I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:SEATTLE, February 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement 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 list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
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."
That's the best news I've heard all day.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
What is the significance of '500' when put into context? As in the total number of doctoral scientists?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The trouble is that I suspect this list will be written off and ignored by evolution-only supporters, who will continue to claim the scientific community agrees that evolution is the complete account of how life came to be as it is. And of course creationists will use it to attempt to claim evolution is no more supported by science than any other theory. Both sides in this debate seem to think it is necessary to overstate their position and refuse to admit any ground to the opposing side, even if that means denying facts.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:What is the significance of '500' when put into context? As in the total number of doctoral scientists?
Short answer: Not significant at all!
Long answer: According to NSF there are about 540,000 doctoral scientists in the US alone (in 2001)(http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/).
Which means that 514 is less that 0.1%, and that's using the number of doctoral scientists in the US, never mind Russia.
In other words, this isn't enough data to disprove the statement that "ally that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.". Using just this statement we'd have to say that 99.9% of scientist believe it to be true, and I'd call 99.9% virtually every one...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It's a huge leap to go from "we are skeptical of Darwinian evolution" to "therefore God must have done it."
Unfortunately, there a equally huge numbers of people willing to make that leap un-critically. And you can bet this tidbit will be touted by the ID crowd for decades to come as some kind of "support" for their ideas, when it's nothing of the kind.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, it is a support for their ideas, since on of the biggest clubs used against those ideas is some variation of "All scientists know that darwinian evolution is true".
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
You know, this is something that any supporter of the Darwinian theory should be saying, too.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Careful examination of any scientific theory should be encouraged. Did the scientists signing this know it came from the Discovery Institute, and how many of them support intelligent design as an alternate theory?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You realize that given enough funding, I could get 500 religious scholars to procliam their doubts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
Lets see, there is Rabbi Feldman, Rabbi Schwartz, The Dahli Lahma, Mullah Ali, Ayatolla K,........
I say Preach the Controversy!!!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is interesting that the largest group of signatories were biologists. Also that many of the scientists who signed are associated with very mainstream, prestigioous scientific organizations. I was especially interested to note that some of the scientists who signed were from the Smithsonian--when the Charter of the Smithsonian Institute states that among its basic purposes is to promote evolution.
It is not likely that these scientists would have signed this statement if they felt that the theory of evolution, or of natural selection, merely required some minor tinkering.
And note that this list of signatories does not include mere lab techs, they all have PhDs.
At the very least it must be conceded that not all scientists are comfortable with evolution. Here is the proof. That is the point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You realize that given enough funding, I could get 500 religious scholars to procliam their doubts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
It seems to me that with zero funding, you could get 500 scholars of Christianity to say say that they doubt that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And note that this list of signatories does not include mere lab techs, they all have PhDs.
Having a PhD doesn't keep you from being a mere lab tech.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:You realize that given enough funding, I could get 500 religious scholars to procliam their doubts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
It seems to me that with zero funding, you could get 500 scholars of Christianity to say say that they doubt that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
Hence the Profit! Or should I say Prophet?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I hate it when people attack Evolution... it makes those of us who question junk-science environmentalism look like we're the same way...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
514 scientists at prestigious, mainstream institutions say that evolution should be under serious question in the scientific community, and that it is a problem that it is not. They are calling for that to be corrected.
If it were just one or two loners calling for this, they might be dismissed as oddballs. But 514 ought to be taken seriously.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Actually, it is a support for their ideas, since on of the biggest clubs used against those ideas is some variation of "All scientists know that darwinian evolution is true".
Hmmm. Well, I disagree with this assertion on several levels. First, "All scientists know that Darwinian evolution is true", while it might be a common (if over-stated) retort, it's by no means the strongest arguement against ID claims. Second, even if the statement is false, a lack of support for one idea does not constitute support of a competing idea. It's entirely possible that they are both wrong. Finally, I don't know anyone who has made the claim that "all scientist know" anything. I recall phrases like "scientist overwhelmingly support" and "Most credible scientists believe", and while they also might not be correct, they are far from blanket assertions that "All scientists" agree about anything. I've seen the "all scientists" claim much more often as a straw man from the other side. "You people are always claiming that all scientists . . ."
And I agree that all scientists should maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about most things. However, one can maintain that a given theory probably doesn't explain everything but still believe that it explains many other things.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:when the Charter of the Smithsonian Institute states that among its basic purposes is to promote evolution.
Virtually all scientists would agree that evolution occurs without any promotion on the part of the Smithsonian Institute.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is interesting that the largest group of signatories were biologists.
Actually, the largest group of signatories were non-biologists. Though I will concede the single largest discipline represented are biologists.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Interesting to see how accurately the Discovery Institute has pursued its "wedge strategy," which it outlined back in the 1990s.
quote:The reintroduction of theism into public discourse in Phase III is set to begin sometime in 2003. But before Phase III can begin, Phase II must have already dethroned naturalism through a vigorous public relations and opinion-shaping campaign. This puts the cart before the horse. When will there be time to conduct careful research? Science is supposed to be a vehicle that provides the reason to believe that intelligent design is a better explanation than naturalism. To think that a scientist must reach his or her conclusions within a five-year span of time, running concurrent with a public relations campaign, is hardly good scientific practice. Not only will it put unnecessary pressure on the scientist to reach conclusions before the data warrants it, but it ignores the very nature of the scientific enterprise.
Of course, sometimes they slip up and let their true intentions become known:
quote:[In the year 2000], at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
Well then. Perhaps, rather than sending out petitions and staging "debates," the Discovery Institute could assist with the development and funding of some serious research. After all, if they're right, they should be willing to make a falsifiable claim and attempt to falsify it rigorously. Evolutionary theorists have done this and then some, and continue to do so today. The burden of proof, so to speak, is hardly on evolutionary theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Have you guys never heard of the "Project Steve" movement?
Back in 2003, 200 scientists named Steve -- prompted by an article just like this -- came forward in support of evolution. The Steve-o-Meter currently stands just shy of 800.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, the largest group of signatories were non-biologists. Though I will concede the single largest discipline represented are biologists. -Bok
Technically the largest group of signatories were "human."
But in the context Ron used it, the largest group was "biologist." Inferring that Ron meant only two groups - one specific and one residual - isn't the most natural way to read that sentence.
[ March 01, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Maybe we should all just step back and realize that in the long run it doesn't matter one way or another. Whether I evolved from an ape or was designed by God or clay molded by aliens will not affect how I live my life in the least. I mean its all great to philosiphise about some of this stuff but it upsets me when people get worked up about it.(not saying here neccessarily just in general) Just go out and live your life. Get married and have kids or don't and party down and go whitewater rafting but we only get a limited number of years on this earth. Fight the battles that are worth fighting.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
For that matter, why do I care what people with phDs in physics have to say about evolution? Not to mention things like aerospace engineering and aviation, mathematics, and computer science. Heck, why are those guys even included in a list of "scientists" Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Just to clarify, the issue being discussed here is not whether or not evolution is true, it is whether or not mutation combined with natural selection is the cause of evolution.
When Darwin published his theory of evolution and natural selection, there was little controversy about evolution. Many scientists prior to Darwin noticed and stated that evolution occurs. What was controversial at the time was that natural selection combined with random mutation was the driving force of evolution. Today, most scientists believe that enough evidence has been presented in favour of natural selection and random mutations as a means for evolution, but there still are some that disagree. These are the 500 people you see on that list. They are under no circumstances stating that they do not believe in evolution, instead they are stating that they believe that natural selection and random mutation aren't what causes evolution. This kind of skepticism is always welcome in the scientific community. If people always believed fully in the same things, new ideas would never emmerge!
However, in this case, I would say that these people are being a little too skeptical, as there is a plethora of evidence to support natural selection as the primary cause of evolution.
So once again, just to make sure that the discussion doesn;t get taken in the wrong direction, most of these scientists fully agree that evolution has and is occuring in the world, they just think that natural selection isn't the best explanation for how it is occuring.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, true, but my delineation was meant to point out a separate point. If you care especially for the biologists, why add in the others? Then you have over 100 biologists. Adding physicists, and chemists (depending on their focus), and possibly others is, to me, like changing the margins on a paper from 1" to 1.25" to meet a page requirement. If you care about them equally, don't point out the fact that biologists are #1 (because then you are at least insinuating a qualitative difference)... Of course in that case, you do leave yourself open to the fact many of the people, while smart people, don't necessarily have any deep knowledge on the issue at hand.
The "humans" designation, while valid doesn't add any sort value. My delineation does.
-Bok
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Yes it proves that those of us that believe in evolution are wrong that 100% of scientists accept it is 100% true. Those that argue and yell that belief should be locked in a room with those that think the Earth is only 5,000 years old. Get rid of both groups, and then maybe we can have an educated discussion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For some perspective:
Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
Why is this even news?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Another notable thing missing is why these people doubt as much they do. Doubting something because you have a religious belief is no reason at all to consider a scientific theory suspect, for instance.
So we have a vague statement that doesn't even include a doubt in the existence of evolution itself and might be signed for many non-scientific reasons, which has only been signed by an insignificantly tiny minority of the scientific community, and even then mostly people from disciplines whose study involves no particular knowledge of evolutionary biology.
Yeah, I'm sure the scientific consensus on evolution is in doubt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nevermind. I just checked out "Lifesitenews".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
There are 97 doctoral students. It's a 5-year program. Assuming equal distribution, the school graduates about 20 per year. That means it would take 25 years to graduate about 500 people.
You're larger point is, of course, still valid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
There are 97 doctoral students. It's a 5-year program. Assuming equal distribution, the school graduates about 20 per year. That means it would take 25 years to graduate about 500 people.
You're larger point is, of course, still valid.
Math really isn't my forte but I was thinking that if we have 97 in one program and we have at least 12 programs I could estimate 50ish per program, so 600 would be a reasonable guess for five years.
I may still be getting that wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I misunderstood which numbers went where.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Plus, this is hardly filled entirely with people from "prestigious, mainstream institutions," unless you're meaning to include those from what I'm sure is a most auspicious community college, the Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
[ [/b]
[/QUOTE]
A similar story in fact happenned during Darwin's lifetime, a publication "100 scientists against Darwin". He responded to the petition amused, to paraphrase Darwin:
"if the assertions of these scientists were valid, it would require only one of them"
Point being: Stupidity in larger numbers equals more stupidity, and what better way than to seek solidarity of the misinformed? We see it all the time, and among all large groups, (yes, even the "Darwinists" can be emensely stupid sometimes).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My point is that it isn't a large number; it is a tiny number. It only sounds like a large number if you are ignorant of the facts.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Using bad science to demand bad science be taught is not exceptable in a good scientific community.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't see where any of those scientists demanded that bad science be taught, or, in fact, that anything be taught. All I see is an encouragement to examine Darwinism more closely, which is basically an encouragement that good science be practiced.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:A similar story in fact happened during Darwin's lifetime, a publication "100 scientists against Darwin". He responded to the petition amused, to paraphrase Darwin:
"if the assertions of these scientists were valid, it would require only one of them"
Actually, this was Einstein. And the pamphlet '100 scientists against Einstein' was published by the Nazis, who disapproved of 'Jewish science'.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If it were an encouragement that good science be practiced, they wouldn't be singling out a particular theory. The statement implies that such careful examination has not occurred in this case, which is, to put it mildly, false.
I think this is a fairly obvious example of the Discovery Institute pursuing its stated goal of discrediting evolutionary theory.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I don't think the point is that a large percentage of scientists consider evolution to be problematic, although that might be the case. The point of this list is that it is possible to be an expert scientist yet also find evolution problematic. While one or two scientists could be an anomoly, it is difficult to say 500 are.
Thus this would refute any argument that "If you don't believe in evolution as an explanation for life as we know it, you must lack an understanding of science."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't see where any of those scientists demanded that bad science be taught, or, in fact, that anything be taught. All I see is an encouragement to examine Darwinism more closely, which is basically an encouragement that good science be practiced.
I see the same thing. I also think that Ron's title is intentionally misleading.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Xap: try rereading the statement. Point me to where they are saying evolution is [edit: silly fingers getting ahead of brain. problematic].
Keep in mind that modern evolutionary theory, while related to Darwin's theories, is emphatically not the same thing, and that scientists are generally supposed to be skeptical about everything.
If there weren't obviously an agenda behind it, based on the actual wording of the statement it should be possible to get every single scientist out there to sign it -- that they've only gotten 500 speaks about how dubious many scientists are of their claims, not how meaningful the statement is.
Not to mention the other points brought up in this thread: many of these people are in fields not involving evolution at all, and that it says not one whit about the scientific validity of evolution even if a well-educated biologist says he believes evolution is almost certainly false, if he says it because of religious faith.
[ March 01, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:I think this is a fairly obvious example of the Discovery Institute pursuing its stated goal of discrediting evolutionary theory.
If so, they did a pretty bad job of it.
On the contrary, their tactics have been effective to a disturbing degree. This thread is just a relatively minor example of that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I don't think the point is that a large percentage of scientists consider evolution to be problematic, although that might be the case. The point of this list is that it is possible to be an expert scientist yet also find evolution problematic. While one or two scientists could be an anomoly, it is difficult to say 500 are.
Thus this would refute any argument that "If you don't believe in evolution as an explanation for life as we know it, you must lack an understanding of science."
Not a large percentage! A miniscule percentage. If this weren't an article designed to mislead, the headline would read, "We can only find a tiny number of scientists that doubt evolution".
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:On the contrary, their tactics have been effective to a disturbing degree. This thread is just a relatively minor example of that.
It depends. If the study's aim is to show that I can't trust Ron, then the tactics were spot on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If there weren't obviously an agenda behind it, based on the actual wording of the statement it should be possible to get every single scientist out there to sign it...
Exactly. If you look at the words of this and the Steve statement, they don't contradict each other at all. Someone could easily sign both and be perfectly consistent.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yep...but people will automatically use this petition to refute evolution, much as Ron has tried to here, even though the petition itself doesn't state anything like that.
As a matter of fact, most biologists I know (remember I worked for USAMRIID so I knew a lot of them) would consider their life's work looking at and examining darwininan evolution, and would be in favor of studying it closely......that is the only way we can unravel it's secrects.
Just because someone signed this petition doesn't mean they think the current theory of evolution is wrong, or mean they support ID as a viable scientific theory.
Even though people/groups with an agenda might like us to believe otherwise....
Right, Ron? Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, you are missing the point, Kwea. Forever proponents of evolution have been making claims like "all scientists believe in evolution" and "no reputable scientist doubts evolution." This statement that 514 reputable scientists at prestigious, mainline institutions signed, proves that such claims cannot be made. The only thing this proves--and it unquestionably does--is that there are many scientists uncomfortable with evolution and with the adequacy of natural selection to explain evolution, and they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
Cannot evolutionist proponents concede anything--even something so obvious and simple as this?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ron, this line:
quote:Forever proponents of evolution have been making claims like "all scientists believe in evolution" and "no reputable scientist doubts evolution."
Is dubious. People may have used it informally, but using this petition as a refutation of the statement is such a minor technicality, it evokes in me the term "rules lawyer".
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
This has already happened, and it is continuing to happen. It's not as though there are no scientists in the field of evolutionary theory. The insinuation that evidence supporting evolutionary theory has not been carefully examined is disingenuous, and frankly disrespectful toward the many scientists who have spent their careers conducting precisely this kind of careful examination.
If they were actually interested in doing something about their "discomfort with evolution," they would devise an alternative, testable theory and subject it to the kind of rigorous examination to which evolutionary theory has already been subjected. If it stands up, they'll have a case.
I note that even the vaunted Discovery Institute, which sponsored the petition and, incidentally, has discrediting evolutionary theory as its stated goal, has done nothing of the sort. The fact that it prefers to pursue a public relations-based strategy against evolutionary theory -- rather than a science-based strategy for another theory -- is telling.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is amazing how pathological some people are in their determination to deny and obfuscate anything that contradicts even the most irresponsible claims that proponents of evolution have made. This statement that 514 reputable scientists at prestigious, mainline institutions signed, proves that there are many scientists uncomfortable with evolution and with the adequacy of natural selection to explain evolution, and they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
And come off it, Adam613--questioning something and doubting it ARE the same thing.
Cannot evolutionist proponents concede anything--even something so obvious and simple as this? What are they afraid of? That if they give in to fairness and honesty, their whole beloved paradigm of evolution might be refuted? This really demonstrates to me how weak Evolutionism really is, despite all the bluster and trash talking. Deep down in their hearts, they know their position is not impregnable. Creationism can yet win out in the public contest of ideas. And I know it will, because I know the Creator, and I believe His Word will be vindicated.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:And come off it, Adam613--questioning something and doubting it ARE the same thing.
Not in a scientific context.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:It is amazing how pathological some people are in their determination to deny and obfuscate anything that contradicts even the most irresponsible claims that proponents of evolution have made. This statement that 514 reputable scientists at prestigious, mainline institutions signed, proves that there are many scientists uncomfortable with evolution and with the adequacy of natural selection to explain evolution, and they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
It is amazing how determined some people are to attack evolution on religious grounds regardless of the science behind it. And it is even more incredible the sickeningly decitful tactics they are willing to use. Aren't decit and trickery the in the portfolio of the devil and his servants who good christians claim to despise?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Creationism can yet win out in the public contest of ideas. And I know it will, because I know the Creator, and I believe His Word will be vindicated.
If your creationism wins out in the public contests of ideas, it will be because of the highly manipulative and disingenuous PR campaigns of groups like the Discovery Institute, not because of anything even remotely related to science.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The ignorant shall inherit the Earth.
Edit: Which isn't to say that a creator must always be at odds with science. But most people don't understand what science actually says, let alone how it goes about saying these things.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Twinky, what you profess to fear could not happen that way. If Creationism wins, it will be because it is the truth, and is proven so. That is what you really fear. And you are right to fear it. I promise you, your fear will be realized. The Creator will defend His Creatorship. The Evolutionism jihadists are pushing Him too far. He will vindicate Himself, even if humans fail to be truthful.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Owned.
It'd hate to be twinky right now.
So owned.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bob, you will note that I revised that last sentence. I did not mean to direct it all against Twinky.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:SEATTLE, February 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement 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 list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
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."
This could set back the evolutionist advancment by years! Darn you scientests for betraying science!
p.s. Isn't the fact that we have fossils amongst other things good enough to prove evolution exists? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twinky, what you profess to fear could not happen that way. If Creationism wins, it will be because it is the truth, and is proven so. That is what you really fear. And you are right to fear it. I promise you, your fear will be realized. The Creator will defend His Creatorship. You are pushing Him too far. He will vindicate Himself, even if humans fail to be truthful.
Ron, it is presently happening in your country in precisely the manner I described. Spend a few minutes reading up on the history and development of the Discovery Institute and its involvement in the intelligent design movement in the United States. I even posted some helpful links for you on the first page of this thread.
If your creationism were both true and evidentially supportable, it would not require this kind of cynical manipulation to promote it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find it interesting a list with more than a smattering of people from community colleges is full of only people from "prestigious, mainline institutions". Remind me again how a community college is either prestigious or mainline?
Not to mention that a very large number of the people on the list are professors emeritus, so they're not really at anywhere right now.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ron,
I have a question. I can't find anywhere on the Discovery Institute's website a description of how they circulated their petition, what the full text was (if that blurb was "it" or whether there was any accompanying material).
I did find a couple of things about the list of signatories bothersome.
1) Dead people are included on the list. Ultimately, what that means is that the list can NEVER shrink. I assume that if a scientist wrote to them to say "take my name off" they would do so, but if dead people are listed, then the intent is to creat an ever growing list. Granted these appear to be signatories to a specific statement, but couldn't they just as legitimately reach back to pre-Darwin days and pluck a few ID proponents from among the generations of scientists back then too? Clearly they want to claim "a growing number..." One wonders why that hasn't happened.
2) The word "virtually" (as in "virtually all...") is an important caveat that people seem to ignore. If even 5% of all scientists disbelieve a scientific theory, people would still be justified in using the word "virtually" in that sentence.
3) Science does work by consensus, it's true, and dissenters are generally encouraged to fight for a consensus opinion in favor of their version of the facts. The problem is that it does require convincing facts. Within the community of evolutionary biologists there is a FAITH that evolution will provide better explanations than ID in the long rung. Both theories have been around a long time. Darwin was dealing with ID back when he wrote Origins. It's a fascinating logical exercise that applies as well today as it did back then. Darwin has some pretty cogent things to say about why ID is incorrect. It's not like any of this is new.
4) Your faith in God's pre-eminence is admirable. It does appear to me, however, that your faith includes a more literal interpretation of the Bible than most of the faithful would agree to. Would YOU bow to consensus in that view? I mean, realistically, you are taking the minority view in your faith as well as your view of science. It's all well and good to be "outside" the mainstream, and to believe you will one day be proven correct. But, in the meantime, you are asking much of others that you yourself seem unwilling to do. That is...to consider the possibility that other viewpoints are correct.
Don't you simply run the risk of making yourself irrelevant to the debate if you shout foul at others for doing exactly what you are doing.
And now...let me just address ID specifically.
ID, as a cohesive theory, no longer exists. We've had this discussion numerous times on Hatrack, and every time, various sources are quoted showing that ID has come to mean anything from "a theory that posits a "designer" based on the failure of "natural selection" to adequately explain the existence of certain complex biological processes" -- to "young earth creationism."
Given that this is the case, I assert that ID has ceased to be. It is a smudge of thought smeared from outright religious dogma to a blip of "hey, guy's here's a challenge for evolution."
Rather than propose an opposing theory, I suggest the following. Put together a list of the biological phenomena/entities that natural selection cannot explain. List them in priority order if you like. We'll post the list where all can see them.
Then...we'll watch the scientific journals to see whether anyone comes up with an explanation of said phenomena/entities -- based on an evolutionary framework or not. We'll just watch and see.
Each time an article is published related to one of these things, we'll bump the thread and take a look.
If we see a pattern in the things that are still remaining in 5 years -- maybe then we'll have enough info on which to base an opposing theory.
In the meantime, we can just track how well Evolution does as a theory with the things you propose are not explainable.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Yeah, except they're not all "reputable," and they're not all scientists.
I actually tried to join NCSE's "Steve" campaign, but they wouldn't have me! Apparently, I'm not quite "Steve" enough for them.
But seriously, they didn't want me because I wasn't a PhD scientist, just a Professional Engineer (Mechanical and Aerospace, originally, now I'm an Entertainment Engineer). So the list of over 700 Steves is really chock-a-block full of "reputable scientists." So there!
Also, recent articles about the Discovery Institute's statement talk about the reasoning behind many of the signatures, and the fact that, taken independently of the Discovery Institute's intent, the statement is fairly innocuous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In fact, the Steves should all sign this petition, and then they can say, "More people who signed this petition reject ID than support it."
Edit: Pesky apostrophes.
[ March 01, 2006, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Also, Ron, I think you're mistaking acceptance of evolutionary theory as the pervailing scientific understanding of much of the history and development of life on Earth for the belief that it is absolutely true in every particular and in some way refutes the possibility of the divine. As far as I can tell, only Advent115 has made anything resembling the latter statement on this thread, and his post came after all of yours.
The approximate converse, however, is not true. Many creationists are quite willing to state that their beliefs are unequivocally true -- you just did so yourself. I think you should extend to evolutionary theory the same courtesy that it, by its very nature as a scientific body of work, extends to you: admit the possibility that you might be wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The trouble is that I suspect this list will be written off and ignored by evolution-only supporters, who will continue to claim the scientific community agrees that evolution is the complete account of how life came to be as it is.
The critical problem is that virtually no credible scientists claim that evolution is the complete account of how life came to be. We claim that evolution is the best scientific theory available to explain the origins of the diversity of life on this planet. There is a big difference. Nothing in this petition contradicts that.
My big concern is that many scientists who believe that evolution is the best working theory for describing the complexity of life, could in good conscience sign this petition. Yet those who publish this petition will never acknowlegde this.
I'm also disturbed that the credentials of those who signed are seriously misrepresented. Some of them are biologists and some of them are members of national academies and some of them are faculty at prestigious institutions -- but most of them are none of the above. Some of them are mathematicians, some hold only honorary appointments, some seem to have no real expertise in the area of evolution. My guess is that if we went through the list in detail that over half of them had no more expertise in evolutionary theory than can be obtained in a single undergraduate biology class.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote:
quote:What is the significance of '500' when put into context? As in the total number of doctoral scientists?
Short answer: Not significant at all!
Long answer: According to NSF there are about 540,000 doctoral scientists in the US alone (in 2001)(http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/).
Which means that 514 is less that 0.1%, and that's using the number of doctoral scientists in the US, never mind Russia.
In other words, this isn't enough data to disprove the statement that "ally that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.". Using just this statement we'd have to say that 99.9% of scientist believe it to be true, and I'd call 99.9% virtually every one...
I feel the need to point out that just because there were 514 scientists that signed that statement doesn't mean that ONLY 514 scientists are skeptical about evolution. You can't compare the 514 scientists who signed it to the 540,000+ scientists in the US. You have to consider the number of signatures in context.
Now if they had asked X number of scientists, and kept track of how many believe Darwin's theory, and how many are skeptical, then the number of skeptics could be taken in context. However, since they only say 514 scientists signed it, and don't give the context, I find the article to be pretty much useless.
edit: Oops, didn't see the second page.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron, you crack me up.
The sad part is I know you don't mean to.
I bet you even think you know what my beliefs are, and what my "agenda" is, but you probably would be wrong.
Current evolutionary theory has already deviated from Darwin, but that is OK.....the basic precepts have been proved over and over again, although the specific mechanisms are still being questioned.
All of science involves questioning facts, but just because someone questions a specific mechanism doesn't mean he thinks the whole theory is bunk...despite your claims to the contrary.
Also, I can find people at collages in the US who think that the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't go very far to disprove the body of evidence proving it did. Claiming that "everyone" in that list is equally credible just because a few of them teach at fairly reputable colleges is a load of crap.
quote: The only thing this proves--and it unquestionably does--is that there are many scientists uncomfortable with evolution and with the adequacy of natural selection to explain evolution, and they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
Well, since at least 10 fairly educated people here have pointed out that this does NOT state such a thing at all, let alone unquestionably......
I fail to see that in the text, as you have written it...could you point it out again?
Because I could sign this in good faith, and I believe in evolution.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Twinky, what you profess to fear could not happen that way. If Creationism wins, it will be because it is the truth, and is proven so. That is what you really fear. And you are right to fear it. I promise you, your fear will be realized. The Creator will defend His Creatorship. The Evolutionism jihadists are pushing Him too far. He will vindicate Himself, even if humans fail to be truthful.
Oh, well in that case why bother circulating petitions such as this? Why does the Discovery Institute even exist? Couldn't creationists just sit on their hands and say "God'll prove us right eventually, so no sense in arguing about it. Any day now he'll vindicate himself and show all those scientists... Yep, any day now..."
--Enigmatic
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:A similar story in fact happened during Darwin's lifetime, a publication "100 scientists against Darwin". He responded to the petition amused, to paraphrase Darwin:
"if the assertions of these scientists were valid, it would require only one of them"
Actually, this was Einstein. And the pamphlet '100 scientists against Einstein' was published by the Nazis, who disapproved of 'Jewish science'.
Ahah, King of Men, your quite right. I was just remembering what I read in a popular book not long ago. Same principle applies of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ron, you crack me up. The sad part is I know you don't mean to.
I was trying to find some way to say this, Kwea, but I think you nailed it.
Ron, in case you missed the points being made in this thread, I'll enumerate them for you:
1) The statement these individuals have signed is not actually a support of ID or creationism. Quite literally, it says that more study should be done on evolutionary theory. Even truly devoted "Darwinists" could quite happily sign this particular petition.
2) Of the "scientists" on the list, only a few are indeed qualified. In general, their bios are not particularly prestigious.
3) 514 names is a drop in the bucket. As has been observed, to date 730 scientists -- real scientists, mind you, on a list that excludes applied engineers and the like -- named Steve have endorsed evolution. If we assume that the incidence of Steves in science does not correlate in some way to evolutionary belief, that means (all else held equal, of course) that the ratio of evolutionists to people who'd sign this petition (which, as noted in point #1, does not necessarily mean they're not evolutionists) is roughly 730:6. Even accounting for other variables, it's safe to say the ratio therefore is more than 100:1. I'm perfectly comfortable rounding that last percentage point to "nearly all scientists believe in evolution."
I made the point on Ornery that it's not that hard to find 500 people who'll say they believe anything. More interesting to me, though, is that you apparently believe this little petition demonstrates anything useful, and believe moreover that other people should find it revelatory.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Faith gives 100% belief in every aspect of that faith.
Science demands proof and debate in a continuing growth of that science.
People of faith look at a given science, see the debate and say, "See the flaws in your faith."
People of science look at faith and see the lack of debate and say, "See the flaws in your science."
People of both look at each other and say, "What's the problem?"
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap: try rereading the statement. Point me to where they are saying evolution is [edit: silly fingers getting ahead of brain. problematic].
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This means that they have some problem(s) with evolution's ability to account for the complexity of life. You could technically read the statement otherwise, but that would require deliberately ignoring the context that I'm fairly sure the scientists listed are generally well aware of.
quote:Not a large percentage! A miniscule percentage. If this weren't an article designed to mislead, the headline would read, "We can only find a tiny number of scientists that doubt evolution".
That is not correct. It could be a large percentage or it could be a miniscule percentage -we can't tell from this list. All it really says is at least 500 scientists believe this statement - which is definitely more than none. It would be misleading if it tried to say this shows most or a large percentage of scientists believe in the statement. But it doesn't claim that. Instead it only claims that this list refutes the suggestion that "virtually every scientist" believes in Evolution. While all but one or two might be considered "virtually every scientist", I think all but 500 is pretty clearly not every scientist by any fair standard.
[ March 01, 2006, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As I alluded to, my personal beliefs are that ID is on to something. However, I don't think those things are science, nor do I claim they should be taught in a science classroom.
I also don't have any conflicts with being religious and believing in evolutionary theories.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your grasp of statistical implications is amusingly small, Tres .
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems to me that with zero funding, you could get 500 scholars of Christianity to say say that they doubt that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
That made me laugh, but only because its unfortunately VERY true.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Frankly, I don't know what to believe anymore. One thing I will say is that regardless of what the scietific theory is, scientists come out of the gate like gangbusters shouting about their new "discovery." Later on someone mumbles, "maybe we weren't entirely correct."
Example: Pluto is a planet. No now we think Pluto might be a KBO (Kupier Belt Object). No, it'a a planet, see it has moons. No, but it is smaller than some asteroids and maybe smaller than some KBOs.
What's the reality? Scientists create theories and tout them according to the best scientific evidence available at the time of the "discovery." However, our abilities to develop scientific protocols are always evolving and what seems correct one day, maybe proven false ten years down the line. It's rare that you'll ever hear (or read) a scientist use the words, "I (we) don't know."
Recycle and carpool folks, because by the time we have developed the scientific protocols to be able to tell absolutely whether the current warming trend is man made or a natural cycle (or a combination of both) it'll be too late to do much about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your Pluto example is actually quite bad, because the argument over whether or not it's a planet has little to do with functional differences and more to do with agreement over definitions.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your Pluto example is actually quite bad, because the argument over whether or not it's a planet has little to do with functional differences and more to do with agreement over definitions.
Well Tom, since I'm usually asleep right now and I'm going to bed as soon as I finish the post, perhaps I'll find a better example just for you when I get home from work tomorrow. Or not. After all, I'm not around much anymore, I just don't have the time to spend hours on the internet everyday. Pluto just happened to be one of the more recent discussions that I could think of off the top of my head at 12:30 in the morning.
Edited to delete a counter argument intended for the Global Warming thread. Sorry guys I'm really not at my best a 12:30 a.m. when I've been up since 6 a.m. the previous day.
[ March 02, 2006, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Cannot evolutionist proponents concede anything--even something so obvious and simple as this? What are they afraid of? That if they give in to fairness and honesty, their whole beloved paradigm of evolution might be refuted?
I don't know where people get the idea that scientists are somehow irrationally attached to the theory of evolution.
I'll bet many scientists would give their left nut/ovary to find substantial evidence that would disprove an established scientific theory.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
What I really want to know is how many Helens agree that evolution is responsible for the diversification of all the world's species.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Before I go however, I wanted to refute the "fact" that every reputable scientist believes in Global Warming.
Why? I can't find anywhere else in the thread where global warming was mentioned at all.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Scientists have nut/ovaries?
Weird.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Your grasp of statistical implications is amusingly small, Tres .
Perhaps so, but even the smallest understanding of statistics is enough to see that a statistic showing 500 scientists believe something proves it is false to say that all scientists don't believe it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So...you're satisfied that answering something (virtually) no-one is actually saying is somehow of value?
edited to add the "(virtually)" since I'm sure there are idiots out there who might claim that "all" scientists believe (or disbelieve) just about any notion you'd care to mention.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I've never said that, I don't care one whit, Tres, much as I don't care if you prove the moon is not made of cheese. Perhaps you would care to tackle something I (or someone else versed in science making an argument in favor of evolution) has said instead of these straw men you find it so much easier to argue against?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bob, have you ever read the short-short story "The Tenth Dentist?" It's really quite good. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote: Instead it only claims that this list refutes the suggestion that "virtually every scientist" believes in Evolution.
This claim is false, Xap. 500 is approximately 0.1% of the number of doctoral scientists in the United States alone, as just_me noted in a post directly after your first post to this thread, back on page one. Even if there are no doctoral scientists anywhere else in the world, you think that 99.9% is not "virtually all?" What's your criterion for "virtually all," then? 99.95%? 99.99%? How many repeating nines do there need to be before you'll grant "virtually all?"
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:As I've never said that, I don't care one whit, Tres, much as I don't care if you prove the moon is not made of cheese. Perhaps you would care to tackle something I (or someone else versed in science making an argument in favor of evolution) has said instead of these straw men you find it so much easier to argue against?
I'm just refuting the idea that has been suggested on this thread that this article is misleading. The ONLY thing the article claimed to refute with this list is the suggestion that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true." And it DOES in fact refute that. Therefore, the article is not misleading. The article said nothing at all about ID, or Creationism, and said nothing at all about how great or small is the actual percentage of scientists who doubt evolution.
Furthermore, if you don't care one whit about the argument I made, you shouldn't make claims about how the argument suggests I don't understand statistical implications. If you do that, you should assume I'm going to explain why the implication I made is actually true.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Even if there are no doctoral scientists anywhere else in the world, you think that 99.9% is not "virtually all?" What's your criterion for "virtually all," then? 99.95%? 99.99%?
Virtually all would be 100%, except maybe one or two who for whatever reason are anomalies and can be written off. Otherwise it is not virtually ALL, but rather a huge percentage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. Remind me never to play "Let's Round This Number" with you.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: The ONLY thing the article claimed to refute with this list is the suggestion that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true." And it DOES in fact refute that.
It doesn't because: 1) Any rational person would in fact call 99.9%, "virtually every scientist." 1a) It DOES refute the statement "Every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true." The next time someone makes that claim, I'll be sure to correct them.
2) Nowhere in the statement does it say that the cosignees believe evolution to be untrue. It says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This could represent dissatisfaction with finer points of the theory or an opinion that the theory is incomplete. I think evolution accurately describes what takes place in speciation, but I would agree with this statement, because I suspect that "random mutation" is actually a process we don't know very much about yet and therefore term, "random."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Tres, if we were playing poker, each starting with $500,000, and you ended up with $999,000 and I had a grand left, you can bet I would say you had virtually all my money. I suspect, prior to this thread, you might have too.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It takes 10,000 signatures to get on the presidential ballot in Virginia as an indepenedent. That is about 0.1% of Virginia's population. You are suggesting that when a candidate achieves this, it's still correct to say that "virtually all" Virginians reject that candidate? If you had to get 5% of an entire population to actually sign a petition in order to prove that there exists some segment of that population that agrees with the petition, petitions would be doomed to fail.
On any other issue, if 500 scientists signed a petition, it would be agreed that that petition represents that some segment of the scientific community agrees with what the petition is saying. If 500 scientists said that oil drilling in Alaska is dangerous, and then I tried to argue that virtually all scientists think it is okay, what would you say? If 500 scientists said that a certain meteor could hit this earth in 50 years, and then I tried to argue that virtually all scientists agree such a meteor would not hit, what would you say? If 500 scientists warned that New Orleans could be flooded when a hurricane strikes, and then if the president claimed "virtually all" scientists agree there is no such danger, what would the public say? Seriously - what would you say? I'd bet you would definitely not say "Well, there are thousands of PhDs out there, so 500 is an insignificant number - we can still assume virtually all scientists agree on this issue."
How many signatures does a list have to have before it convinces you that there is not agreement among virtually everyone on the issue?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I added the "virtually" for your benefit, not mine. I personally don't give a flip. You're the one arguing against positions that (virtually) no-one is taking when you tilt the windmill with the word "all" in it.
You're just shifting sand again, Tres.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You're the one arguing against positions that (virtually) no-one is taking when you tilt the windmill with the word "all" in it.
But that's the ONLY position the article claims to refute. If we all agree that position is wrong, what's the disagreement with the article and the list it cites?
I suspect people are assuming it's really a plot to suggest many scientists support Creationism or ID, and thus misleading in that it suggests those are valid alternatives to Evolution. But since the list says nothing about that and the article says nothing about that, I think it's not quite fair to complain about the list and article on those grounds. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, I think it's better to admit the list shows exactly what it shows and cannot be said to illustrate anything beyond that. It shows only that there exists a segment of the scientific community that doubts evolution, but says nothing about how large a percentage that may be, nothing about how much they doubt it, and nothing about whether or not they think ID is a valid alternative.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What I find amazing is that anyone still responds to Tres in an evolution thread. You people must be bored. You should know by now, that when his arguement has no substance he retreats to the narrowest definition of his terms and argues semantics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Xap makes arguments with substance? IIRC, that handle was created specifically for the purpose of making semantic, meaningless objections to things.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<slaps forhead> Well that explains a lot. Unfortunately it only increases my amazement that he gets responses.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I suspect people are assuming it's really a plot to suggest many scientists support Creationism or ID, and thus misleading in that it suggests those are valid alternatives to Evolution.
That's exactly what it is. That is the Discovery Institute's stated intention, as I've said time and time again in this thread.
quote:It shows only that there exists a segment of the scientific community that doubts evolution...
As fugu and others have repeatedly stated in this thread, it shows nothing of the kind. It was assembled by the Discovery Institute in a disingenuous effort to make people think that, though, and frankly I'm very disturbed by how you're bending over backwards to support their efforts -- it shows that they're working.
quote:How many signatures does a list have to have before it convinces you that there is not agreement among virtually everyone on the issue?
To be perfectly frank, I think the list is utterly irrelevant. It is nothing more than another PR stunt in a long line of PR stunts by the Discovery Institute performed in accordance with their goal of discrediting evolutionary theory not on the basis of any actual science, but in the court of public opinion.
Evolutionary theory can -- and does -- stand on its own scientific merits. Anyone wishing to put forth a competing theory has always and will continue to be welcome to do so, provided that theory is also capable of standing on its own scientific merits. Becuase such a theory is precisely what the intelligent design movement does not have, they have elected instead to wage a PR campaign. By bending over backwards to defend them you're only helping foster the notion that scientific merit can be decided by something other than science. Not only is it wrong, I think it's dangerous, and it really bothers me that you're doing it.
-------------------
I'll answer a broader version of your question: "What would it take to convince you that there is not agreement among virtually everyone in the scientific community on the issue?"
Here is my answer: It would take nothing more or less than the publication of tests of a falsifiable alternative theory in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the type that publishes such work on evolutionary theory at present.
The intelligent design movement has never been willing to submit its "theories" to this simple "put up or shut up" test, because it has never been willing to develop a falsifiable scientific theory. Given that they would presumably jump all over the chance to do so, as it would actually spark a legitimate debate, I can only assume that they are unable to. And if you fail the "put up or shut up" test as utterly and completely as the intelligent design movement has, don't be surprised when people start asking you to shut up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: <slaps forhead> Well that explains a lot. Unfortunately it only increases my amazement that he gets responses.
My post, since I don't expect Xap or Ron to be swayed by it, is actually for the benefit of the viewers at home.
In all seriousness, the Discovery Institute's efforts need to be exposed and countered. Since I'm not actually American, telling Americans about those efforts is all I can do. I admit that I wouldn't have made this many posts to this thread if I wasn't procrastinating, though. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
KarlEd,
Since when are ad hominem attacks okay here? And Tom is not correct - Xap does not exist to make substanceless comments. Read my landmark if you want to know why I have two screennames.
twinky, I don't believe it is okay to reject an argument on the grounds that the person giving the argument has bad intentions. It is important to judge an argument on it's own merits.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You'll pardon me, or not...
But that's insane.
Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: It is important to judge an argument on it's own merits.
Quite so. If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
Usually, I'd disagree with this, but nobody is disputing the data. 500 scientists signed a peititon saying the veracity of the theory of evolution warrants further study.
The only contentious issue here is the intent of those who would knowingly twist this evidence.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I wonder if you could dig up 500 credible biologists who would agree with the statement "Evolution does not and never has happened, in any way, shape, or form. Including bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
Somehow, I doubt it. Twinky and others are right, the petition is just ID PR BS.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually what the ID group wants is 500 credible bioligists who agree that "Phenomenon some witness and call evolution is in fact changes in creation that God enacts, by his will, and for his greater purpose and glory, and has nothing to do with a naturalistic theory of nature."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The petition is fine. It's the spin, skewed interpretations of the petition, that's noxious.
[ March 02, 2006, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The only contentious issue here is the intent of those who would knowingly twist this evidence.
That being the sponsor of the petition, the Discovery Institute.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Ignoring the intentions of the person making the argument is a pretty good way to end up being mugged.
I didn't say to ignore the intentions. I just said to not use those intentions as a reason to attack or reject the argument itself.
quote:If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't? Keep in mind that I do reject ID's argument, even though I do think it should be treated fairly, and also be brought up in schools, even if very briefly.
quote:The only contentious issue here is the intent of those who would knowingly twist this evidence.
I agree that this is the only issue that should be contentious. But I don't think it's fair to attack them for twisting it even before they have done so. They have not used this list to justify any of that in the article posted, or anything I've seen yet. So far, I've just seem them use it to justify the very limited claim that there is not agreement among "virtually all" scientists on evolution.
It's not fair to them to put words into their mouths that they did not say, and then attack those words.
quote:I wonder if you could dig up 500 credible biologists who would agree with the statement "Evolution does not and never has happened, in any way, shape, or form. Including bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
I agree that you could not. That is an example of something that I'd think actually IS rejected by virtually ALL scientists who know anything about the area.
[ March 02, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My problem with the article is that, although all it is really saying is that an only an insignificantly tiny number of people with doctorates in science (some of whom are dead, many of whom are from less than stellar institutions) agree that questions should be asked about evolution, the audience for whom it is intended will have a reaction along the lines of, "Wow! 500 scientists! That's a lot! They must be right! ID should be taught in schools!"
As I said, if it wasn't designed to manipulate and mislead, there would not have been an article.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:
quote:If only you would apply this same standard to the intelligent design movement, we could agree and be done with it.
I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't?
Your posts in any number of intelligent design discussions on this forum. You have repeatedly stated -- and I verified this by searching for the term "intelligent design" in posts by Tresopax -- that intelligent design has validity and deserves to be treated with the respect afforded a scientific theory.
quote:Keep in mind that I do reject ID's argument, even though I do think it should be treated fairly, and also be brought up in schools, even if very briefly.
Your edit to add this doesn't change the validity of my response to your first sentence, though here you are backing away, at least in tone, from your previous statements.
In reality, intelligent design "theory" has been treated fairly. Until such time as my stated criterion is met, I will continue to accord the appropriate amount of respect -- zero -- to the intelligent design movement. If there was an actual theory there, worthy of study and debate, the members of the intelligent design movement would presumably be saying so. Instead, they are conducting a highly disingenuous PR campaign.
I'd have no particular problem with intelligent design being brough up in a science class as an example of how not to put forward a scientific theory, but based on your previous posts that isn't what you advocate.
quote:It's not fair to them to put words into their mouths that they did not say, and then attack those words.
As I have already noted on this thread more than once, they did say it. Discrediting evolutionary theory via a public relations campaign is the stated goal of the Discovery Institute.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Last I checked, most of us in this thread were arguing with Ron and making some side comments about the creationist community in general. Ron has made a wide assortment of statements that the petition he started this conversation with does not support by a literal reading. For that matter, so have you, Tres, in this thread.
Amusingly enough, when I pointed out that this literal reading meant the statement was nearly meaningless and certainly acceptable to scientists, you told me it had to be considered in its context, and in that context it really meant something else. Are you now reversing that position?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:
quote:I do judge intelligent design by its own merits. What leads you to believe I don't?
Your posts in any number of intelligent design discussions on this forum. You have repeatedly stated -- and I verified this by searching for the term "intelligent design" in posts by Tresopax -- that intelligent design has validity and deserves to be treated with the respect afforded a scientific theory.
I have said it should be treated with respect, and that it is a valid (valid does not equal true) theory related to science which merits discussion in science class, but have also said it is not strictly testable and is thus not strictly a scientific theory. I have also said I don't ultimately agree with the argument for it. I think this is fairly judging it by its merits.
The difference is that I think a theory that I believe has little merit should nevertheless be discussed (even in school) and treated with respect if many other people think it does have merit. I don't see the benefit in disrespecting a theory, no matter how true or false I judge it to be.
quote:As I have already noted on this thread more than once, they did say it. Discrediting evolutionary theory via a public relations campaign is the stated goal of the Discovery Institute.
Point taken. They probably do intend to misuse this data. But they haven't specifically done so in anything posted in this thread, and the data itself isn't misleading by nature, as some seem to be claiming.
quote:Amusingly enough, when I pointed out that this literal reading meant the statement was nearly meaningless and certainly acceptable to scientists, you told me it had to be considered in its context, and in that context it really meant something else. Are you now reversing that position?
When scientists say they are "skeptical" of evolution, they are implying not just that they doubt it like they are supposed to always question all scientific theories, but rather that they consider it to have specific problems. So, yes, I still think that statement should be taken in that context.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely enough, it still remains that no scientist [edit: on the list] said he was skeptical of evolution, merely of two particular mechanisms being sufficient on their own to account for the complexity of life -- a statement exactly consistent with modern evolutionary theory, as modern evolutionary theory does not rely on just those two mechanisms. Other important mechanisms include symbiotism leading to the formation of more complex cells, for instance. Not to mention that those two don't explain the diversity of life alone even in Darwin's theory -- the initial presence of life, through some other mechanism, is required as well. Furthermore, again note my side point that it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to be skeptical for religious reasons.
Not to mention that many scientists have a penchant for being overly literally minded -- you're the one now insisting on a homogenous approach to the question by scientists, when its already been pointed out how tiny the percentage is in comparison to PhDs as a whole. I suspect there are more than 500 PhD scientists with serious mental illnesses, for instance, and vastly more who are willing to take things extraordinarily literally and would thus be willing to sign that statement, provided they didn't mind giving fuel to the Discovery institute.
Which, as has already been noted and you finally admitted, it is also important to understand. Not to mention that plenty of misuses of the data have been posted in this thread -- by Ron, which is who most of the posts have been responding to, and are perfectly reasonable responses to. The Discovery institute, along with others, has also successfully promoted a situation where many groups are perfectly willing to take unfounded pot-shots at evolutionary theory. Reading this statement in that context, the data is intentionally misleading. As for the data not being misleading by nature, I'm perfectly willing to agree with that, for a sufficiently meaningless definition of nature that, again, nobody seems to be talking about but you.
[ March 02, 2006, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)