H.L. Mencken, July 18, 1925
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 tell me which one you think uniquely supports evolution and we will discuss.
Oh, I see that you get to determine what satisfies and what does not.
Sorry, but past experience w/ evolutionists has demonstrated the importance of nailing down the standards of judgement for 'satisy' before proceeding.
You lika da game, no?
Ah, one of the more intelligent responses I've seen.
>>Somehow darwinism has been made law. How did that happen? Nobody in education calls it a law, but go take a case against ID to a court and learn just what the judges say law is concerning the matter.<<
There is no problem debating anything in science. The only problem comes when people try to force force science to teach ID without scientific basis.
The same way the people in post 118 arrived at the conclusion that they can dictate policy to God.
So you won't say how many example you want?
So you won't say why you get to define what 'satisfy' means?
It was a typo.
I meant <10,000 year old Earth. I was referring to the so-called "scientific" creationists.
The summary of your post is that there can be "alternate theories." Certainly. But ID is not a "theory" by any definition (except for "theory"="guess").
By definition, ID cannot explain the MECHANICS of evolution. Therefore it cannot be a theory. It is a belief.
Teaching ID in science class is the same as teaching catholicism in math class. It is trying to teach "back door" religion where it does not belong. If you teach ID, you have to teach every other Creation myth. And which of those myths is appropriate in a science class?
This is not about "alternate theories" or "open debate." This is about teaching a specific religous belief in publci scohools.
There is no "alternate theories" to TToE. The only people that have so-called alternatives don't understand it.
You mean even if they were enough to satisfy pre-Darwinian CREATION scientists, they wouldn't be enough to satisfy you? Never, mind, then. Too much trouble looking up actual historical examples.
In any case here's an excellent reference providing the general picture, for those lurkers who might be genuinely interested:
Genesis and Geology : A Study of the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850 (Harvard Historical Studies) (Paperback)
Amazon Link
I have the out of print original (1951) edition. This '96 with new material should be even better.
What you mean is that ID cannot explain the mechanics of *biology*, not 'evolution'.
But evolution doesn't explain the MECHANICS of biology either. It merely accepts them as they are, therefore it cannot be a theory. It is a belief.
The point of the first is that being a skeptic about certain aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution primarily through natural selection does not equate to being anti-science or scientifically inept.
Nope. It's point is to fool people into believing that the "controversy" about the validity of evolutionary biology is, in any way, scientific.
In fact, the truth of the purpose of the list, and the manner in which it was procured, leaves any reasonable observer to conclude that the Discovery Institute, who is responsible for it, had no goal in mind except to defraud the public and to bear false witness against science and those who practice science.
Those bastards.
The point of the second is to ridicule the first.
No, because you can't ridicule something that is, itself, already ridiculous.
The point of the second was to rebut the first and the notion that there was actually anything scientific about the "controversy" surrounding evolution.
And to press home that point, the sponsors of the second petition limited signatories to those who name was "Stephen" or a variation thereof (in honor of the late great Dr. Gould.) That excludes 99% of the population.*
But even counting only 1% of the folks who we would statistically expect to sign it, the second petition has more signatures in absolute numbers than the first.
*Think of it as the scientists taking on the anti-science group with not only one hand tied behind their backs, but 99% of their body tied behind their backs...
Hmmm ... we can't trust the people doing the research, so we can't know how much of the supporting physical evidence has been manufactured or manipulated. But if it weren't for the research, and by extension the people doing it, how would we know that some of the supporting physical evidence was manufactured or manipulated?
O.K. Then in economics and public affairs, let's "balance" capitalist principles with instruction in communism. And of course we must "balance" consensual values of Western Liberalism with Sharia Law.
The notion that "balance" is a good for it's own sake is necessarily a RELATIVIST value.
How about we just inform students as honestly as possible about the ACTUAL content of science. At such time as some non-evolutionary theory may earn standing in the marketplace of scientific ideas on merit, then by all means teach it. Any time there is an actual scientific debate, then tell students about all sides thereof. But when one theory is ascendant, and has no viable contenders, academic (and simple intellectual) integrity requires that you tell students that too.
Even that was much more than you deserve. Come back when you grow up and we can try it again.
Perhaps a mistake to post this but what the heck, it's Friday.
You know, I'm really not wicked into these kinds of threads.
Anyhow, Your phrase there conveniently omits the possibility that evolution is an erroneous assumption. It is self referential to your view. You know the view that a lot of people do not accept as reliable, or valid, or true? That one.
If you read Ann's book you'll recognize the line about "assume a can opener."
Darwinism or evolution is not an established fact. How can it be? All of the evidence is not in yet, and of course it likely never can be.
In order to hold darwinism you have to not consider certain observable facts. Or do I mean unobservable facts? Say the finches at Galapagos, where are all of the new ones that Darwin never saw? It has only been since 1835 or something.
Darwinists indeed use pretty consistent methods of identification. Good grief, I hated Bergey for all of that nomenclature stuff, and observations concerning cell walls, motility, sporing, and all the rest.
Still, there really is not much new out there. We are simply observing the old, and some very old organisms at that. Why won't those spores simply die?
Darwinism also requires something that is not quite unlike ID. Darwinism requires the suspension of disbelief in the very principles from which it gets authority. Rejection of Authority.
Ain't that a fundamental principal of the scientific method?
Maybe the new Theory should be called Observationism!
Just because you can see a lot more things don't make it a scientific law. Thank God for VanLeeenhook and pioneers like Pasteur and John Snow and many others.
Indeed darwinists stand on the shoulders of giants, but the Theory is still just an unprovable premise.
But, like a lot of the loonie lefties on their crazy causes, their first thing is to 'go tell it to a judge."
I think that is wrong.
Oooh, you really told me.
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.