A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[Nerfherder]

Muslim groups like denying the holocaust as well.

ye... and they love jews so much.

 

[copacetic]

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?

Are you actually capable of reading and understanding why this list is a bucket of festering fish guts?

Or are you so blinded by your need to dismiss evolution, that you are incapable of taking aboard any information that opposes your view?

I'm going to put this here again, and I'd like you to actually respond, specifically, to some of the following statements:

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

 

[HapticSimian]

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:

(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.)

Just read the preface. I think I'll pass on reading the criticism of someone who is self-admittedly bored by that he endeavours to critique:

I do not even deny that natural selection is probably the cause which is
principally responsible for the coming into existence of new species from old ones.
I do deny that natural selection is going on within our species now, and that it ever
went on in our species, at any time of which anything is known. But I say nothing
at all in the book about how our species came to be the kind of thing it is, or what
kind of antecedents it evolved from. Such questions strike me, in fact, as
overwhelmingly uninteresting: like the questions (say) where the Toltecs came
from, or the Hittites, and how they came. They came, like our species itself, from
somewhere, and they came somehow. The details do not matter, except to
specialists. What does matter is, to see our species rightly, as it now is, and as it is
known historically to have been: and in particular, not to be imposed upon by the
ludicrously false portrayals which Darwinians give of the past, and even of the
present, of our species

Forgive me if I prefer getting my information from the very specialists who would undoubtedly bore Stove to death... Well, 'would have bored him to death' I 'spose, seeing that these writings are 20 years old, and Stove himself shuffled off this mortal coil even before their initial publication. I wonder, are the many religious folks' apparent fixations with outdated musings fuelled by their fascination with 2,000-year old fables? Why this seeming inability to digest current information on these subjects?

These aren't the tales of Shakespeare, Homer or Chaucer; Stove's writings might be amusing, but without taking into account 2 decades of advancement on the subject they're hardly likely to be enlightening.

 

[Arthur]

Just read the preface. I think I'll pass on reading the criticism of someone who is self-admittedly bored by that he endeavours to critique:


Forgive me if I prefer getting my information from the very specialists who would undoubtedly bore Stove to death... Well, 'would have bored him to death' I 'spose, seeing that these writings are 20 years old, and Stove himself shuffled off this mortal coil even before their initial publication. I wonder, are the many religious folks' apparent fixations with outdated musings fuelled by their fascination with 2,000-year old fables? Why this seeming inability to digest current information on these subjects?

These aren't the tales of Shakespeare, Homer or Chaucer; Stove's writings might be amusing, but without taking into account 2 decades of advancement on the subject they're hardly likely to be enlightening.

The loss is yours. I didn't expect you to have the curiosity - your mind is already made up.

 

[HapticSimian]

The loss is yours. I didn't expect you to have the curiosity - your mind is already made up.

And yours isn't, Arthur? :wtf:

When I start seeing opposing views emanating from relevant fields of study, and not coloured by either ideology or incredulity, I'll sit up and take notice. You, on the other hand, need to seek justification for your conviction that humanity is somehow elevated above all other forms of life, and not just a different result of the same mindless processes. I don't share that burden.

Now, please don't misinterpret my stance as a declaration of solidarity with every minutia of what Dawkins may have wrote in 1979, or Darwin a hundred and some-odd years prior. But colour me unimpressed that you want to extol the virtues of outdated works simply because they align with your own convictions.

 

[Techne]

And yours isn't, Arthur? :wtf:

When I start seeing opposing views emanating from relevant fields of study, and not coloured by either ideology or incredulity, I'll sit up and take notice. You, on the other hand, need to seek justification for your conviction that humanity is somehow elevated above all other forms of life, and not just a different result of the same mindless processes. I don't share that burden.

Erm, there is nothing in empirical science that suggests anything is the result of "mindless processes". That is ultimately a philosophical issue. Don't confuse empirical science with natural philosophy or try to read philosophical aspects into empirical theories.

Empirical science also does not have anything to say about the status of humans (i.e. their speciality) compared to other animals. Again, philosophy of nature.

Of course, people who are not wedded to some weird form of scientism can and do appeal to logic and philosophy to justify the special nature of humans. Those who wish to criticize these positions will first need to get familiar with these views and understand them before attempting to engage with the arguments. Appealing to empirical science just misses the boat completely, sadly.

 

[porchrat]

LOL just read the "Wikipedia haha they're part of it" post from Ekstasis in the other thread. Hilarious.

Still I ask again if we could please dial the crazy in this section of the forum back down from 11.

 

[HapticSimian]

Erm, there is nothing in empirical science that suggests anything is the result of "mindless processes". That is ultimately a philosophical issue. Don't confuse empirical science with natural philosophy or try to read philosophical aspects into empirical theories.

You'll note the plural 'fields' above; there is equally nothing - at least not anything compelling - outside of empirical science to suggest anything other than the operation of mindless forces.

Empirical science also does not have anything to say about the status of humans (i.e. their speciality) compared to other animals. Again, philosophy of nature.

I didn't claim that it did.

Of course, people who are not wedded to some weird form of scientism can and do appeal to logic and philosophy to justify the special nature of humans. Those who wish to criticize these positions will first need to get familiar with these views and understand them before attempting to engage with the arguments. Appealing to empirical science just misses the boat completely, sadly.

Fair enough, but without empirically informed reflection philosophy degenerates into meaningless navel-gazing.

 

[Techne]

You'll note the plural 'fields' above; there is equally nothing - at least not anything compelling - outside of empirical science to suggest anything other than the operation of mindless forces.

Not sure how wide you intend "fields" is supposed to refer to. My point still stands, empirical science (irrespective of the "field") does not determine whether a force is ultimately mindless or not. Empirical science does not "suggest" either way.

Fair enough, but without empirically informed reflection philosophy degenerates into meaningless navel-gazing.

Of course. Just don't confuse empirical science for metaphysical claims about the nature of living things.

 

[empirex]

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?

Dude, I commend you for trying to have a debate with certain folk, but they are blind to anything at all that criticises Darwinism, Evolution, neo-Darwinism, Phyletic Gradualism, call it what you will. Unless their evolutionary overlords say it is so, they will hear nothing, and repeat tired, old and even some defunct arguments.

Unfortunately you won't even get an honest or civil debate either, it's always dragged down to the base level of, "you're an idiot", "you know nothing", "you're ignorant".

As you rightly point out, there is a huge community of so-called "dissenters" from Darwinism; and it grows more and more every day as the Darwinian mechanism is shown to entirely impotent and incapable of producing anything even close to the complexity that we witness operating within living systems, given even trillions upon trillions of years, nevermind billions.

Keep in mind that a certain group of dissenters think that while Darwinism is a complete bust, a new post-modern theory of evolution is required, but you won't find them even considering that either.

The secular religion that is Darwinism is strong, and nothing less than a speech from the high-priests like Dawkins will have them even consider looking at the evidence objectively.

Anyway, please continue

 

[HapticSimian]

...

As you rightly point out, there is a huge community of so-called "dissenters" from Darwinism; and it grows more and more every day as the Darwinian mechanism is shown to entirely impotent and incapable of producing anything even close to the complexity that we witness operating within living systems, given even trillions upon trillions of years, nevermind billions.

...

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.

- Alexander, Denis; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

0.023%... yeah... huge.

 

[empirex]

0.023%... yeah... huge.

Just a thought on what the true extent of dissent might represent.


[video=youtube;aPAFCpuCsvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAFCpuCsvw[/video]

 

[HapticSimian]

Just a thought on what the real extent of dissent might represent.


[/video]

23 out of every 100,000 willing to stand up and be counted... but the really big groups are just afraid for their careers? Pull the other one...

Of course if your opposition to scientific consensus is informed purely by your own ideology and/or incredulity, and lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever, then you'd be right to fear for your career. And you wouldn't be a scientist's arse. You'd be a sad joke, like anyone associated with the Discovery Institute.

 

[Arthur]

23 out of every 100,000 willing to stand up and be counted... but the really big groups are just afraid for their careers? Pull the other one...

Of course if your opposition to scientific consensus is informed purely by your own ideology and/or incredulity, and lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever, then you'd be right to fear for your career. And you wouldn't be a scientist's arse. You'd be a sad joke, like anyone associated with the Discovery Institute.

Internet: Anyone can cite any statistic to prove anything they want.

 

[Arthur]

Uncle John says it perfectly:

[video=youtube;-M-vnmejwXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo[/video]

 

[empirex]

23 out of every 100,000 willing to stand up and be counted... but the really big groups are just afraid for their careers? Pull the other one...

Of course if your opposition to scientific consensus is informed purely by your own ideology and/or incredulity, and lacks any supporting evidence whatsoever, then you'd be right to fear for your career. And you wouldn't be a scientist's arse. You'd be a sad joke, like anyone associated with the Discovery Institute.

Look I understand the need for consensus science, but when that consensus becomes totalitarian in it's approach, the science literally breaks down. No room for dissent unquestionably IS A SCIENCE STOPPER. It restricts science, just as the Roman Catholic Church did all those years ago. The only difference now is it's the "Church of Darwin".

Additionally, consensus is most certainly not the be all and end all -- just ask Nicolaus Copernicus (geocentrism) or Louis Pasteur (spontaneous generation).

 

[HapticSimian]

Look I understand the need for consensus science, but when that consensus becomes totalitarian in it's approach, the science literally breaks down. No room for dissent unquestionably IS A SCIENCE STOPPER. It restricts science, just as the Roman Catholic Church did all those years ago. The only difference now is it's the "Church of Darwin".

Additionally, consensus is most certainly not the be all and end all -- just ask Nicolaus Copernicus (geocentrism) or Louis Pasteur (spontaneous generation).

This cuts to the core of your dilemma: the only place where consensus has 'become totalitarian in its approach' on the issue of evolution is in the collective mind of those who seek to oppose its acceptance, for reasons normally rooted in religious dogma. The entire notion that there's some grand anti-god conspiracy is nothing but a fantastical construct; it has absolutely no basis in reality.

I'm not saying that there isn't disagreement on details, or that the findings imply that there is no longer room for a creator of some sort. But you are (and I am) a monkey's cousin, with absolute certainty. That you cannot accept this is your problem, not mine.

 

[empirex]

This cuts to the core of your dilemma: the only place where consensus has 'become totalitarian in its approach' on the issue of evolution is in the collective mind of those who seek to oppose its acceptance, for reasons normally rooted in religious dogma. The entire notion that there's some grand anti-god conspiracy is nothing but a fantastical construct; it has absolutely no basis in reality.

I'm not saying that there isn't disagreement on details, or that the findings imply that there is no longer room for a creator of some sort. But you are (and I am) a monkey's cousin, with absolute certainty. That you cannot accept this is your problem, not mine.

Sorry, but this is a complete and utter joke.

Your views are representative of the early 90's, perhaps late 90's.

Even within evolutionary circles these days there are numerous dissenting views - neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, the Public Goods Hypothesis, post-Modern Evolution - why so many alternate views?

Yet you claim "evolution" is settled science. What a load.

Evolution is unravelling at the fastest pace ever throughout human scientific history. Every day new stumbling blocks are found. As technology improves, so to does our understanding of life and the cell.

Evolution is coming apart at the seams, there are only so many little dutch boys that can plug the holes until the damn bursts.
But it seems phyletic gradualism is the only game in town, so yeah I guess you gotta play it, if that's what worldview you hold to.

As for religious dogma my friend..
If certain events and comments would just reach the wider media -- you would be in no doubt as to just what evolution represents for many of the top evolutionary advocates -- it's their very own secular religion.

Speech by Professor Michael Ruse

 

[unskinnybob]

Sorry, but this is a complete and utter joke.

Your views are representative of the early 90's, perhaps late 90's.

Even within evolutionary circles these days there are numerous dissenting views - neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, the Public Goods Hypothesis, post-Modern Evolution - why so many alternate views?

Yet you claim "evolution" is settled science. What a load.

Evolution is unravelling at the fastest pace ever throughout human scientific history. Every day new stumbling blocks are found. As technology improves, so to does our understanding of life and the cell.

Evolution is coming apart at the seams, there are only so many little dutch boys that can plug the holes until the damn bursts.
But it seems phyletic gradualism is the only game in town, so yeah I guess you gotta play it, if that's what worldview you hold to.

As for religious dogma my friend..
If certain events and comments would just reach the wider media -- you would be in no doubt as to just what evolution represents for many of the top evolutionary advocates -- it's their very own secular religion.

Speech by Professor Michael Ruse

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... Where do they all crawl out of?

 

[HapticSimian]

Sorry, but this is a complete and utter joke.

Your views are representative of the early 90's, perhaps late 90's.

Even within evolutionary circles these days there are numerous dissenting views - neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, the Public Goods Hypothesis, post-Modern Evolution - why so many alternate views?

Yet you claim "evolution" is settled science. What a load.

Evolution is unravelling at the fastest pace ever throughout human scientific history. Every day new stumbling blocks are found. As technology improves, so to does our understanding of life and the cell.

Evolution is coming apart at the seams, there are only so many little dutch boys that can plug the holes until the damn bursts.
But it seems phyletic gradualism is the only game in town, so yeah I guess you gotta play it, if that's what worldview you hold to.

As for religious dogma my friend..
If certain events and comments would just reach the wider media -- you would be in no doubt as to just what evolution represents for many of the top evolutionary advocates -- it's their very own secular religion.

Speech by Professor Michael Ruse

You no read good? But thanks for emphatically proving my point.

You'll note I specifically said that there are details under discussion. To then go into a blind tirade concerning the details under discussion is to miss the boat a wee bit, don't ya think?

Also, your link's borked...