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."
I can't speak for all Christians, like you do, but I can say that I have not found a direct prohibition of it in the Bible. This ends my interaction with your red herring. The study shows the efficacy of prayer.
And many scientists throughout the world are religious. This does not mean that their religion became part of their science.
The question was not if any creationist has made a contribution to science, we know that there are creationists who carefully divorce their belief system from their work, the question was if creationism has made a contribution. Neither you nor celmak have answered that question.
You are mistaken. This === Nice post - for someone that supports praying for others to sin. definitely defines(by you) what we are talking about as a sin.
Another duck and another false statement of my postings.
but I can say that I have not found a direct prohibition of it in the Bible. This ends my interaction with your red herring. The study shows the efficacy of prayer.
Does that mean you believe that IV is morally right?
"The irony here is that Judge Jones would have forbidden any discussion of Lemaitres work in public schools. At least I think it's ironic sharpy. :-}
This sounds like an unjustified conclusion. Was his work on the BB based in religion? If his work is accepted science I doubt very much if it would be excluded.
I stand corrected. That was what I was asking your advice. I now understand that embryo transfer is not a sin for Christians. My mistake.
I did suspect you had difficulty with reading comprehension. Here, again --- This ends my interaction with your red herring.
It's been a long thread. You were the one that introduced as evidence the study where Christians were praying for Buddhists to have successful IV-embryo transplants, right?
How about "Thou shalt not kill".
Creation is not based in science. If you want to teach creation a comparative religion or philosophy class sounds like the correct place.
Why do you want to turn the clock back to Sir Francis Bacon's time?
Yes, and it was to answer the claim that no such studies existed. Your follow-on question had nothing to do with the question at hand and is a red herring.
I can also say the sun "came up" this morning. Am I speaking for all mankind? "Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible.
As we all remember, I started the post with "I guess", not "I claim". I went on to post how your "study" was unauthorized, unethical and one of the authors had been indicted by the FBI for fraud. Then we got into the discussion of the morality of Christians praying for successfull IV-embryo transfers and whether IV-embryo transfer was a moral act. You declared that the Bible had no direct prohibition ergo I am to assume that it is ok with God.
I thought that "Thou shalt not kill" was why IV-embryo transfer was immoral for Christians.
Not all the water came from rain. Scripture describes God "as opening the fountains of the deep". There were probably geological changes of significant magnitude going on. We know that it rained on Noah for 40 days and nights.
The PDF file addressed the "boiling of the seas" theory. Explaining that's only true if the energy is evenly distributed which it wouldn't be.
Since you don't know what the geography was like before the flood, you really don't know how much energy it would take to flood the earth. Nor do you know how the earth would react and handle that much energy.
Re: the global flood. See #634.
Believing the Earth and the cosmos had a beginning is a direct result of witnessing the 'beginning' of life (and other things) during the lifetime of a moderately thinking human. Ancient peoples would observe the beginning of such things as life (and storms) and extrapolate it to their entire environment. There is nothing special about the idea that the Bible suggested a beginning to the cosmos, in fact it is a common thread through many early human belief systems.
Unless you are suggesting that the Bible talks about the BB specifically. (You will need to have a good grasp of what the BB is and its consequences before making this claim)
" Trying to disprove Creation will ultimately prove it.
Science does not try to disprove the creation stories. There is absolutely no intent to do so. The disproof of the Biblical Genesis stories is a logical result of trying to investigate the natural world. The disproof of the Biblical Genesis stories do not in any way disprove the existence of God.
No, you posted someone's opinion. The study is still on Entrez. Rush Limbaugh was indicted. That does not make everything he's worked on wrong.
The objective of IV embryo transfer is not a death, but a birth. Just as separating conjoined twins is aimed at having at least one healthy individual and not two dead bodies.
Before you can make that statement you need to enumerate the morphological features that make a fruit fly a fruit fly.
In that list of morphological features is there an item that specifies four wings? No there isn't.
In that case can you really make the claim that they were all fruit flies when a number of them had four wings instead of two?
How many morphological changes are necessary before the fly in no longer a fruit fly? Even in the tests that were done, which were not to create new species, a number of mutations produced organisms we would not consider fruit flies.
You are aware I hope that the purpose of the work was not to produce new species but to test the ability of mutations to provide morphological change. To perform this test they had to produce mutations that left morphological changes that were noticeable. To produce noticeable changes the mutations were much more than what would happen in the wild.
Evolution proceeds through the accumulation of changes; an accumulation that is not restricted by any known mechanism.
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.