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."
They are to do whatever they are led to do I suppose (altho I do not see myself in quite the same light as the original disciples). I am not led to bang people over the head. I'm sure we all witness to people using the gifts we were given. Frankly, you and I don't save anyone anyway. The HS does that. As in all things, pray for His will to be revealed to you, and then, follow it. Maybe for you it does involve telling folks they are going to hell. For me it has not been that, yet (altho if someone asked me I wouldn't hesitate to tell them. But it's not something I revel in, sinners going to Hell. Maybe I will have to answer for that, but I'll answer to Jesus, and no one else.)
:)
susie
We are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeolog (sic), not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!
My interest lie with biology, not "archaeology (your word, not mine)", but I'll give it a go. Why is this an important point?
Nope, Evolution has religion in it, and its scientific belief of BB was after the science in the Bible.
The topic was the global flood. This is generally dated very close to 2350 BC.
Within this time span we should expect the evidence to be in the soil horizons, rather than in the rocks. In many areas the soils are 10,000 or so years old. This is where archaeologists, as opposed to geologists, are most pertinent.
Most of the creationist websites go to great lengths about rock layers millions of years old, whereas for the age of the global flood they should really be addressing much more recent soil layers.
Where do you think Creation Theory came from?
I just want it pre 1967
You seriously don't think that the origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution?
Please give an example of soil layer investigation. Could you give a web site that gets into this?
I have never looked for one, sorry. I am relying on my schooling and professional expertise in this area.
And that all came before websites...
What you state may be true, that, however, does not make praying for a successful outcome a sin.
So you are claiming that Cosmology, Physics (including Quantum Physics), Radiometrics, Geology, Geophysics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and many branches of Biology are all based in faith and therefore are to be considered religion?
The statements in the Bible are hardly science. Science follows a specific methodology that by necessity does not consider the supernatural. Nothing in the Bible goes beyond simple observation and extrapolation. Even those observations were nothing more than casual. There was no hypothesis formation, no controls, no testing and no attempt to falsify.
Claiming that the Bible is scientific shows a major gap in your understanding of what science is and what science does.
Claiming that the BB is part of the SToE shows a major gap in your knowledge of Evolution and Cosmology.
Claiming that the SToE is a religion shows a major gap in your understanding of the evidence and your understanding of what makes a field of study part of science.
You don't seriously think Kent Hovind knows what he is talking about do you?
Evolution, as generally discussed on this forum, is biological evolution. Darwin had nothing to do with abiogenesis and the BB. The mechanisms addressed by the SToE apply, at least currently, to life and life alone.
The BB is part of Cosmology not biology. The origin of life on Earth, while it is part of Biology, is not part of biological evolution.
The BB is well founded, well tested (as far as possible), and is based on substantial evidence.
Biological evolution is also well founded, well tested and based on far more evidence than the BB.
Abiogenesis is still in its infancy and is not as well founded and either the BB of Evolution but the evidence is growing.
True; we shouldn't.
The culture we live in has just about driven the Word of GOD out of the public view. I intend to bring as much back as I can.
NIV John 5:24
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
40. On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet."
41. Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee?
"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
NIV Acts 4:29
Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.
NIV Acts 4:31
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
NIV Acts 9:28
So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.
NIV Acts 13:45-49
45. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.
46. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
47. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: "`I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
48. When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
49. The word of the Lord spread through the whole region.
NIV Acts 18:26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
NIV Acts 28:31
Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
NIV Romans 10:20
And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
NIV Romans 15:15
I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me
NIV 2 Corinthians 3:12
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.
Good for you. I am not all that good at it (witnessing) however I expect one reason God made us all different in our abilities was because there were different methods needed, depending upon the person He was trying to reach.
God Bless you (and everyone else here on this thread--even those who hope I don't pray for them!)
;)
susie
We covered this on another thread.
So how would addressing soil layers help Creationist? Would they prove a more recent flood? How?
Also, what are Paleosols?
Also, what are Paleosols?
Paleosols are nothing more than old soils. The age can vary depending on where they are.
The whole question of dealing with soils is because the global flood is usually placed very close to 2350 BC, and rock formations are almost always very much older. If you want evidence of the flood you need to look at younger deposits, and that would be soils.
For example the channeled scablands of eastern Washington have a great record of the post-glacial floods coming out of Montana. You can track the location and age of the floods pretty well from the soils (both present and absent).
Sounds good to me, since the "bastions of Liberalism" push the religion of Evolution! Let the list grow!
Let's see your validating evidence that the SToE (Evolution) is a religion.
In your mind, is calling something a religion an insult?
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.