A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[Ekstasis]

Which would require there to be a huge conspiracy amongst every single scientists involved in biology, around the world. So, how do they get this right, and then still manage to convince us all that it is correct? Or is it possible that your "belief" is simply a factor of your own naivety on the subject?

Also, please provide examples of where this has taken place...

DJ, here's one person who might disagree with the majority.

Oh yes, click the "download the List" button on that homepage. You'll see a long list of morons with absolutely no credentials whatsoever that are sceptical about all this hogwash

The reason why I brought this up is to just point out that there are knowledgeable scientists with credentials who does not support ToE. I'm sure there are more that has not signed yet.

My question: Are these people supposed to be ignored? If ToE is such an established fact, why do these anti- Evolution scientists exist?

Surely the theory of gravity is accepted all over in the scientific community DJ and company....why not ToE??

 

[RiaX]

Hmmm, just because you have credit in research or the scientific world means your view is right. As with the other thread, ToE has too much evidence towards it, perhaps the details can be revised but the basic ideal i dont think so.

 

[DJ...]

Surely the theory of gravity is accepted all over in the scientific community DJ and company....why not ToE??

See this just highlights your stupidity on this subject. Even after addressing this post in the previous thread and pointing out that it has been posted and rebutted on numerous occasions, you still create a new thread, just for this. Because it backs up your belief system so you refuse to accept counter arguments.

Firstly, the theory of gravity, as you put it, is not accepted by everyone. Shows just how much you know. Quantum mechanics showed us that our understanding of gravity was wrong in parts and right in others. The reason CERN blasts particles together is to understand gravity and why it exists.

Secondly, having a difference of opinion is encouraged in science. There is no under-current of science presidents going around telling everyone not to question things. On the contrary. Evidently you have absolutely no idea what science is, nor how it works.

Thirdly, the theory attempts to explain the fact that we can and do observe evolution. This has been explained to you with examples in massive threads on countless occasions. You simply dismiss it because, and I have come to this conclusion because of the frustration in repeating this all to you, you are too stupid to understand it, or unwilling to...

 

[DJ...]

And why start a new thread about it in natural sciences? Especially after we just had the conversation in the thread intended for this sort of post, that that thread is where you would place this sort of post? There is an objection thread that you have been participating in up until a few minutes ago - you cannot claim ignorance...

 

[copacetic]

Over at dissentfromdarwin.org, there's a list of 700 PhD holders who have agreed to sign up in support of 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."


This list is obviously used by creationists as evidence that the scientific community is in disagreement about the truth of evolution. Now, for starters let's overlook the fact that many of these people hold PhDs in subjects completely unrelated to evolution, such as computing, engineering, philosophy, mathematics or astronomy (it seems to be a common idea among creationists that if you hold a PhD you have the authority to discuss any aspect of science and that your opinion has the same worth as that of an expert in the field).

Let's also overlook the fact that scientific truth is not decided by petitions or popular vote. Science isn't a democracy, the truth is the truth, and always will be, and even if the creationists triumph and the teaching of evolution in schools is replaced by creationism, that won't change the fact that we evolved.

Take a closer look at the statement these doctors are in support of. Notice that the statement does not say that these scientists think the theory of evolution is wrong, it doesn't even say that they disagree with it on a personal level. Just that they are skeptical of it, and believe it should be subjected to testing rather than accepted on faith. But this is exactly how ALL good scientists should approach ANY theory or idea. It is, in fact, a fairly succinct definition of the scientific method. All scientific theories should be treated with skepticism and subjected to tests. It's how the good theories are weedled out from the bad. Those theories that fail the testing are adandoned and those that pass are retained. And unfortunately for the creationists, the theory of evolution, just like quantum theory or the theory of relativity, has so far passed all rigorous scientific testing with flying colors.

So now I must admit that I'm also a PhD holder who agrees completely with the above statement. Will I sign the petition? Absolutely not, because I'm well aware of the purpose behind it; it's pure creationist propaganda designed to mislead the general public, cheap trickery and nothing more. It's a perfect example of creationist sleight-of-hand, a tactic they must rely on, having no evidence of their own.

It is perhaps the "softness" of the statement that has allowed so many professionals to feel safe to sign it and provide their personal details. I wonder how many of them would sign up in support of the following:

"We believe that evolution by natural selection alone cannot explain the diversity of life."


At a first glance this seems pretty much the same as the original statement, but it's fundamentally different. This second statement is truly dissent from Darwin, and is exactly how the organizers of the petition are hoping the general public will understand their version.

Shame on the 700 PhD holders participating in this charade.

http://creationistidiocy.blogspot.com/2008/08/dissent-from-darwin-700-phds.html

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism (or Dissent From Darwinism) is a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. The statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism," a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]

The statement was published in advertisements under an introduction which stated that its signatories dispute the assertion that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things, and dispute that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution".[2][3] Further names of signatories have been added at intervals,[4][5] and as of the August 2008 update, it contains 761 names. The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[6][7]

The claims made in the document have been rejected by the scientific community.[8][9] Robert T. Pennock says that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. " ... "according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[10] The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[11] The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][12]

In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers tied the fate of the Dissent to that of the wider intelligent design movement:

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

*edit*

I see Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy...

 

[rwenzori]

The Discovery Institute. Eish. Anything emanating from the Discovery Institute is bull until proven otherwise.

 

[unskinnybob]

Another fine facepalm thread.

 

[Ekstasis]

So am I to understand that these fake people with their fake credentials are fake scientists and because of a religious agenda they fake science? Because Wiki says so and because anti - creationists websites say so?

 

[HapticSimian]

So am I to understand that these fake people with their fake credentials are fake scientists and because of a religious agenda they fake science? Because Wiki says so and because anti - creationists websites say so?

I don't think you quite get what the word 'understand' means... Regardless, this twaddle really doesn't need anything more in response than a link to Project Steve.

As an aside, I seem to recall a whole discussion on keeping religious IDeology out of this section of the forum. Bad form, Ekstasis... bad form.

 

[boerseun]

The reason why I brought this up is to just point out that there are knowledgeable scientists with credentials who does not support ToE. I'm sure there are more that has not signed yet.

Argument from authority.
wikipedia

 

[alloytoo]

Argument from authority.
wikipedia

Absolutely, and trounced by Steve.

 

[Techne]

The reason why I brought this up is to just point out that there are knowledgeable scientists with credentials who does not support ToE. I'm sure there are more that has not signed yet.

My question: Are these people supposed to be ignored? If ToE is such an established fact, why do these anti- Evolution scientists exist?

Surely the theory of gravity is accepted all over in the scientific community DJ and company....why not ToE??

Darwinism, when it refers to standard evolutionary theory is fine. It is when people start to confuse it for a theory that argues against purpose, design or creation that it becomes a philosophical argument and no longer science. Both sides are guilty of this and that is probably why there is dissent against the concept.

 

[Unhappy438]

Ekstatis you need to ask yourself why Discovery Institute needs to resort to such desperate measures of creating bogus lists if their counter argument is so strong?

 

[TJ99]

Ekstatis you need to ask yourself why Discovery Institute needs to resort to such desperate measures of creating bogus lists if their counter argument is so strong?

They actually have a counter-argument now?

 

[Unhappy438]

They actually have a counter-argument now?

No that was my point , if they had a counter argument then they wouldnt have to resort to such desperate measures.

 

[Geriatrix]

A list of names 700 and no evidence presented by any of them. Call me when they've got data that went through the peer review system, thanks.

 

[Nerfherder]

Arguing against the theory of evolution is not the problem...

Its the fact that every single "scientist" who does it is pushing a religious agenda. This is the exact same reason you are attacking it Ekstasis.

Show me the guy who doubts evolution but isn't looking in the bible for a reason.

Its the exact same thing as holocaust denialists, you won't find one without a swastika.

So attack ToE all you want but keep your bible in your belt. The ToE does not disprove the bible... history does.

 

[w1z4rd]

This thread is a good example of how to make faith look foolish.

 

[w1z4rd]

Its the exact same thing as holocaust denialists, you won't find one without a swastika.

Muslim groups like denying the holocaust as well.

 

[Arthur]

The debate around Darwinism is actually far more sophisticated and subtle than most people realise. It's not a simple choice of "religion" vs "science".

For the record:
* I think Creationism is twaddle, from both a scientific and theological perspective.
* I think Intelligent Design is twaddle from both a scientific and religious perspective.
* I think Evolution is most likely true, at least in broad outlines.

However, the Darwinian narrative (and isotopes such those peddled by Dawkins & ilk) is deeply problematic and laughably illogical. For an enlightening read by an atheist defender of evolution, a good start is David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales. This is a posthumous collection of essays on the topic. Whatever your angle, he's a delight to read - he's as savage on fundamentalist religious types as he is on Darwinian poppycock, all in beautiful prose.

Martin Gardner, relentless debunker of pseudoscience, "perhaps the wittiest, most devastating unmasker of scientific fraud and intellectual chicanery of our time", longtime columnist for Skeptical Enquirer, had this to say:

“Whatever your opinion of ‘Intelligent Design,’ you’ll find Stove’s criticism of what he calls ‘Darwinism’ difficult to stop reading. Stove’s blistering attack on Richard Dawkins’ ‘selfish genes’ and ‘memes’ is unparalleled and unrelenting. A discussion of spiders who mimic bird droppings is alone worth the price of the book. Darwinian Fairytales should be read and pondered by anyone interested in sociobiology, the origin of altruism, and the awesome process of evolution.”

(A note of caution reading reviews on Amazon: As is clear (and called by other atheist /science reviewers) you should ignore the negative reviews - they are knee-jerk responses by so-called defenders of science/reason who clearly have never read a word of Stove.)