Replies

Ahem. It's nice that you seem pretty confident of it, but I'm troubled by the fact that as I glanced down the list looking for names I recognized, the VERY FIRST one that jumped out at me was bogus. It was:

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

This is a well-known example of dishonest quoting (2) (3) by creationists. Patterson was quoted out of context and then cited it to "show" that Patterson was "admitting" a lack of evidence for evolution. But when asked about the context of the quote, Patterson confirmed that he was not denying evolution and that "the creationists' [interpretation] is false".

Here's a quote from one of Patterson's books -- does this sound like an evolution-denier to you?

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

That doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the list, especially since the Patterson misquote was debunked in 1993. It also doesn't bode well that many creationist websites are still using it...

This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.

A list of a few hundred people who have expressed some kind of question about evolution is hardly proof that it's widely rejected. And that web page is engaging in a huge straw man when it claims:

"The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of Intelligent Design of life or the universe."

Horse manure. No such overblown claim is "often made" that "few or no" scientists have doubts about evolution, etc. Everyone knows that there are quite a few such people. But they are still a small minority.

Meanwhile, in a winking parody of such "people who reject evolution" lists, there's the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which includes *only* scientists by the name of Steve or some variation of Steve (Stephanie, etc.) who have voluntarily signed onto this specific statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The "list of Steves" is currently at 375 and growing. So the number of scientists named Steve who support evolution is nearly as large as the creationist list of EVERYONE they could dig up who question it. And like the Patterson example, I'm not sure the creationist list is all that accurate, and it includes people who accept most of evolution but have expressed concerns only about certain parts, like Behe.

Also, since the name Steve or some variation only makes up about 1% of the population according to Census statistics, the Project Steve list statistically represents 37,500 scientists who would sign on to support evolution if the name restriction were removed.

Furthermore, Project Steve has not been widely publicized, many more would surely join if they heard about it. Meanwhile, the creationist list appears to have been formed by straining to qualify as many as they possibly could find, including entire membership rosters of organizations presumed to be creationist, without actually having each member explicitly agree to their support of such a position.

Finally, about two thirds of the Steves supporting evolution are biologists. Biologists are much farther and fewer between on the creationist list.

For those who are listening. If you want a list (that purports to be pretty accurate, and to my knowledge is darn close if not completely accurate) of those who doubt Darwinism (not all creationists mind you) then peruse the credentials of some of those found Here

Ahem. It's nice that you seem pretty confident of it, but I'm troubled by the fact that as I glanced down the list looking for names I recognized, the VERY FIRST one that jumped out at me was bogus. It was:

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

This is a well-known example of dishonest quoting (2) (3) by creationists. Patterson was quoted out of context and then cited it to "show" that Patterson was "admitting" a lack of evidence for evolution. But when asked about the context of the quote, Patterson confirmed that he was not denying evolution and that "the creationists' [interpretation] is false".

Here's a quote from one of Patterson's books -- does this sound like an evolution-denier to you?

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

That doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the list, especially since the Patterson misquote was debunked in 1993. It also doesn't bode well that many creationist websites are still using it...

First, this is a list of 400 something names. You picked out one. The list admits to the possibility of being not 100% accurate, but I would also like to introduce you to two little words in the english dictionary:

doubt
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 a : uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making b : a deliberate suspension of judgment
2 : a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or suspense
3 a : a lack of confidence : DISTRUST b : an inclination not to believe or accept

and
de·ny
Pronunciation: di-'nI, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·nied; de·ny·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French denier, from Latin denegare, from de- + negare to deny —more at NEGATE
Date: 14th century
1 : to declare untrue
2 : to disclaim connection with or responsibility for : DISAVOW
3 a : to give a negative answer to b : to refuse to grant c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4 : archaic : DECLINE
5 : to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.

There is a huge difference between these words. This list is, and was presented by me to be, a list of scientists who have "expressed doubt" concerning "Darwinian Evolution". It was nowhere implied that these folks are not evolutionists, or even Darwinians. They have all at one point or another in some tangible form expressed doubt of some sort about Darwinianism. That is all. The point of the list is to show that the jury is still out for many scientists and others(like Crick) feel it necessary to postulate another evolutionary model because the classical Darwinian/neo-Darwinian model does not work.

Funny how something I took great pains to be clear about was misrepresented in a post where the list is being castigated for allegedly misrepresenting a quote by one of its scientists (who, incidentally, in the current academic climate of folks who have been fired for teaching views other than evolution probably has suffient reason to protect his rear end from peer disdain).

A list of a few hundred people who have expressed some kind of question about evolution is hardly proof that it's widely rejected. And that web page is engaging in a huge straw man when it claims:
And did I say that it was??? I have admitted elsewhere on this thread that most scientists are evolutionists. My whole point of posting was to show that many scientists have doubts regarding the Darwinian model and many feel the whole theory needs to be re-evaluated. Did I say they are on the verge of jumping ship? NO. Such representations on your part regarding the posting of this list ignore the stated reasons for posting it as well as the list's author's stated reasons. NOWHERE does he claim this list is infallible and NOWHERE does he claim that these folks aren't evolutionists.

"The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of Intelligent Design of life or the universe."

Horse manure. No such overblown claim is "often made" that "few or no" scientists have doubts about evolution, etc. Everyone knows that there are quite a few such people. But they are still a small minority.
Lots of overgeneralizations here. Maybe this fellow has heard a lot of what he stated. You do not know that. Yet you claim to speak for "everyone" and say "no such overblown claim is often made". You simply do not know this, for you do not live in the man's shoes who posted the statement.

Finally, about two thirds of the Steves supporting evolution are biologists. Biologists are much farther and fewer between on the creationist list.
Don't know why you call it a creationist list. It is, if anything, an doubt Darwin list. It was never represented as anything else.