More scientists express doubts on Darwin

[Desertdog]

Sounds like another myth is about to be defused.   Darwins theory will be preached in school for a whole lot more years, though.


More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747


More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which 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 statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."


The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

[Nightfall]

A news article about scientists saying they doubt Darwinisim is fine and dandy, but how about linkage to some good research showing me why Darwin ain't the cat's meow?

[Tallpine]

I discarded all credulence in the biblical BS a few years back - however, neither can I bring myself to believe in random evolution explaining life as we see it on this planet.

Primarily, how does one explain the evolution of complex organs such as an eye?  An eye is of no survival value unless you can see with it, so it would have had to "suddenly appeared" in working form, along with an optic nerve and the brain's capability to analyze images.

Or sex...?  Did two one-celled critters just suddenly decide one day that it would be more fun to cuddle up together than split in two halves???  Where are the two or three celled critters?  How does an ameoba suddenly become a complex creature without any intermediate life forms?

Personally, I subscribe to the theory of the "Great Mystery"

[K Frame]

God farted, and there we were.

Divine creation?

Nope, more like divine excretion.

That's the only thing that explains why the human race is such a *expletive deleted*ed up entity.

[jefnvk]

The biggest problem I have with the whole evolution idea is, even if in the (IMHO) unlikely event that this was all due to genetic mutation, it still lacks explination of where the first living organisms came from.

However unlikely, I can see how a bacteria could potentially randomly mutate into a person.  I don't see how that bacteria could pop out of thin air, or be made from something like a rock.

My real view, though, is it don't really matter how it happened, the important thing is that it did.  And honestly, I don't see the problem with teaching all the THEORIES (Are they still called theories, or are they being passed off as the truth now?).

[Live Free Or Die]

If PBS claimed that "virtually every scientist" believes Darwinism to be true, I don't think there's a good case here to refute that.  Take your 600, or 1,, or a few thousand dissenting scientists -- out of probably millions of scientists worldwide, and you'll have a dissent rate of maybe 0.1%.  Hence, virtually every scientist believes Darwinism to be true.

Now, onto the related topic of metaphysical cosmology: does anyone else here stay up at night wondering how *anything* came to be in the first place?  I'm not talking about how a mineral turned into a marmot through evolution, but rather, where did the mineral come from?  Where did the atomic and subatomic components of the molecules that made up the mineral come from?  How did the universe get started...or better yet, was there ever a start in the first place, or did it just always exist?  We can't comrehend it always existing (well, I can't at any rate), but there aren't any compelling explanations for just how it got started either.  That stuff can keep you up at night -- believe me.

[Perd Hapley]

there aren't any compelling explanations for just how it got started either

The Biblical account of creation is not compelling?  

Take your 600, or 1,, or a few thousand dissenting scientists -- out of probably millions of scientists worldwide, and you'll have a dissent rate of maybe 0.1%.  Hence, virtually every scientist believes Darwinism to be true.

That may be true, but there are three factors to keep in mind.

1.  Truth is not settled by concensus.

2.  All the scientists can be wrong, even if they agree.

3.  Very few scientists are actually in the business of testing evolutionary theory.

[Antibubba]

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

And around the world, Raelians rejoice.  I wonder how many of them were signatories?

[Sindawe]

"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."

OK, absolutely nothing wrong with challenging accepted scientific convention if one thinks one has a better (as in fits the evidence at hand) theory.  Where is theirs?  Ahh...here it is

The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design,...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  translation "We can't figure this out, so the Gods musta done it!"

I don't see the problem with teaching all the THEORIES (Are they still called theories, or are they being passed off as the truth now?).

Theories based on verifiable evidence and repeatable results are fine to teach in a science class.  Intelligent design derived from Christian mythos has no more place in a science class than does creation stories from The Eddas, those of the Aborigines in Oz or the more recent vintage tracts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Where did the atomic and subatomic components of the molecules that made up the mineral come from?

If you look deep enough, it gets REALLY WEIRD, what with particles appearing and dissapearing in less than the blink of an eye, things happening that just should not like quantum entanglement, things behaving like a wave until you look at them, and that damn box with a cat in it.

[K Frame]

"1.  Truth is not settled by concensus.

2.  All the scientists can be wrong, even if they agree.

3.  Very few scientists are actually in the business of testing evolutionary theory."

Nor is truth settled by blind, unquestioning faith.

A single book can also be wrong.

And who tests creationary theory, and how?

Plop a lump of clay on a table and say "HERE YOU GO, LORD, HAVE AT IT AND PROVE ME RIGHT!"?

[Nightfall]

I don't see how that bacteria could pop out of thin air, or be made from something like a rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Not saying it's THE answer, but it is some interesting food for thought.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, absolutely nothing wrong with challenging accepted scientific convention if one thinks one has a better (as in fits the evidence at hand) theory.  Where is theirs?

I'm no scientist, but I don't think science requires one have any alternate theory at all in order to criticize or disprove a currently-accepted theory.  This is correct, no?  

The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design,...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  translation "We can't figure this out, so the Gods musta done it!"

Not so.  I think Intelligent Design says, "We have figured this out.  That is, we have learned the true complexity of "simple" life forms and must conclude that chance, mutation and selection is too weak to create such things - there must have been some intelligence directing the development of living organisms.  Had Darwin's contemporaries known what we know, he would never have been published."  

You are arguing that ID is not science, just deus ex machina in reverse, as if ID scientists were simply throwing up their hands in ignorance and saying, "It's a mystery."  I think the opposite is true.  These individuals studied the details of living organisms in a way that was unavailable to previous generations of scientists and found overwhelming complexity.  They were unravelling mysteries, and simply arrived at a different theory to explain them.  The more we learn about the natural world, the more intracies we see, and thus the more evidence for design as the only rational explanation.  I have been told this is not strictly scientific.  I don't know.  I don't know that it matters.

Intelligent design derived from Christian mythos

I hear this charge repeated all the time, and I would like for someone to show me where the originators of ID, Demski, Behe, et al, have shown in their research that they were influenced by the Creation Science movement, or by Christian scripture.  I believe this is nothing more than a smear without basis in fact.  Prove me wrong.

[Perd Hapley]

Nor is truth settled by blind, unquestioning faith.

True enough, but you propose a false choice.  One's faith in Christian scripture need not be blind.  Evidence abounds of its veracity.

And who tests creationary theory, and how?

A long time ago, in a thread far away, I asked our very own Justin a similar question about how evolution is tested.  I don't think he really answered my question, but here it is.  I don't see why creation theory couldn't be tested in a similar fashion.

And how is evolution to be tested by experiment?  Yes, we can test various biological processes to see if they turn out they way we expect, but how can we test to see if random chance and inanimate chemicals create life?  How then does evolution meet your criteria?

Because many scientific experiments done by biologists generally posit evolution as the foundation.  In other words "according to evolutionary theory, we should be able to observe X effect under Y circumstances."  

And then they go and conduct an experiment, and I'll be darned if the results of their experimentation aren't in line with what evolutionary theory told them.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=1379&p=4

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A news article about scientists saying they doubt Darwinisim is fine and dandy, but how about linkage to some good research showing me why Darwin ain't the cat's meow?

Turn the question around.  What evidence is there to prove that Darwin IS "the cat's meow"?  There is oodles of conjecture out there, but preciousl little evidence.  Absent compelling evidence in support of Darwinism, wouldn't skepticism be prudent?

Given all we know about genetics and mutations and so forth, we've never been able to deliberately evolve one existing species into another in the lab.  We don't know which mutations might cause one specie to evolve towards another, nor how many mutations might be necessary, nor what conditions are necessary for these mutations to take place.  

We've never been able to observe evolution taking place in nature.  (We've observed certain phenomena in nature and then ascribed them to evolution after the fact.  But that's not the same, and without any evidence that's not science.  That's pure conjecture.)

We've never been able to predict which species would be most likely to undergo evolution.  Nor have we successfully predicted what new species they would evolve into.  

The Darwinists would have us believe that the first bit of life sprung out of a primordial soup in the prehistoric oceans.  Well, do we have any evidence or research or discovery that tells us what exactly this soup was?  Have any researchers ever reproduced this life-from-soup phenomenon in a lab?  Have researchers even been able to reproduce just the soup in a lab?  (The answers are "no" "no" and "no", respectively.)

Darwinism is a lovely concept.  It's the best ration-based explaination for the existence of life.  It's plausible.  It may well be the correct and right answer to the origin of life.   But it has't be shown to be fact.  It's never been formulated into a testable hypothesis, and it's not been rigorously tested or experimented upon.  

To treat Darwinism as though it were an established law of science (e.g Netwon's mechanics, Boyle's gas law, etc) is patently absurd.

EDIT:  Whoa...  This thread doubled in length in the time I spent posting this.  Sorry if I repeated anyone.

[Nightfall]

Have researchers even been able to reproduce just the soup in a lab?  (The answers are "no"...

Actually, the answer is "yes". Check link I added above.

[Iain]

Nor is truth settled by blind, unquestioning faith.

True enough, but you propose a false choice.  One's faith in Christian scripture need not be blind.  Evidence abounds of its veracity.

We had this discussion the other day as well. Evidence abounds of its veracity if you already believe. If you don't you see cute puppies and attractive women, not evidence of God.

[Guest]

I've never been able to understand why people think creationism and evolution are competing theories, except for the very few people who exist who think the world was created October 23, 4004 BC.

[Guest]

This is another theory I always thought was interesting and probably has at least some validity.

http://www.panspermia.com/

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, Nightfall, Miller-Urey did not produce life and even its claim to simulate the atmosphere of the Early Earth is debatable.  Producing a few amino acids is a long way from abiogenesis.  

edited to add:  Sorry Nightfall, I was responding to something you didn't say.  

Barbara, evolution thoroughly conflicts with the Biblical account of creation; it is much more than a matter of time.  And the panspermia idea is interesting but doesn't solve any problems, only pushes them to a different time and place where we can collect even less evidence.

Iain, I wasn't referring so much to the argument from design, but primarily to the Bible's historical accuracy, the way in which it corresponds to archeological evidence and generally the way in which its claims fit very well the real world I observe around me.  Also, there are evidences of Biblical creation such as the way the Noahic flood seems to explain the fossil record and the sudden appearance of vast numbers of new life forms in the pre-Cambrian explosion.  Speaking of Noah, I am told that many scientists are returning to a belief in "catastrophism."

[Bogie]

Oh, sheesh... Attack of the Religious Loonies...
 
Okay - here's the deal: If you don't think that evolution happens, you shouldn't need to use any antibiotic developed since the 1950s... After all, the germs aren't developing resistance...

[Harold Tuttle]

i was photographing a recreation of an afarensis child this week,

she was 100,000 years before "Lucy"
yet they basically think, she could have been "Lucy's child"

in other words, this 3 million year old fossil was the same creature as one 100,000 years later

The break between the arboreal ape species and the ground walking proto hominids was seven million years ago

50,000 years ago from "today"
the first humans were crossing the land bridge
pursuing mammoths into Alaska...


Evolution is a slow boat
We humans will not observe its motion in real time

God made man
but he used a
monkey to do it. -DEVO

[auschip]

Also, there are evidences of Biblical creation such as the way the Noahic flood seems to explain the fossil record and the sudden appearance of vast numbers of new life forms in the pre-Cambrian explosion.  Speaking of Noah, I am told that many scientists are returning to a belief in "catastrophism."

So, how many dinosaurs were on the ark?

[Guest]

How did you get to photo that? That's very cool!

Here or in Africa or

I can't see the Bible conflicting with evolution, unless you argue that the entire thing is in there, which we can see every day is not true. Yep, Genesis says six days..but it was written thousands of years ago when people didn't have quite the same understanding of the concept of billions of years. If it had been explained, they wouldn't have understood. Even then, the Bible says that a God doesn't operate on the same time schedule we do. So, 6 days, 6 billion years, whatever.

The chronology in Genesis is pretty close if you think about it..closer than you would expect for people who were still developing concepts like zero.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Yep, ok. You could say, in the beginning, the universe exploded from a single point of matter and was "created" and eventually a star we call the sun was formed, and from there, some balls of rock and ice started spinning around, and we call one of those earth.Doesn't sound as cool, and the Bible isn't a scientific document, its a story of the Beginning.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. True enough. The atmosphere cleared up and days and nights were distinguishable and that was the end of an age. So God took a nap for a while or worked on landscaping project in a different galaxy or something.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."  So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

So, 4 billion years ago, he got back onto this, and things started firming up, and when you looked up, things looked blue and when you looked down, there wasn't just smush, but dry dirt in places, and it didn't look too bad, so he called it earth, which in God-speak is "similar in substance to Oreo Cookies." So, he sat back down and took a break because dividing oceans from land is a lot of work and hell on the back.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

This is the one that I think is pretty cool, because think of all the other legends from back then. The narrative doesn't say "God created this guy and the guy was hungry, so then God created corn so he could eat and tobacco so he'd have something to smoke." Somehow, people 6,000 years ago figured out that plants were first and the earth didn't revolve around men. This before people figured out the earth wasn't flat and serpents weren't hanging around the edges.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.

This is the only part of the whole Biblical creation story that makes no sense. Maybe someone put the pages in the wrong order or something, I dunno.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.

Yup.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Again, compare this to people calling themselves Gods in other places at the time..the fish were here before we were..how did someone in ancient Mesopotamia know this?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;        male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the groundeverything that has the breath of life in itI give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morningthe sixth day.

Then God took the next day off because he had to go to church and wash the car.

[roo_ster]

I have too much respect for the scientific method and empiricism in general to have faith in neo/darwinian evolution.

Can life evolve?  Yep.  Did it evolve the way most neo/darwinian boosters say it did?  Unlikely.

Darwin's theory (and compensatory, subsequent theories)was more believeable & viable back in his day, when we did not have the last 150+ years of data to tear great holes in it.

Show me the data.  Until I see the data, all the ravings of the neo/darwinians has no more credibility than the bean dreams of a "non-denominational" snake handler speaking in tounges while flopping like a mullet in the center aisle.

[K Frame]

"True enough, but you propose a false choice.  One's faith in Christian scripture need not be blind.  Evidence abounds of its veracity."

Ah...

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was.

Biblical dogma, as practiced by so many, demands blind adherence to Christian scripture. If you categorically reject the theory of evolution, then all you are left with is reliance on blind faith.

Contrary to your claim, there is no "abounding evidence" that somehow supports Biblical creationism.

There's also another cruicial difference between Darwinian Theory and Christian creationism -- Darwinian Theory allows itself the possibility that it is wrong. Christian creationism demands absolute, dogmatic, blind faith.

"A long time ago, in a thread far away, I asked our very own Justin a similar question about how evolution is tested.  I don't think he really answered my question, but here it is.  I don't see why creation theory couldn't be tested in a similar fashion."

Then it is up to the proponents of creationism to derive such a test using observable, repeatable methodology. So far they have failed miserably in that task, only asking that people reject scientific methods for blind Biblical faith.

Blindly saying "it happened because 1) the Bible says it happened and 2) I believe the Bible, 3) goto 1" simply doesn't cut it.

In essence, proponents of this "process" ask people to stop using the very brain that they claim that God gave them in the first place. That shutting off the quest of knowledge is, then a categorical denial of the existence of God.

Once again, blind faith is not proof, and blind faith is not a Christian virtue.