More scientists express doubts on Darwin

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 22, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

[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."

[GourmetDan]

The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process. You merely confirm my statment.

As you have admitted, there are no facts that cannot be interpreted in both a creation and an evolutionary framework, therefore evolution remains metaphysical.

[GourmetDan]

That's exactly why OJ was found 'not guilty'.

It *was* a metaphysical question.

You also confirm my statement.

[atlaw]

So your point is that inference from physical evidence is always unwarranted because it is inherently unreliable. Is that correct?

[GourmetDan]

Again, it is only because you *assume* that 'lions and opposums' are 'distantly-related' that you have a 'puzzle'.

That lions and house cats are closely-related is not questioned.

Small differences that do not affect function are the happy consequence of a robust, fault-tolerant design. That you do not recognize that, but choose to see common descent is the result of your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.

The creator is not trying to trick you. He has given you plenty of evidence of his presence and design of life. You choose to reject it and instead focus on evidence that you can interpret according to your will.

The essence of Hebrews 11:6 is that the potential for unbelief must always exist. Always.

[GourmetDan]

Apparently inactive?

Just a matter of turning them on?

Shouldn't be a problem.

[GourmetDan]

That's correct.

Past planetary positions that are not observed but based on calculations extrapolated from current observation are metaphysical.

You are starting to understand.

Good.

[GourmetDan]

If similar genes do not mean similar function, then common descent truly is meaningless. Especially in light of your 'convergent evolution' claim.

If 'convergent evolution' is true, then 'evolution' can produce similar genes without 'common descent' and 'common descent' has been falsified.

[2nsdammit]

You either have no understanding of the meaning of the word metaphysical, or I think you smoked too much dope in your youth....

[Stultis]

The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process.

Wait. You said it was the fact that past, unobserved events were the subject of inquiry that made something "metaphysical". Now you're saying that reviewing and drawing conclusions from evidence is "metaphysical".

Which is it? The latter would make ALL of science "metaphysical," since the logic of drawing inferences, or testing theories, is the same regardless of when the subject events occurred. (And, as noted by the jury example, the former would make many things considered purely rational to be metaphysical.

[GourmetDan]

That is not correct.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The point here is that, in criminal forensics, the evidence must still be reviewed and decided by a jury. This is a metaphysical process."

Please tell us what YOU think metaphysical means.

[atlaw]

Ok. Then I misunderstood.

Since that is not your point, perhaps you can provide some examples of inferences from physical evidence that you consider warranted and reliable.

[GOPJ]

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.

It's about time - it's not like there's one missing link - all the links are missing between species.

[GourmetDan]

Perhaps it is you who has a limited understanding of the degree of metaphysical conjecture that is involved in 'evolution'.

Metaphysical merely means the conclusion is based on "abstract thought". It means 'interpretation of evidence'. The opposite of "abstract thought" is "concrete evidence".

This is what I have been trying to teach you boys for several days now.

There are no *facts* (concrete evidence) that falsify YEC. There are only 'interpretations of evidence' involving 'abstract thought' (i.e., metaphysical explanations).

[GourmetDan]

Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable.

And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).

I have explained this previously. It should not be a surprise to you.

And 'all of science' would not be metaphysical, as you claim. If an event can be repeated and observed (I drop the ball and it will hit the ground), it is not metaphysical. It is a concrete fact.

If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.

Got it?

[2nsdammit]

I was right - it's got to be the "too much dope" thing...

I'm reminded of the Animal House line about the whole universe being one atom in the fingernail of some giant being.

By the way, which previously banned YEC'er are you? I see you haven't been registered long, but you sure seem to use the same style as most of the long-term Genesisists.

[DanDenDar]

If similar genes do not mean similar function, then common descent truly is meaningless.

Genes can duplicate and then diverge in function. These are called paralogs. Bioinformaticists trace their common descent by the pattern of sequence divergence. Many proteins are sequentially homologous without being functionally similar.

If 'convergent evolution' is true, then 'evolution' can produce similar genes without 'common descent' and 'common descent' has been falsified.

You are confusing sequence convergence with functional convergence. Evolution predicts the latter will occur without the former. Evolution's prediction is borne out by bioinformatic analysis.

[PatrickHenry]

Further Adventures in Creationism

The scientific case against Atom Bomb-ism

Or, Creationist Dialectics Applied to Hiroshima

1. Atomic theory is "just a theory."
2. No one has ever seen an atom, and certainly not one that explodes.
3. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits atom bombs.
4. There are no atoms mentioned in the bible.
5. Even if individual atoms decay, that's micro-fission. There's no proof for macro-fission.
6. Atomic theory leads to fear, depression, sexual promiscuity, and world domination.
7. There is no evidence that a so-called atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima.
8. Just because a so-called bomb dropped when the city blew up proves nothing. Correlation does not equal causality.
9. Many scientists believe that Hiroshima may have been destroyed by an encounter with Rodan.
10. Rodan's existence is well-documented and has never been disproved.
11. Atom bomb-ism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
12. It takes more faith to believe in Atom bomb-ism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
13. More and more scientists are turning to "Rodan Theory" (RT). Atom bomb-ism is a theory in crisis!

Atomic explosion or Rodan? "Teach the controversy!"

[js1138]

You either have no understanding of the meaning of the word metaphysical, or I think you smoked too much dope in your youth....

I would put it closer to the present.

[atlaw]

Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable.

So if there is a witness to a past event, that witnessed-past-event somehow mutates into a present and observable event? (And note, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as less reliable than physical, circumstantial evidence. Why do you suppose that is?)

And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).

A knife, a gun, a footprint, a fingerprint -- all are "concrete evidence" ("facts" as you would have it). How does observation of these "facts" mean anything in the absence of inference?

A fossilized dinosaur bone is "concrete evidence." Of what use is this "fact"?

In short, how do you "avoid abstract thought" by observing these "facts"? And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?