Jump to content

Dissent From Darwinism 'goes Global' As Over 600 Scientists Around The World Express Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory


Reverend AtheiStar
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060621/sfw119.html?.v=24

 

Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory

Wednesday June 21, 5:12 pm ET

 

 

SEATTLE, June 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Over 600 doctoral scientists from all around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, 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."

 

"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 a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

 

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "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 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, former US Ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding US 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."

 

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it was claimed that, "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Reverend AtheiStar

    12

  • Ouroboros

    5

  • redneck22

    5

  • Gnosis of Disbelief

    3

Rev, that's literally PR. As in advertising for one of those creation

"science" institutes. As in lots of hand-waving without any substance

to back it up. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at

here....

 

 

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of those scientists are biologists of any stripe, or in a profession which would study the processes of evolution. This seems like one gigantic appeal to authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of those scientists are biologists of any stripe, or in a profession which would study the processes of evolution. This seems like one gigantic appeal to authority.

 

 

Actually, I wonder how many of those scientists are real. It's not like anyone's

going to do a background check and see if they exist, verify their credentials,

and check if they've actually made any peer-reviewed publications in biological

science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

But are they biologists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials. plus its not hard to find things that conflict with the darwin theory, i actually found another ToE that contradicted it. ("on the origin of species" by L. Harrison Matthews.)

 

but i will say that the article is pointless, what good is skepticism without evidence that shows where thier skepticism comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials. plus its not hard to find things that conflict with the darwin theory, i actually found another ToE that contradicted it. ("on the origin of species" by L. Harrison Matthews.)

 

but i will say that the article is pointless, what good is skepticism without evidence that shows where thier skepticism comes from.

First, I don't see it as an attack, but rather a justifiable questioning. The reason why "credentials" is the first question is an absolutely valid one - especially when put forth as part of an apologostist's argument. This is a common Logic Fallacy that apologist are notorious for resorting to over and over, again, and again, and again. People's question to this are well justified.

 

Argumentum ad verecundiam

 

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

 

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

 

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

 

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

 

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed.
Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence
.

 

That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

 

On that note, did anyone else notice the one scientist they quoted was a Mexican doctor?

:Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials. plus its not hard to find things that conflict with the darwin theory, i actually found another ToE that contradicted it. ("on the origin of species" by L. Harrison Matthews.)

 

but i will say that the article is pointless, what good is skepticism without evidence that shows where thier skepticism comes from.

 

Because I've seen the way that creationists hide the truth. Nothing but smoke and mirrors and I suggest that this is one of them. I'm quick to jump on it because I've seen it many many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from the "dissent" list:

 

“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.”

 

However – correct me if I am wrong, but evolutionists don't make the claim that mutation is a random, that, in fact, mutation happens due to specific environmental challenges. That is not random.

 

The "biologists" listed know this. Heck I know this. What is their motivation? Who knows.

 

Yet, this is how their skeptism is stated. And you know what – let's call a spade a spade here – they are purposely lying through delibrate misrepresentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

 

On that note, did anyone else notice the one scientist they quoted was a Mexican doctor?

:Wendywhatever:

 

 

on a lighter note, even i can find the humor in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But are they biologists?

 

 

But are they creationists

 

Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

 

On that note, did anyone else notice the one scientist they quoted was a Mexican doctor?

:Wendywhatever:

 

 

on a lighter note, even i can find the humor in that.

 

Yeah, how can they perform surgery with all that dust and tumbleweed flying around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, that's literally PR. As in advertising for one of those creation

"science" institutes. As in lots of hand-waving without any substance

to back it up. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at

here....

 

 

:shrug:

 

I'm just reporting the news I find interesting. I realize it's all propaganda. But we shouldn't ignore these people, either. We should keep a close eye on them, always. They're always scheming and planning the next wave of attacks on our eductaion system and the conquest of the human mind (for what is true). They believe they have a god on their side and so their vigilance is not to be underestimated. Do keep in mind the placebo effect!

 

 

I wonder how many of those scientists are biologists of any stripe, or in a profession which would study the processes of evolution. This seems like one gigantic appeal to authority.

 

 

Well, after examing the list they came up with last time, the majority of them are probably engineers. All they really want is anyone that can be classified as a scientist for the title. It's all a game. They know they don't have the biology camp, we outnumber them quite heftily, but there are plenty of scientists who don't know anything about evolution -- as it's not their profession. The average person doesn't think about this, though. They just see scientist = smart person and don't really go much farther than that. Don't worry, though, this list, like the last one, will be dissected and analyzed. I'm sure it will be found wanting.

 

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials. plus its not hard to find things that conflict with the darwin theory, i actually found another ToE that contradicted it. ("on the origin of species" by L. Harrison Matthews.)

 

but i will say that the article is pointless, what good is skepticism without evidence that shows where thier skepticism comes from.

 

It's reoccuring because it's the intelligent way to find out why someone doesn't believe something as heavily evidenced as evolution. What kind of scientist are they? Do they study evolution for a living? No? Well then it's not surprising that these scientists, who I can guarantee are theists, are not evolutionists. It's not their field. They've ingested what their mythology has told them and blocked out everything else. You'll see. When the interviews with this group come back we'll find the same thing has occurred. It's Christian propaganda. It's an appeal to authority. We've got scientists! So what? We've got scientists, too, just ours have positive evidence as opposed to pathetically weak stabs at negative evidence. Show me positive evidence for ID, not just criticism of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, that's literally PR. As in advertising for one of those creation

"science" institutes. As in lots of hand-waving without any substance

to back it up. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at

here....

 

 

:shrug:

 

I am trying to stimulate a discussion. It worked! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me positive evidence for ID, not just criticism of evolution.

Yes! ID is not science. There is nothing scientific about it. It offers the scientific world absolutely nothing useful. It's a philosophy whose whole existance is based on a negative against natural sciences. How does it explain anything? "God did it" isn't useful (or supportable), unless your a minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are they biologists?

 

Good point, they are probably social scientists graduated from christian universities.

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials. plus its not hard to find things that conflict with the darwin theory, i actually found another ToE that contradicted it. ("on the origin of species" by L. Harrison Matthews.)

 

but i will say that the article is pointless, what good is skepticism without evidence that shows where thier skepticism comes from.

 

 

I'm not attacking their credentials. I don't know what their credentials are, which is the point.

 

 

 

ETA: Well, I guess this answers my question..

 

Finally, if you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "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," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me positive evidence for ID, not just criticism of evolution.

Yes! ID is not science. There is nothing scientific about it. It offers the scientific world absolutely nothing useful. It's a philosophy whose whole existance is based on a negative against natural sciences. How does it explain anything? "God did it" isn't useful (or supportable), unless your a minister.

 

It offers creationist a way to look scientific. It offers creationists a trojan horse in which they can hide their mythology so they can snake it into schools -- this was totally exposed in Dover. For thinking individuals, on the other hand, it just sets up roadblocks to living in an intellectual world versus a world of darkness where ignorance reigns supreme.

 

The number of Steves is at 746! It makes the +600 they have look pretty sad. lol...

 

~RAS

-----------------------------------------

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...e_2_16_2003.asp

 

NCSE Project Steve

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

 

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

 

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

 

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

 

The statement reads:

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.

 

Steve-o-Meter

 

Project Steve in the media

 

The FAQs

 

The list

 

The press release

 

The Steve Song!

 

The T-shirt

 

Want to become an NCSE Steve?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Center for Science Education

420 40th St Suite 2, Oakland, CA 94609

510-601-7203 http://www.ncseweb.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, that's literally PR. As in advertising for one of those creation

"science" institutes. As in lots of hand-waving without any substance

to back it up. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at

here....

 

 

:shrug:

 

I am trying to stimulate a discussion. It worked! :)

 

 

Okay, got it. Carry on! :)

 

this is a reoccuring theme, why is it when somebody presents a different side of the story, you immediatly attack there credentials.

 

 

We cannot attack things that are not presented. Saying "They iz seye-uhn-tists" is not

presenting credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note:

 

 

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

 

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

 

This is a really bad example of a fallacious appeal to authority. Coming from a computer science background--I was majoring in it at a university with a really strong program, and I've switched to minoring in it--I'd like to point out that the nitty gritty of computing is nothing but math. In trying to figure out whether artificial intelligence is theoretically possible, a professional mathemetician is perfectly qualified to put forth an opinion, if he provides strong support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Darwinism isn't true, then I will have to give up my life of sin since all my morality is based the fact that I am nothing but an animal. I will have to give up my enormous recipe collection for the consumption of human flesh.

 

Please.

 

:Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note:

 

 

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

 

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

 

This is a really bad example of a fallacious appeal to authority. Coming from a computer science background--I was majoring in it at a university with a really strong program, and I've switched to minoring in it--I'd like to point out that the nitty gritty of computing is nothing but math. In trying to figure out whether artificial intelligence is theoretically possible, a professional mathemetician is perfectly qualified to put forth an opinion, if he provides strong support.

It was from Richard Carrier, I believe. I wonder if his point is that because Penrose isn't directly a specialist in computer science, you have to question, or examine his credentials as a mathematician to see if his qualifications lend credibilty to his point of view. I noted he used the word "questionable" above. If so, it makes the point that sometimes the grey area of qualification needs to be scrutinized. It would be too easy to dismiss someone like George Bush from a discussion about physics; clearly he has no credentials even remotely related. Possibily why he used that example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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." (From A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)

 

:Hmm:

 

There really isn't much substance to this statement in the first place. It would appear that all they are really saying by signing this so-called dissent is "We're good scientists. We continue to critically examine Darwinian theory because it doesn't answer all the pertinent questions to our satisfaction."

 

Skepticism of any theory is a good thing since it drives discovery. What is bad is when organizations like the The Discovery Institute spin this as support for Intelligent Design. The fact that they feel this is necessary is simply another indicator that IDers don't have any evidence of their own; they must attack the existing theory in an attempt to invalidate it.

 

I'm sure that the Axis of Evangelicals are eating this up just like they did before. :jerkit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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." (From A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)

 

:Hmm:

 

There really isn't much substance to this statement in the first place. It would appear that all they are really saying by signing this so-called dissent is "We're good scientists. We continue to critically examine Darwinian theory because it doesn't answer all the pertinent questions to our satisfaction."

 

Skepticism of any theory is a good thing since it drives discovery. What is bad is when organizations like the The Discovery Institute spin this as support for Intelligent Design. The fact that they feel this is necessary is simply another indicator that IDers don't have any evidence of their own; they must attack the existing theory in an attempt to invalidate it.

 

I'm sure that the Axis of Evangelicals are eating this up just like they did before. :jerkit:

 

Well said. It strikes me decpetive that these people keep saying that evolution (even macro-evolution) is false when there is a ton of evidence such as the geological record, the age of the earth etc. Yes, a little "faith" is involved but it's definately not blind faith. We might be not be able to observe it but that does not mean it did not happen. Its fairly obvious that creationism falls apart when presented with the current evidence that is used to support evolution. (at least with the current interpretation that is held by almost all fundamentalistic denominations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.