More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[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."

[mjolnir]

Well, he talks about Chinese thought from time to time--- his wife is Chinese and he's spent a good amount of time in red China and in Hong Kong, and I recall that he considers himself to be a philo-semite, but (just) my impression is that he thinks that what he says applies to all religions, that the need for religion is ingrained in most though not all, and specific cultures give shape to that need... It's English culture that makes the British accept a civilized religion like Anglicanism, not the other way around, and the backwardness of Arab culture that caused it to readily accept radical Islam, not a matter of their respective religions that giving them their respective degrees of civilization.

[OmahaFields]

Did you read it? What "FACTS" did she lay out?

[balrog666]

Did you read it? What "FACTS" did she lay out?

The fact that she's looking for a new career on the Creationist scam circuit.

[WildHorseCrash]

"An unknown advanced entity did something at some point in the past" does not qualify.

Interestingly, that is the best scientific explanation for many ancient projects. Stonehenge, mounds, giant desert art, Easter Island, etc.

No, the best explanation is that humans did these things. We know of their existence and their capabilities. ID posits an invisible fantasy person (or people, wink, wink) based on a pre-existing religious conviction that this person exists.

[demkicker]

Too many to mention. It's a fairly long chapter and I highly recommend that everyone read it.

[OmahaFields]

The fact that she's looking for a new career on the Creationist scam circuit.

Sometimes I wonder why I work for a living. There always seems to be plenty of people willing to send money to someone as long as their prejudices are reinforced.

[OmahaFields]

Too many to mention. It's a fairly long chapter and I highly recommend that everyone read it.

Ah, just tease us with two or three. We are sitting on the edge of our chairs ...

[RightWhale]

Complexity turns out to be entirely natural. Left to itself, nature produces complexity. Producing something simple and clear of purpose such as a bridge, or master painting, or skyscraper or B-2 bomber requires ingenuity. Wolfram demonstrated that complexity falls out of very simple rules.

[demkicker]

Nah, you're being too much of a smartass for me go to the trouble.

[OmahaFields]

I understand. You can't defend her "FACTS" and thus are unwilling to engage in a dicussion of them. First one irrational excuse and then another irrational excuse. Either that or you have not really read the book.

[demkicker]

Your posts are irrational and you don't understand squat. FYI, I've read the book and I am not about to spend my Sunday typing out all the tons of examples in her book that skeptics like you would require. Get off your lazy butt and read it yourself and then try arguing that she doesn't destroy Darwin's theory of evolution.

[mjolnir]

Uhhh... When I say, "you don't really believe that nonsense" that's I'm taking your joke as seriously as, being a joke, it deserves to be taken. But if you really want to be funny, you might ease up the "Francis" line--- it was probably funny the first fifty or so times it was repeated on this site but by now it's kind of played out. http://www.google.com/search?q=lighten+up+francis+site:freerepublic.com&num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=100&sa=N&filter=0

Putting aside your ad hominems about the signers, each of which was irrelevant (aside from the criticism that some of the scientists were not in biological fields, which is a reasonable criticism), you stated that I should

"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..."

Now you're saying you didn't mean that the scientists who signed the document were anti-science, just the scientists at the Discovery Institute. That's fine, although I'd say that's more of a further clarification of a vague point on your part, not a strawman fallacy on mine.

Gould was a talented writer and I think most will give him credit for being correct about punctuated equilibrium as well as the number of genes in the human genome, which his neo-Darwinist critics thought would be far higher than Gould did.

That said, Gould was more than capable of writing screeds on occasion, given his penchant for insults e.g. "Darwin's lapdog" and he was neither a good enough nor intellectually honest enough writer to write polemics in the style of Mencken or Courter (the honesty about one's objectives in writing being what separates writers of polemics from writers of screeds).

Did you read the section on "the Bell Curve" in "the Mismeasure of Man"? Compare Gould's NYRB review of "the Bell Curve" to Thomas Sowell's review (also critical) of "the Bell Curve" http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sowell.html

Both are meant to be read by the layman, but one, I submit, is a screed; lines like

"It is a manifesto of conservative ideology; the book's inadequate and biased treatment of data display its primary purpose—advocacy. The text evokes the dreary and scary drumbeat of claims associated with conservative think tanks: reduction or elimination of welfare, ending or sharply curtailing affirmative action in schools and workplaces, cutting back Head Start and other forms of preschool education, trimming programs for the slowest learners and applying those funds to the gifted. (I would love to see more attention paid to talented students, but not at this cruel price.)"

are in fact, it seems to me, characteristic of screeds.

One would of course make a mistake to make ad hominem arguments about Gould's ideas about punctuated equilibrium, holism in biology and even IQ based on his Marxism simply because his Marxism influenced his openess to those ideas. However, it is fair, I think to note with Thomas Sowell that it is typical of those who adhere to the "unconstrained vision" to use insult as argument, as Gould often did, and that the fact that as an Gould was in fact an adherent to the unconstrained vision is not in doubt, e.g. in the "Ever Since Darwin" chapter on Angel's contribution to an understanding of the evolution of the human species, Gould states that:

"If we took Engels's message to heart and recognized our belief in the superiority of pure research for what it is-namely social prejudice-then we might forge among scientists the union between theory and practice that a world teetering dangerously near the brink so desperately needs."

A view like that in no way way invalidates his scientific ideas--- but it does explain why he took scientific disagreement so personally and often responded to those who disagreed with him in moral rather than scientific terms.

[Coyoteman]

read it yourself and then try arguing that she doesn't destroy Darwin's theory of evolution.

She destroys the theory of evolution as much as the creationist websites do (i.e., not at all). The nature and quality of the research is pretty similar in both cases; didn't she even get much of her evolution material from a creationist?

(This is but one small example of what passes for science on creationist websites.)

[demkicker]

Wrong. I can tell you haven't read her book either.

[OmahaFields]

Your posts are irrational and you don't understand squat. FYI, I've read the book and I am not about to spend my Sunday typing out all the tons of examples in her book that skeptics like you would require. Get off your lazy butt and read it yourself and then try arguing that she doesn't destroy Darwin's theory of evolution

I only asked you to cherry-pick two or three. You could have done that in much less time than you have spent writing your irrational reasons for not doing so. So, rationally speaking, you have either not read it or there is nothing there you feel can be supported.

[demkicker]

Gee you're not only obnoxious with your false accusations, but slow to catch on.

AGAIN, READ THIS V-E-R-Y S-LO-W-L-Y: I'll not spend the time it would take going into the great detail AC goes into to convince you of anything. Find a brick wall and go argue with it. I'm done with you....

[Coyoteman]

Wrong. I can tell you haven't read her book either.

Really. Then how would I know about the ridiculous statements about the Cambrian explosion in Chapter 8. She claims 5-10 million years, when the correct figure is really much larger.

[OmahaFields]

AGAIN, READ THIS V-E-R-Y S-LO-W-L-Y: I'll not spend the time it would take going into the great detail AC goes into to convince you of anything. Find a brick wall and go argue with it. I'm done with you....

I understand. Nothing there you can support in an open forum. I understand.

[wireman]

The facts as I seem them are that Ann Coulter desires to sell ever more books. Consequently, she is throwing red meat to the anti science rubes in this country and they are lapping it up.

[demkicker]

The facts as I see them are that atheists are so threatened when Darwin's theory is blown to shreds, that they lash out and use their same old worn out "shoot the messanger" tactics: Ann just wants to sell more books; Ann is mean spirited; Ann and her 'rubes' are anti science... blah, blah, blah....

Psssst, just because intelligent design is the way we all got here doesn't mean one cannot appreciate "science".