I’m not a scientist. And this issue isn’t critical to my faith. I mean, it’s possible that God put in place evolution. It’s also likely that God was responsible for the variety of life on this planet without evolution.
I have noted a couple of things. While we can breed animals for desired traits, we have yet to breed a dog and yield a cat. Or a snake. This makes me wonder about the supposed mechanism to yeild multiple species from a single origin, without God’s help.
Secondly, in the variety of life, there are quite sophisticated adaptations. So many, that it makes me doubt that it all could be some huge accident.
I’m firmly in the camp of this being God’s will, and God’s design. But, those that believe in evolution don’t bother me. We’ll all find out what the answer is, one day.
Now me, I am an evolutionist, interested in the maths of evolution. Species species interaction leads quickly to complexity and non-linear differential equations, meaning that the future can not be predicted.
Global warming pretends to be able to predict the future far in advance, and to do so would require solving non-linear differential equations (Navier Stokes, for example) to an infinite precision.
Hence Global warming is bunk. Evolution which always responds to the present is interesting and useful.
Dissent is a tendentious word. We’ve had 130 years of unprecedented discoveries in biology since his day. Not surprising we’ve moved way past Darwin. That’s a sign of health not decay.
For example:
"Michael Pitman, (died 2000) former chemistry professor at Cambridge, confessed, “Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”
is obviously unaware of research that has proven precisely that, in species from bacteria to foxes.
"Professor N. H. Nilsson of Lund University who said, “There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.” Nilsson added, “It is therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”"
"Higher vitality" What the **** does "vitality" have to do with evolution? The only factor is that the specific mutation provide improved survivability under current environmental circumstances.
"Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see in the animal and plant kingdoms. They teach that the many changes in combination with the pressure of the environment over billions of years have produced the differences between one-cell amoeba and complicated humans; however, mutations never create; they corrupt. Thus, the results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.
Again, flatly and completely wrong. A mutation can be negative, neutral or positive. I'm a mutant. I was born without wisdom teeth. Today that is NOT a survival characteristic, but in the days before antibiotics and dentistry, infections caused by wisdom teeth could be fatal.
But you folks keep on reading, posting, and believing this claptrap. It's your prerogative. Just don't try to teach it in science classes.
How many "major scientists" are there on the other side of the debate, by that same criteria?
Don't make decisions based on half of the information.
They had a show on years ago that I think Buckley hosted. The majority if not all of those scientists opted for God.
So do these 1000 scientists AGREE on an alternative to Evolution? It is one thing to say “you’re wrong”. It is another to say “you’re wrong and here is a better theory that fits”.
Until a better theory is stated Evolution will be the champ.
How long before the “young earth” theorists show up?
Hitler and Sanger . . two of the best darwinists ever!
How many of these types exist?
And how many hundreds of thousands of scientists are not skeptical of Darwin’s theories at all?
Those crazy psycholinguistics.
Hope they can work out 2012.
“A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists”
—I remember several years ago this list having “almost a thousand” signatures - and apparently it is still “almost a thousand” - yeah, quite a “major storm of protest” building there.
Sources vary as to how many scientists there are, but most agree that there are about 500,000 scientists working in various biological fields in the US. 30,000 scientists and engineers get their Phd in the US alone - every year.
The list is open to those working in all fields of science, engineering, mathematics, philosophy, education, etc WORLDWIDE - the available pool of Phd signatories is in the millions (and not everyone on the list has a Phd, e.g. Forest Mims, Bernard d’Abrera, etc, and thus the list is open to many millions more).
And they don’t even have a thousand signatures after a decade of trying?
And let’s take a close look at the statement they sign:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”
The statement is hardly “dissentful”. First, just about any scientist will say that one must always have room for at least some skepticism for any theory. Even one as hard-core as Dawkins has at least some skepticism:
“Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.” -Dawkins
Also, Darwinists have never believed that evolution proceeds solely by mutation and selection (there’s genetic drift, neutral selection, etc) even going back to Darwin:
“I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
Thus there’s nothing to stop even Dawkins from signing such a statement - except that he’s probably aware of the dishonest way that the list is being used. And so it’s entirely possible that many of the signatories are actually Darwinists.
And so it’s merely a statement asking for “skepticism” for something that probably no one believes in the first place. And the best they could get after 10 years is less than a thousand signatures?
This is hardly something to brag about. If anything, the anti-evolution side should be embarrassed by this list.
The bottom line is, with a pool of millions of possible signatories, worldwide, for a decade, they managed to get less than a thousand people to sign an innocuous statement. Now THERE’S something to celebrate. :-)
A computer can prove anything anybody wants to prove with a man made program/model.