More scientists express doubts on Darwin

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."

You did notice that this is a 'deduction', and not a fact didn't you?

Huh? This is the way that ALL scientific theories are tested, by DEDUCING their empirical implications, and comparing those implications to the FACTS. Both deduction (from a theory or other claim rich in empirical implications) AND facts are required.

Facts simply are as they are. They don't bear any significance in and of themselves. They have to be analyzed as consistent or inconsistent with some theory which bears implications wrt their state: that attempts to account for them, and that risks potential falsification in doing so.

The linked material explicitly lays out both the deductions from macroevolution/common descent (including potential falsifications) AND the FACTS which confirm them (and which easily could have -- but don't -- falsify them).

You do remember that I asked for a fact don't you?

No, I don't remember that, because that's not what you asked me, as clicking back through the "To" links will readily reveal.

You asked for evidence that uniquely supports evolution. I gave you a link to the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". You asked me to pick one "which [...] you think uniquely supports evolution and we will discuss". I picked section 4, "The Molecular Sequence Evidence." I invited you to take the section as a whole, or pick a particular example therefrom.

If you've decided you don't want to discuss, then fine. Just say so. Or don't reply. You needn't throw a fit of revisionism.

...however... If all you want is "a fact," then here's one:

I am sitting as I type this.

Also,

There's a pebble in my pocket. It's black.

That's a couple more facts. How many more do you want?

If you ONLY want facts, and don't care about their status wrt to deductions from scientific theories, then of course any facts will do equally well.

That's right. All theories work that way, evolution is just untestable because the time frames are too large for the assumption to be accurately tested.

Instead, we get assumptions based on very very short time-frames that are then extrapolated. Nothing 'scientific' about that.

Again, correct on what facts are. And since no *fact* uniquely supports evolution, it is merely which interpretation you prefer. Again, nothing 'scientific' there. I also provided a link which comes to the exact *opposite* conclusion on the same facts. Therefore, these 'facts' do not uniquely support evolution.

That's my point. There are no *facts* that uniquely support evolution. Stop pretending that your interpretation is the only possibility and you will get more respect.

And yes I did ask for a *fact*. See post #292. You are Stultis, right? That post was to Stultis, right?

I also see that you recognize what facts are now. I can tell you categorically that the *fact* that you are 'sitting as you type' and 'have a black pebble in your pocket' do not uniquely support evolution. Now tell me which *fact* uniquely supports evolution or admit that you have none.

I already know that you don't have any, but it might be good for the other evos to see that *fact* as well.

Paleosols are nothing more than old soils. The age can vary depending on where they are.

Could these have formed during the Flood 4500 years ago??

If they were all of that age that would be a very good explanation. The problem is, these old soils can have a wide range of ages. In some cases there are soil layers stacked one on the other spanning many thousands of years, from long before the 4500 years ago date to modern times.

The usual case for soils is a wide range of depositional environments, with some from wind, some from water, some from slides, etc., and they are often cut in areas by subsequent events, such as streams. These layers can be read by sedimentologists, and usually dated pretty well with a combination of radiocarbon and faunal/floral dating.

All of these things that sedimentologists and archaeologists observe would be different if there was one final event such as a global flood. That would have created such a depositional signature that it would have been found easily when geologists first started looking.

Again, if you don't want to discuss why, or why not, the molecular sequence data uniquely support common descent, then fine. Just say so. Or don't reply. You needn't further embarrass yourself by engaging in a dervish dance of evasions.

That's right. All theories work that way, evolution is just untestable because the time frames are too large for the assumption to be accurately tested.

The molecular sequence data is before us. The implications of common descent with respect to the data are laid out explicitly in the link I provided. No time machines needed.

Instead, we get assumptions based on very very short time-frames that are then extrapolated. Nothing 'scientific' about that.

Uh, yeah. Again, there's nothing to do with "time frames". Except of course as they may lead to deductions from common descent. For instance birds share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles, or than with any other animal. This particular component of the larger common descent theory leads to DEDUCTIONS (not "extrapolations") about what CURRENT molecular sequence data should look like, and prohibits certain patterns. But it doesn't require that we have a time machine. It's entirely deductions from the theory and CURRENT data that is relevant.

Again, correct on what facts are. And since no *fact* uniquely supports evolution, it is merely which interpretation you prefer.

Unrestrained intellectual relativism rejected.

I also provided a link which comes to the exact *opposite* conclusion on the same facts. Therefore, these 'facts' do not uniquely support evolution.

So if I provide a link to a holocaust revisionism site then "therefore" all the facts normally considered to uniquely support the holocaust lose all such significance? All I need to do is point the mere existence of a PUTATIVE contradictory interpretation, which is all you did? And even if my contradictory interpretation is comprehensively refuted, as yours was, and even I absolutely refuse to engage that refutation, as you did, I can still claim that there are no facts uniquely supporting the holocaust?

Gee, that's easy.

That's my point. There are no *facts* that uniquely support evolution. Stop pretending that your interpretation is the only possibility and you will get more respect.

I don't pretend that for a minute. Nor does the site I linked, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". It explicitly recognizes that other interpretations are possible, but different interpretations have different implications as to what the facts should (or should not) look like.

Of course both I, and the author of that webpage, reject your radical intellectual relativism.

And yes I did ask for a *fact*. See post #292. You are Stultis, right? That post was to Stultis, right?

#292 was not in this chain of replies. Check for yourself. This chain started with you asking for evidence that uniquely supports evolution, me citing the "29+ Evidences," and etc.

Besides, tying ANY scientific theory to just ONE fact is too silly. Any theory depending on ONE fact would be incredibly weak, or so narrow as to be utterly useless

Ah, now that I look at it: In #292 you were asking a different question then that under discussion between us now. You were asking not for a fact that SUPPORTED evolution but for one that FALSIFIED young earth creationism. That makes more sense, actually. A theory might conceivably be falsified by a single fact (although multiple patterns of falsifying facts is much better).

That particular exchange petered out however, terminating in my #312. Go there and click back through the "To" links to confirm this for yourself.

If you become confused again and are unable to follow one of your own conversations, just let me know. I'll be happy to help.

Now tell me which *fact* uniquely supports evolution or admit that you have none.

The facts of the molecular sequence data, e.g. DNA sequences, compared among various organisms, uniquely support evolution (common descent). There is no other extant proposal that comes close to accounting for the facts as well, on a many points, and in as much detail, as does common descent. In addition -- in fact even more importantly -- there are innumerable opportunities for this data to have CONCLUSIVELY FALSIFIED common descent, and yet is has failed to do so.

Of course "uniquely supports" must be qualified with the proviso that someone in the future may come up with a theory that explains the facts even better than common descent. This possibility is part of the very nature of science, and always active for all scientific proposals. But as yet no one has.

Fine, discuss why molecular sequence data uniquely supports common descent.

I responded with a link that laid out explicitly why the molecular sequence data did not uniquely support common descent.

Your statement that birds 'share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles' is itself a deduction, not a fact. You cannot tell the difference.

Go ahead, provide some *facts* or tell me how my link was refuted. Just claiming it is so doesn't make it so.

But I see that you acknowledge that there are no such facts. That's good, because that is true. And whether you and the author of the page reject my position is just as relevant to me as it is that the author of my link and I reject your position is relevant to you. You gettin the idea here?

OK, so now you have moved from claiming that I didn't ask for a fact to that I didn't ask for a fact 'in this chain of posts'. The request was to you, I did make it, but you make some lame excuse. Good job.

And it wasn't me that chose the subject. It was you. If you have a better one. Let's hear it.

Again, the molecular sequence data doesn't uniquely support common descent. A common designer works just as well as an explanation.

And you are fooling yourself if you think that common descent could have been falsified through the molecular sequence data. There are plenty of areas where genomes don't match well. Guess what. The claim then becomes that these areas 'evolved separately'.

The common descent data is only used where it supposedly agrees. When it doesn't agree, it is ignored as having evolved after the reputed split.

See how easy it was to make the theory unfalsifiable?

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.