblical Christians almost to a man. This historical fact alone refutes the claim that there was an evolutionary, "metaphysical" bias involved.
You had some unique point that applied only to me, I presume? Or did you just think you could pretend you did?
Huh???
It was Sanford, in the link you provided us, who set his position as against the "Primary Axiom" that evolution is nothing but natural selection plus random mutation. No such "axiom" (primary or otherwise) actually exists. It never has. What's to refute?
What if I claimed the "Primary Axiom" of Christianity was that Jesus died on a cross. True enough, so far as it goes. Jesus did die on a cross, and the cross is the most universally employed and recognized symbol of Christianity. But what if I used my "Primary Axiom" to ignore that the resurrection, the Kingdom of God, substitutionary atonement, etc, where also part of Christianity? How would you "refute" that, other than by pointing out that my "Primary Axiom" theory was simply silly, and kinda stupid?
God only knows? <(•¿•)>
I gave the article a read. I don't think any objective person would deny evolution on the scale indicated in that piece. I was really looking for an objective article on the scope of the entire evolution debate published in a mainstream arena.
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.