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."
The scientific method has corrected many misconceptions that were handed down from the artisan who made the first shellbead necklace 100,000 years ago. That dolt thought the sun went across the sky, possibly carried by birds that were also on fire, during the day and somehow, possibly through a tunnel in some kind of boat, was carried back to its starting point just in time for the next day.
Good post. A theory is a story about causation. We have two or more sets of observations and then propose a "theory" to "explain" those observations and how one set of data might have caused the other set data. In the case of the evolutionists, there is the fossil record and the modern world around us. They propose a theory of how the fossil record and the modern world are connected. The connector is natural (random) selection
The CS appear to forget about the fossil record and concentrate on the modern world alone. We got here because God willed us to exist.
The ID folks recognize the fossil record and the modern world, but really have no story about how the two might be connected except some intelligence that steps into the picture at just the right moment to direct the developments.
Seems to me that the evolutionists and the ID folks are closer than they would like to admit. I'm not sure that either has much of a chance to propose a rejectable (testable) hypothesis.
And what the Evolutionists want is to absolutely prevent any competing research to be performed.
Your last paragraph is not a description of Collin's view. Perhaps you should state such so as not to be seen as trying to claim Collins made the comments in the last paragraph.
Can't be very many considering even AiG rejects the vapor canopy as unworkable.
Not quite. "Intelligent Design" was launched by the Discovery Institute (DI) with the hope that it would become a broad-based movement in conservative circles, especially in "family-values" organizations. But despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent promoting ID--about $35 million from DI--over the last 10 years, ID has never developed a solid constituency. Today ID is a notion increasingly recognized as vacuous by Christian believers.
Preachers know that sermons like, "The Intelligent Designer loves you"; "Accept 'irreducible complexity' into your heart" do not bring in parishioners. Unless ID moves into the churches, its acceptance in the Christian community is doomed. Churches are erected to the worship of God, not to an 'intelligent designer'. An even bigger problem is that ID does "not save souls".
Many preachers consider that ID has muddied the waters from the simple notions of creationism, Noah's Flood, and Biblical inerrancy. The main creationist groups, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, have never embraced 'intelligent design'. They see that ID diverts questions about Noah's Flood-- which was impossible to justify on scientific grounds-- to the "God issue", but they are unhappy that ID has never addressed moral values and skirts the issue of of who the "Grand Designer" is.
After Kitzmiller, the Discovery Institute could only whimper, claiming they never "really" believed ID should be in schools. This directly contradicted their own "Wedge Document." And the expert testimony sponsored by DI was caught in several contradictions at the trial, which Judge Jones pointed out. Even the Thomas Moore Center--the legal counsel engaged "to defeat the ACLU" ---was appalled by DI undermining their legal filings. So 'intelligent design' lost face big time with potential backers. DI has tried to reply with ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones, with a campaign to "teach the controversy", with attempts to brand critics as "liberal elites", but these attempts have backfired.
He's got a point:
Earthquakes, floods, asteroids, volcanos, disease -- all caused by angry gods. Religion 5, science zero.
Earth 6000 years old. Religion 1 science zero.
Earth fixed and cannot move. Religion 1, science zero.
Sun revolves around earth. Religion 1, science zero.
You are correct. Slip up.
I'm not going to change my mind based on who signs such a document. By "impressed," I mean to consider it newsworthy: If the leader of Oman says the U.S. shouldn't exist, I'm not impressed. If the leader of close ally, and up-and-coming superpower India, says so, I'm impressed. But it certainly won't change my opinion of the U.S.
Um, where do you get that he's a young earther??? Doesn't even suggest that anywhere in your link.
The extended quote suggests that John Sanford, however clever he may be otherwise, is quite the Drama Queen. He goes on about about challenging, in great fear and trepidation, the “The Primary Axiom” that evolution is nothing but random mutation plus natural selection! Geeeeze! How silly is that?! Not even Darwin believed this supposed "Primary Axiom". Hardly anybody does. I suppose there have been a few (actually VERY few) "hyper selectionists" who have come close. Well, actually I can't think of even a single scientist who thinks that natural selection is absolutely the ONLY evolutionary mechanism.
This is the guy who disagrees with Behe and Dembski.
Hokay. That means more current flu shots for the rest of us... you can be perfectly satisfied with a leftover dose of the old one....
Nice backtrack! That's about an 8 anyday!
You stated that there was no evidence in the fossil record, so I provided you with evidence. Now you attack my education (the nuns will get you!), and deny what I posted is "proof."
(Check back toward the beginning of the thread and see the definitions I posted for "theory" and its use in science.)
And we get exactly that result without even asking!!!
Where's the author credit?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
You have to admit that maintaining the conspiracy for 200 years hasn't been easy.
Sorry, most of science is not junk science. Go down to your local library and try some of the technical journals.
As far as the "grain of salt," in the definitions I posted above, I included a definition of proof. I am repeating it below as you may have overlooked it:
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
I got it from another discussion I was in on this issue.
And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist, doesn't really understand evolution, is damaged goods, etc etc etc...
I tend to agree completely with what you have said, as I believe just about the same thing...
I would however add this....many folks, do not consider that what they take from the Bible, to be an interpretation....they consider that what they take from the Bible, is a fact, not to be disputed, not subject to interpretation....
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.