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."
So that is your criterion. I guess the fact that every scientific study of prayer concludes that it does not work.
Did he?
Did he?
Obviously not, or he has somehow forgotten it now that he has selected a religion to complete his "intellectual" development.
Care to back up your guess?
It's a guess. You can easily refute it by naming a few studies that show that prayer works.
It really is sad that you think if one believes in theism it dismisses all the evidence of past life. And it's sadder that atheists cannot reconcile that both science and religion have a place in our lives and can live in harmony. Regardless of your temper tantrums and name calling, it isn't a zero sum game.
Prayer 'no aid to heart patients'
Therapies such as prayer and homeopathy are widely used, although past studies looking at the impact of care on patients' health have had mixed results.
The results of this study contradict earlier findings from the same team which suggested a drop of a quarter or more in "adverse outcomes" - including death, heart failure or heart attack.
Your guess seems to be wrong.
It's sad that you think that one scientist, who happens to be a Creationist, admitting that his Creationist beliefs aren't based in science is such a terrible strike for religion.
And it's sadder that atheists cannot reconcile that both science and religion have a place in our lives and can live in harmony.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
And it's so much sadder that Creationists can't free themselves from their cultural mythology and prefer to whine and namecall at anyone who prefers rational thought.
Regardless of your temper tantrums and name calling, it isn't a zero sum game.
That's right - Shiva says you will be reincarnated as a slug for your lack of respect and belief and Odin says you will not be welcome at Valhalla!
And here's an extra laugh at you, just because you deserve it:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
I'm a YEC, but I think the hypercane theory is more likely than a water canopy. And I believe speciation has occurred since the original kinds were created.
Did you even read the article? Did you not even read the title you posted? Duh~
Prayer 'no aid to heart patients'
Groups from different faiths prayed for patients
Praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcomes, a US study suggests.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
BACK AT YA!
Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Report of a masked, randomized trial.
Cha KY, Wirth DP.
Cha Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of intercessory prayer (IP) on pregnancy rates in women being treated with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in which patients and providers were not informed about the intervention. Statisticians and investigators were masked until all the data had been collected and clinical outcomes were known. The setting was an IVF-ET program at Cha Hospital, Seoul, Korea. IP was carried out by prayer groups in the United States, Canada and Australia. The investigators were at a tertiary medical center in the United States. The patients were 219 women aged 26-46 years who were consecutively treated with IVF-ET over a four-month period. Randomization was performed after stratification of variables in two groups: distant IP vs. no IP. The clinical pregnancy rates in the two groups were the main outcome measure. RESULTS: After clinical pregnancies were known, the data were unmasked to assess the effects of IP after assessment of multiple comparisons in a log-linear model. The IP group had a higher pregnancy rate as compared to the no-IP rate (50% vs. 26%, P = .0013). The IP group showed a higher implantation rate (16.3% vs. 8%, P = .0005). Observed effects were independent of clinical or laboratory providers and clinical variables. CONCLUSION: A statistically significant difference was observed for the effect of IP on the outcome of IVF-ET, though the data should be interpreted as preliminary.
You know, it would be a big surpise, if ONCE, one of y'all would accurately repost my statements.
And BULL. You have not show that study yet.
Some YECs believe speciation occurred, transitionals and all, several hundred times as fast as evolutionists generally claim, and in the opposite direction!
Does this sound right to you?
No one cares that he is a believer but you!
And when he allows imaginary notions to influence his science, he is no longer acting as a scientist.
I'll have to ask God for forgiveness, but it gives me pleasure to know that you will one day suffer in hell.
Oh, my, what a good representative Christian you are!
Let's see - now what's lower than a slug? Oh, e coli for you in your next life! Maybe in a baboon or a syphilitic chimpanzee. Ugh, sucks to be you!
You ---"I guess the fact that every scientific study of prayer concludes that it does not work."
Me --- "You denied the existence of any study showing the efficacy of prayer "
Every means all. Which means the opposing population is empty.
You need glasses.
----------------------------------------------------------
Using patients as research subjects without informed consent also violates both the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. Furthermore, it is not logical to claim that informed consent was unnecessary because the intervention was only prayer and then to claim that the same innocuous intervention actually had profound physical effects on study patients. This is especially true since numerous claims made in previously published papers by one of the study's authors indicate that at least some of the people involved with this study believed, from the project's inception, that the intervention could have very real effects on uninformed human subjects. [10-14] Furthermore, because the study was conducted in Korea, where the majority of the population is Buddhist, Shamanist, or nonreligious, many study patients might have objected to Christian prayers as unwanted, blasphemous, or antithetical to their personal beliefs. But since the study was conducted without their knowledge or permission, the study subjects had no way to voice their objections or to opt out of the study.
The fact that 1 of the 3 authors now claims to have had nothing to do with the study is disturbing. Dr Cha and Dr Lobo both failed to respond to numerous telephone calls and letters requesting further information about their study. The remaining author, Daniel Wirth, MS, JD, has a long history of publishing studies on supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and his MS degree is in the dubious field of parapsychology. [10-14] While doing research for this manuscript I discovered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had indicted Mr Wirth, claiming that he had conspired with ex-convict Joseph Horvath (AKA Joseph Hessler, AKA John Truelove, AKA John Doe) to defraud millions of dollars from the cable company Adelphia. Mr Wirth initially denied knowing Horvath.
Son, you "know" nothing of the sort. You may believe it, but your belief is not evidence or knowledge.
And your statement is not even close to wisdom. Reminds me of an old quotation I learned once:
Ask the young: they know everything!Joseph Joubert, Pensées, 1842
Demkicker...you said in your statement to another poster...
"Again, you are pathetic to not recognize that one can be a scientist AND a believer. I'll have to ask God for forgiveness, but it gives me pleasure to know that you will one day suffer in hell."
Well, this needs me to say nothing at all...your own awful words speak loud and clear....
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.