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."
Actually, I didn't think my opinion had any place in the classroom, and when they asked me (and they did) I told them that my opinion was not germain.
You can find the truth in what I said for yourself if you find a high school biology text and read it. I don't require that you believe me.
Since you made an incorrect assumption about me, I will refrain from making any assumptions about your reasons for feeling that you needed to say something nasty to me.
And, lastly, I don't care what your opinion of me is, as a teacher or otherwise.
susie
In the dozens of posts to me on this topic by Evolutionists, many, many straw man arguments like this have been set up and knocked down. What I have not heard even once is a proposed alternative that an evolutionist thinks should be evaluated.Please stop telling me what you think SHOULD NOT be considered and propose something that SHOULD be considered.
Did all life come from one miraculous "mud-hole" beginning and evolve into all varieties we have today, or did the mud-hole" miracle happen thousands (or millions) of times with many developing into various strains. Did life start on this planet or was it seeded (naturally or artifically) from another planet?
While some people would say this is "bio-genesis" and not "evolution", I disagree. Whether there was one or many strarting points for evolution is critical to the question of evolution. Is what we call "life" the only possible form, or are there many possible forms?
This is not a productive attitude. You could tell the kids that all the "facts" taught in science class are the best currently available explanations for phenomena. In the case of evolution, you could present a list of phenomena that would have to be explained by any competing theory. You could also present a list of authors like Gould, Eldredge and Mayr, who have argued the case in layman's terms. For all I care you could mention Behe and Dembski.
They don't seem to list who the signers are.
But since the guy they quote is from the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico it makes me wonder.
It's very touchy when you get into those areas. More than likely, where I taught I could have taught ID if I had wanted to and never gotten in trouble (because we were in a pretty fundamentalist area). However, I could also have gotten into big trouble. My personal feeling is that, I am a teacher, not their parent, and it's not my job to teach them what to believe. But, it could actually be quite the teachable moment, because the kids were keenly interested, but wanted to talk about GOD and the Bible.
susie
You are correct not to bring the Bible into a high school science class. Those who want a "critical analysis" of evolution in high school have no idea what this would mean.
Among other things it would involve explaining how the age of the earth is determined, and how geologic strata are analyzed. There is no branch of science compatible with a strict, literal reading of genesis.
I do think, however, that it is cowardly for teachers not to provide a bibliography to students who are interested.
If deemed suitable for "black ops" you will be contacted. It's not important that you know how or when. Of course you'll have to start with menial duties like polishing the iguana's at The Grandmaster's Mansion. (It's hell to get a decent shine on those critters.)
I think it would get them in trouble. I suppose I could have risked it (I did think about it). However, I'm sorry, but I wasn't going to risk my job for it.
susie
I remember reading Bible stories in public school when we lived in Georgia in the mid 60s. We were not church going people, but as a kid I thought the stories were pretty cool.
There has got to be a happy medium (altho I see the problems in it) OR we just need to decide that public schools are an impossibility, and go to vouchers.
I'm sure I'll take some heat for saying that, but who cares?
susie
Uh, what? It's hard to figure out what you're seeing as an "equivocation" here. How can you have have selection unless there's something (mutations, variations) to select among??? Are you trying to say Darwin thought selections works without a source of variations??????
First, Darwin I don't think used the word "mutation". He certainly wouldn't have talked about "genes" mutating because neither the gene, nor DNA, were known to him. However he did talk in terms of "variations" as the material upon which natural selection operated, and for the most part held that these variations appeared to occur randomly. So, no, he was talking about natural selection plus random variation being the primary, but not the only mechanism of evolution.
However Darwin wasn't conviced that all variation was random. He also allowed a possible role for the effects of "use and disuse". This was a weaker form of one of the Lamarkian mechanisms, but without the "chain of being" and "will to evolve" and all the other Lamarkian baggage. But it still disproves Sanford's "Primary Axiom" nonsense.
YEC falsified huh?
Just what fact falsified YEC?
Fact, not interpretation please.
Right, we could shorten 'evolution is nothing but random mutation and NS' to 'evolution is nothing' and still be correct.
There is nothing to refute wrt 'evolution'.
Nothing about 'selection' that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
Nothing about 'variation' acted on by 'selection' that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
Nothing about 'evolution' at all that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
No unique evidence that supports evolution-only at all.
This makes 'evolution' metaphysical.
The iguana's what?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oooops! I didn't mean that menial!
YEC falsified huh?
Just what fact falsified YEC?
Fact, not interpretation please.
How many examples will satisfy you? (Sorry for the preliminaries, but past experience with antievolutionists has demonstrated the importance of nailing the goalposts in place before preceding.)
So none of these qualify, eh?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
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.