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."
Thanks... I was like, what? How could this be? I've read both of those!
What do you think of John Derbyshire's habit of calling people like Gould who he deems to be denying facts of biology for leftist political reasons "left creationists"? Have you read his comments on that sort of thing in the Corner?
OK, revised edition. I just went to my shelf and pulled the volume, and never considered a revised edition (duh!).
Cranial measurements are fun--I did a lot of them in grad school and for my dissertation, but mtDNA is the way to go!
With all due respect, you and the other rational thinkers are wasting their time. I've watched these threads for nearly ten years (longer than my screen name as I had to re-register in '99) and absolutely no piece of evidence or logic will convince these people. You could give them 10,000 bits and they'll pick out the one that has a flaw. The truth is they will never believe because they simply don't want to.
In past centuries they'd have insisted the earth was flat, that diseases were caused by demons, and the heavens revolved around the earth.
The sad part is that they can't even see that.
I know. But I am stuck in Omaha and my wife just flew home after a nice visit.
I do learn quite a bit by reading the posts of other rational thinkers.
Some of those with whom I contend are sure to notice too, but that's an added bonus.
Interestingly it is similar to the XIX century free market misconceptions. Good that physics or chemistry are not being forced into such primitive formulas.
But physics and chemistry have and are going through re-evaluations and improvements all the time. Remember when they taught that the total mass before and after a chemical reaction was equal? Bad example, they still teach that.
Even after a decade I get frustrated because nothing comes of the discussions. In the end, everyone retreats to their neutral corner and we wait for the next thread to begin again.
I just wish the other side had a cogent point to make. Too reminiscent of Monty Python's Argument Sketch....
It's hard to make a cogent point when your textbook has pictures of man riding saddled dinosaurs.
What's a creo?
susie
Man: I came here for a good argument!
Other Man: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Other Man: Well! it CAN be!
Man: No it can't!
Man: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Other Man: No it isn't!
Man:Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
Other Man:Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man:Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.
Other Man:Yes it is!
Man:No it isn't!
Everything in current biology is predicated upon evolution. If you don't know that, you don't know much about biology. The texts start with single cells, how they may have given rise to multi cellular organisms. They start with the simplest forms of life and go toward the more and more complex all along the way pointing out similar structures etc. I don't believe you have read any biology texts or you would know this.
I don't have a problem with evolution, nor do I have a problem believing the Bible. But you seem to have a BIG problem with people having faith. I wonder why that is?
susie
There was a post yesterday explaining this. As I remember it is creo (creationist) vs. evo (evolutionist). These threads are referred to as crevo (combination of creo and evo). I hope I have that correct.
I have a problem with people of faith pushing their faith on others and even more so when they pretend that their "faith" is science and should be taught in the science class.
You stand corrected.
I rarely read these threads, and only tried to post a point of view that is a bit different from most (since I have a little experience in the area). I don't know why you refer to me as a creo. I'm not. Of course, you started right out making assumptions about me, which were not correct. I thought you were a rational person.
susie
Of course, I never said it should be.
susie
If you have never noted the fact that they are predicated upon evolution as a fact, you haven't read them with any sort of care.
susie
Not a big fan of Derbyshire and so don't generally read his column. Interestingly, however, a creationist in one of these threads recently claimed he was as militant atheist, which was apparently totally incorrect. Too unremarkable from the creos to remember just who it was. (Lack of ping therefore not intentional.)
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.