Discovery Institute editorial in Seattle Times 6/10/02
Kathleen Hunt
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134471180_chapmanop10.html
Some biology colleagues of mine at the University of Washington are
considering writing a rebuttal. Do any of you that have written similar
rebuttals have suggestions? And, can someone point me to details about
who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to? (I'm
betting it'll be another case of 98 engineers, physicists and dentists,
plus 2 narrowly trained molecular biologists...).
thanks for your comments,
Kathleen
U. Washington, Seattle
JWLarson
refuted hundreds of times. But 99% of people who read will not have heard
the refutations, and if they did, would not have been trained enough in
philopophy, science (in general, more specifically biology, even more
specifically evolution) to understand the argument. How do we change this
situation?
George Acton
In a rebuttal, there's only enough space to make a few simple
points. On possibility is:
(1) There is no scientific controversy over the validity of
evolution.
(2) Therefore there is no reason to single out evolution
among scientific theories for special questioning.
(3) There is a political and religious agenda to attack
evolution, based on published statements from the Wedge Project
and statements by people like Johnson and Dembski.
(4) This is a violation of the First Amendment just as surely
as Creation Science was.
If each point were the topic sentence of a paragraph, it might
be easier for people to collaborate in putting together the
argument.
--George Acton
Harlequin
Yes the list a great many non-biologists and a number of
non-scientists. It also includes several YECs and some from religous
schools where they are REQUIRED to think that God was involved.
The text of the press release, the statment, and who signed it can be
found at:
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
Here is the text of the statement those scientists signed:
"I am 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."
Notice the _Seattle Times_ editorial confuses doubt with
evolution with doubt with about its mechanisms:
Others -- like Eugenie Scott of the National Center for
Science Education, a Darwin-only advocacy group -- deny the
existence of any scientific debate. Scott states that "I don't
know of any evidence against evolution."
Yet, last fall, 100 scientists, including professors from
institutions such as MIT, Yale and Rice, published a
statement questioning the creative power of natural selection.
Many of these scientists see evidence that points to an
intelligent design of life.
Not only have the confused evolution with its mechanism, but
are clearly trying to make the statement say more than it actually
did. The statment has no statement "questioning
the creative power of natural selection." But even if the
editorial had reproduced the actual signed statment there
would still be problems.
For starters, I doubt that no scientists has any objection to
the second sentence in principle. Though one can object
to the statement targeting evolutionary theory and not
mentioning theories in physics and chemistry which also
should be carefully examined.
To me, the worst part of it is that how utterly little that
first sentence said. Indeed the only way it says much
is if the person reading it is utterly ignorant about
evolutionary biology. The statment would want to reduce
evolution to nothing more than mutation and natural selection.
But what about recombination? It is not mutation or
natural selection but is vitally important to evolution.
Then there is genetic drift and related concepts of
population bottlenecks and founder effects. How about
the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts? It hardly
fits the cardboard Darwinism the Discovery Institute is
attacking. How about things like mass extinctions
caused by asteroids or other massive but rare catastrophies.
I doubt one could understand the history of life without
knowing how they impact on the situation. How about
hybridization and gene flow?
I guess we can be charitable and assume that the
signers include sexual selection with natural selection
and are not defining natural selection in some "nature
red in tooth and claw" stereotype. And that with mutation
they are not merely including point mutations but such
things as polyploidy and other forms of gene duplication.
When it really comes down to it, an atheist Darwinian
who is fully committed to modern evolutionary theory
and completely disagrees with "intelligent design"
but BLIND to the obvious political agenda of the statement
could sign it in good faith. And that is what
makes it utterly meaningless in science regardless
of its meaning in politics.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin"
Mike Dunford
news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu:
[snip]
> Some biology colleagues of mine at the University of Washington
> are considering writing a rebuttal. Do any of you that have
> written similar rebuttals have suggestions? And, can someone
> point me to details about who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that
> the editorial refers to? (I'm betting it'll be another case of
> 98 engineers, physicists and dentists, plus 2 narrowly trained
> molecular biologists...).
The presentation is not real great, possibly deliberately, but the
full list can be found at:
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
There is indeed a ___wide___ range of specialty among the
'scientists' listed, although there are more biologists than you
expected. (Dept of Bio, Loma-Linda U; Dept of Bio, Biola U, etc.)
More important than the identities of the sciences, IMO, is the
extremely vague nature of the statement that they signed:
"I am 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."
It is not outside the realm of reason that some of those signing that
statement were unaware of how it would be used. Nothing in that
statement suggests that any or all of the 100 support intelligent
design -- the claim that, "Many of these scientists see evidence that
points to an intelligent design of life," is entirely unsupported by
the list.
Another possible response is to take Chapman and Meyer up on their
invitation to play the numbers game. The Department of Biology at
SUNY Albany lists 30 professors in their biology department.
Postdocs, adjuncts, and visiting profs add another 40 or so. There's
almost 50 grad students listed. That's one university, although one
with a large department. How many PhDs in biology are granted
annually? I'm willing to bet that figure alone is over 100. Even if
every person on that DI list has a PhD in biology, or even
specifically in evolutionary bio, I don't think they'd represent even
1% of the national total.
NCSE has material on its website (ncseweb.org) which addresses the
Santorum issue better than I can. It might also be interesting to
question the assertion of the DI that they are a scientific
alternative, rather than a religious or philosophical one.
Also, I'd concentrate on one or two points, rather than trying to be
comprehensive. A comprehensive rebuttal will run too long -- being
necessarily several times longer than the article it is rebutting --
and is unlikely to be published in full by the newspaper. By way of
taking that bit of advice myself, I will refrain from commenting on
the rest of the DI article.
HTH
--Mike Dunford
--
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of
knowledge.
--Carl Sagan
Brian O'Neill
news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
Well, here's the deal: As much as it would be nice to draft a tidy
dissertation summing up nuances of evolutionary theory and the reasons why
ID is not science, you are battling in the arena of Public Relations. Case
in point, the editorial starts off with a poll worded as if there *is*
scientific evolution against evolution, as opposed to actually presenting
said evidence.
You must battle rhetoric with rhetoric if you expect a scientifically
illiterate populace to understand your views. I am not in Seattle, but this
is how I would respond bearing in mind the arena in which the "discussion"
is taking place:
1) They start off with a poll's results, nowhere in the editorial does it
mention that the poll was funded and the results were released by The
Discovery Institute, who are major proponents of ID and have invested a lot
of money and time on pushing their agenda. One wonders why such an
important facet of information, namely the bias of the organization that ran
the poll, would not be divulged. Big shocker that The Discovery Institute
also authored this poll.
2) Science is not, nor should it be taught because of popular opinion, it
should rise and fall on the merits of its evidence. Should we use polls to
decide curriculum, we would have to teach ESP (1996 Gallup and 1998 Southern
Focus polls showed that half of Americans believe it) and Astrology (those
same polls say that one third of Americans believe them as factual); when
given the statement "The earliest humans lived at the same time as the
dinosaurs," 32% agreed and 20% didn't know.
Other polls have shown one-fifth to one-half of the respondents believing in
haunted houses and ghosts (Harris 1998; Gallup 1996; Sparks, Nelson, and
Campbell 1997), faith healing (Roper 1994, USA Today 1998), communication
with the dead (Gallup 1996), and lucky numbers. (See appendix table 8-40.)
Some surveys repeated periodically even show increasing belief in these
examples of pseudoscience (USA Today 1998).
In short, we do not take votes on the facts.
3) Here's a poll for you to consider: Poll Seattle residents on whether all
of the evidence of World War II should be presented in history class. I
would bet that most people - at the very least a sizable minority - would
concur with this idea.
Would you feel the same way if you knew the poll was being commissioned by
groups of people who claim to have evidence that the Holocaust never
happened? Would you run an article that touts the fact that some large
percentage of Seattle residents want equal time for Holocaust deniers to
present their evidence?
This is exactly why polls do not work.
4) Why trust the opinion of someone who knows little about the subject
anyway? Carl Sagan observed in his book "The Demon-Haunted World" that 95%
of Americans are scientifically illiterate and he also observed that,
"Science arouses a soaring sense of wonder. But so does pseudoscience."
This encapsulates the fact that Americans are fair enough to think that
everything should be taught, but ignorant enough to not realize that
everything is being taught, and unsophisticated enough to not know the
difference anyway.
Teaching pseudoscience would only confuse an already confused nation, a
nation that a recent poll showed nearly half of them did not know that the
time it took for the earth to orbit the sun was one year. (4/30/2002 AP)
5) Where is this evidence they tout and say should be taught? Behe's claims
have been rebuffed by science, not because of the "implications," but
because it's bad science. It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and
you cannot make predictions based on it, all hallmarks of sound science.
As for the "100 scientists" who "published a statement questioning the
creative power of natural selection," do we know who is on this list? We
should, since the Discovery Institute has a history of twisting the facts to
forward their agenda.
In March of this year, the Discovery Institute submitted a Bibliography of
Supplementary Resources to the Ohio State Board of Education that was
supposed to be "a list of forty papers (actually, 44) written by intelligent
design scientists which had been published in peer reviewed journals."
"Twenty-six scientists, representing 34 of the 44 publications listed in the
Bibliography, responded to NCSE’s request to evaluate the Discovery
Institute’s description of their work. More than half of them regarded it as
inaccurate and tendentious," according to a published report by the NCSE.
“In fact,” said Dr. Alan Gishlick of NCSE, “although the publications in the
Bibliography are valuable contributions to the scientific literature, they
provide neither evidence for ‘intelligent design’ nor evidence against
evolution. The Discovery Institute is simply engaged in ‘quote-mining’ —
searching for passages that it can misrepresent as somehow discrediting
evolution.” He added, “If the Discovery Institute were really serious about
improving science education, it would not be fomenting confusion about
evolution.”
This shows exactly that their agenda has little to do with fairness; it has
to do with the agenda.
6) Intelligent Design has no idea of the designer. Press them, as they were
pressed in Ohio testimony, and this "designer" could be God, or it could be
Martians. It may as well be called "The Space Alien Theory" because the ID
crowd has as much evidence of that as they do anyone or anything else, and
unless this "designer" reveals itself, there's no scientific way to ever
know. Only Stephen Spielberg would think this makes for good science -
actually, he's smarter than that, though he would think it would make a nice
fictional movie.
7) Even the staunchest ID proponents will admit that the study is in its
infancy. Even Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, in a televised national debate,
said that if it turned out that ID had scientific merit, it would eventually
become accepted like any new idea whose evidence became too obvious to
avoid, and eventually it would filter itself into High School textbooks.
So why is it that the Discovery Institute wants to circumvent the usual
channels of scientific study and start teaching their ideas to High School
students, who by the nature of their diverse studies only get cursory skills
in most subjects (at best)?
Look up their "Wedge Strategy," a three-tiered plan that says this. Its
goals are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral,
cultural and political legacies," and "replace materialistic explanations
with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by
God."
Is this the words of an impartial organization seeking scientific truth, or
dressed-up Biblical creationism - you know, what was already ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to be taught in public schools and
unscientific by anyone with any knowledge of what defines science.
Also, congratulations to The Seattle Times for playing its own part in the
"Wedge Strategy." Phase II of the plan states that the media and public
opinion (such as in deftly-worded polls commissioned by the organization
themselves) will be utilized to make their case, no matter if the scientific
merit has already shown to be insufficient.
To quote from the document: "we seek to cultivate and convince influential
individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders,
scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and
seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic
allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public
policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare
knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political
leaders."
It continues, "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek
to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency,
namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars.
We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific
evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in
the broader culture."
I don't recall evolutionary theory, germ theory, or relatively recent
developments such as quantum physics ever had to get media time to sell the
public on the ideas presented.
Of course, the reason for this is clear: Intelligent Design is neither
intelligent, nor does it show any evidence for a designer. It's philosophy,
Biblical creation in a new tuxedo as one science magazine recently said, and
it doesn't belong in our public schools until it stands the test of time,
and thus far, it has not, and it looks quite unlikely it ever will,
especially as its adherents spend their time, money and resources making
speeches, kissing babies and lobbying school boards instead of trying to
actually do the science that would gather the evidence needed to convince
mainstream scientists of their veracity.
You would think that they don't have the evidence, wouldn't you...
--
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two years, two months, two days, 1 hour, 7 minutes and 54 seconds.
31721 cigarettes not smoked, saving $3,965.23.
Life saved: 15 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 25 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
R. Baldwin
Possible lines of rebuttal:
1. Chapman and Meyer argue for science by poll rather than science by
research.
2. We would be happy to teach students evidence against evolution if
we can ever find any.
3. Quote from the wedge strategy to show the DI's not-so hidden
agenda.
Trying to clear up their nonsense is probably a losing strategy.
Brian O'Neill
news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
> can someone point me to details about
> who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to?
Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
website:
"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.”
1. Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational
Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
2. Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
School
3. Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member
4. Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U.
5. Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton
6. Michael Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U.
7. Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois
8. Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College
9. Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State
10. Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath
11. Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville
12. David Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico
13. James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida
14. Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
15. Robert Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
16. Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado
17. Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College
18. William A. Dembski, PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago
19. George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida
20. Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
21. James Keener, Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of
Utah
22. Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington
23. Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
24. Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität
München
25. Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis
26. Joseph Atkinson, PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T., American Chemical Society
member
27. Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho
28. Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology &
Biochemistry, U. of Idaho
29. David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
30. Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
31. Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of British Columbia
32. Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M
33. Paul D. Brown, Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, Trinity Western
(Canada)
34. Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of
Calgary, Medical School
35. Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
36. Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences
37. S.William Pelletier, Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of
Georgia
38. Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of Georgia
39. Ken Smith, Prof. of Mathematics, Central Michigan U.
40. Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology, Virginia Intermont College
41. Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas,
Austin
42. Brian J.Miller, PhD Physics-Duke U.
43. Paul Nesselroade, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College
44. Donald F. Calbreath, Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College
45. William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
46. Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
47. Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas
48. Chris Grace, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U.
49. Wolfgang Smith, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State
50. Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science, M.I.T.
51. Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor
52. John L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of New
Mexico
53. Martin Poenie, Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology,
U. of Texas, Austin
54. Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of
Georgia
55. Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering, Seattle Pacific U.
56. David Berlinski, PhD Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author
57. Neil Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineering, U. of
Auckland
58. John Bloom, Assoc. Prof., Physics, Biola U.
59. James Graham, Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
Environmental Consulting Firm
60. John Baumgardner, Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory
61. Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U. of Iowa
62. Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science, Biola U.
63. Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas
City
64. Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
65. Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute
66. Joseph W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U.
67. Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U.
68. Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U.
of Wisconsin, Superior
69. James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas
Tech U.
70. Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of
Stockholm
71. Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas
72. Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
73. Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
74. William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri
75. Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico
76. Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
77. Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
78. Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U.
of Technology
79. Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Huntington College
80. Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
81. David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
82. Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
83. Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research
Institute
84. Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington
85. Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U.
86. Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan
87. Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College
88. Jed Macosko, Postdoc. Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley
89. Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina
90. Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U.
91. James Harbrecht, Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center
92. Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska
93. Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M
94. David Prentice, Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U.
95. Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U.
96. Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley
97. James Tour, Chao Prof. of Chemistry, Rice U.
98. Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M
99. Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College
100. Vincente Villa, Prof. of Biology, Southwestern U.
101. James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U.
102. Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
103. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science-Cambridge
104. Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago
105. Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institute
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
I encourage people with more knowledge in this area to please let us
lay-people know what they think of the distinguished panel of names above.
The only ones I know are the usual suspects of the ID movement, and yes,
there does seem to be a lot of Engineers and Computer Science people on thse
list.
--
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Two years, two months, two days, 1 hour, 38 minutes and 42 seconds.
31722 cigarettes not smoked, saving $3,965.34.
Life saved: 15 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 30 minutes.
Sverker Johansson
>
> "Kathleen Hunt" <hu...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
>
> > can someone point me to details about
> > who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to?
>
> Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
> website:
>
> "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.”
Agreeing with the above statement is very very far from being being pro-ID.
Any scientist ought to agree that careful examination of the evidence
should be encouraged. Using this list as evidence that many
scientists are pro-ID is grossly dishonest. But then, why should we
expect the ID crowd to be different from other creationists...
> 1. Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational
> Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
[snip list containing the usual suspects, as well as a lot of people
who ought to know better than to sign petitions from people with
an anti-scientific agenda.]
> 103. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science-Cambridge
> 104. Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago
> 105. Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural
> History, Smithsonian Institute
>
> http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
>
> I encourage people with more knowledge in this area to please let us
> lay-people know what they think of the distinguished panel of names above.
> The only ones I know are the usual suspects of the ID movement, and yes,
> there does seem to be a lot of Engineers and Computer Science people on thse
> list.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Rodjk
First, Universities need to respond. The fact that they let the
Discovery Institute get away with this nonsense is hurting the entire
field of biology. Why are biology teachers not taking apart these
articles, in class, and showing ID Creationism for what it is? Why not
have Department level letters to the local newspapers? Better yet, why
not a weekly article written by the science/biology department?
Next, the question that leads off the article:
"A. Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution
and the scientific evidence that supports it."
"B. Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but
also the scientific evidence against it."
Only 15 percent of adults nationally, according to a 2001 Zogby poll,
agree with "A," while 71 percent agree with "B." (Not sure: 14
percent.)
Point out that the question is misleading. Heck, I would vote for B.
However, there is no evidence (other than lies and misinformation)
against evolution.
100 letters pointing this out may make the newspaper print one or two.
Rodjk #613
Boikat
"Brian O'Neill" <bria...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:ae3nor$h7...@baran22.ttnet.net.tr...
> "Kathleen Hunt" <hu...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
>
> > can someone point me to details about
> > who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to?
>
> Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
> website:
>
> "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."
Just out of curiosity, I'm going to snip everyone who's not involved with
biology...
>
> 2. Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
> School
> 6. Michael Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U.
> 7. Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois
> 9. Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State
> 10. Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath
> 11. Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville
> 16. Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado
> 17. Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College
> 20. Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
> 21. James Keener, Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of
> Utah
> 24. Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität
> München
> 28. Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology &
> Biochemistry, U. of Idaho
> 29. David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
> 31. Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of British Columbia
> 33. Paul D. Brown, Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, Trinity Western
> (Canada)
> 34. Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of
> Calgary, Medical School
> 36. Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology
> and the Natural Sciences
> 38. Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of Georgia
> 40. Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology, Virginia Intermont College
> 41. Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas,
> Austin
> 47. Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas
> 52. John L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of New
> Mexico
> 53. Martin Poenie, Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology,
> U. of Texas, Austin
> 54. Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of
> Georgia
> 59. James Graham, Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
> Environmental Consulting Firm
> 62. Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science, Biola U.
> 63. Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas
> City
> 66. Joseph W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U.
> 67. Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U.
> 68. Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences,
U.
> of Wisconsin, Superior
> 69. James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry,
Texas
> Tech U.
> 70. Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U.
of
> Stockholm
> 71. Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas
> 73. Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet
School
> 74. William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri
> 77. Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
> 78. Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki
U.
> of Technology
> 79. Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Huntington College
> 80. Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
> 81. David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
> 84. Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington
> 85. Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U.
> 87. Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College
> 88. Jed Macosko, Postdoc. Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley
> 91. James Harbrecht, Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center
> 93. Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M
> 94. David Prentice, Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U.
> 96. Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley
> 98. Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M
> 99. Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College
> 100. Vincente Villa, Prof. of Biology, Southwestern U.
> 101. James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U.
> 104. Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago
> 105. Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural
> History, Smithsonian Institute
54 , or so left, and some of those are arguable. I gave them the benifit of
the doubt.
Something else that seems to be relevant is the last sentence:
"CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED."
Well, DUH!
What scientist, biological or otherwise, would not agree to that statement?
The evidence for *ANY* thoery should be subject to "careful examination"!
>
> http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
>
> I encourage people with more knowledge in this area to please let us
> lay-people know what they think of the distinguished panel of names above.
> The only ones I know are the usual suspects of the ID movement, and yes,
> there does seem to be a lot of Engineers and Computer Science people on
thse
> list.
>
> --
> TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
> Two years, two months, two days, 1 hour, 38 minutes and 42 seconds.
> 31722 cigarettes not smoked, saving $3,965.34.
> Life saved: 15 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 30 minutes.
> See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Boikat
Brian L
<boi...@bellsloth.net> wrote:
>Something else that seems to be relevant is the last sentence:
>
>"CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE
>ENCOURAGED."
>
>Well, DUH!
>
>What scientist, biological or otherwise, would not agree to that statement?
>The evidence for *ANY* thoery should be subject to "careful examination"!
Not to mention the first sentence:
"WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND
NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE."
Any scientist should be more than skeptical of this claim because it
is false! It is well known that mutation and natural selection are
not sufficient to account for all life we see today. Other mechanisms
such as drift and sexual selection also play a major role in
evolution.
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
>
> Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
> website:
>
>
> lay-people know what they think of the distinguished panel of names above.
> The only ones I know are the usual suspects of the ID movement, and yes,
> there does seem to be a lot of Engineers and Computer Science people on thse
> list.
My personal faves:
> 103. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science-Cambridge
> 104. Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago
How the hell can real sciences have a philosophy? I'm not talking
about somebody's baggage, I mean pure science.
IMHO these should be sociology disciplines or some such.
James Acker
: "Kathleen Hunt" <hu...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
: news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
:> can someone point me to details about
:> who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to?
: Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
: website:
: "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.
: 83. Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research
: Institute
I'm a tad surprised to see this name on the list. He's
an excellent scientist in marine carbon chemistry, with some investigations
related to abiogenesis.
: I encourage people with more knowledge in this area to please let us
: lay-people know what they think of the distinguished panel of names above.
: The only ones I know are the usual suspects of the ID movement, and yes,
: there does seem to be a lot of Engineers and Computer Science people on thse
: list.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"
RHertz
"James Acker" <jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:ae5ofi$30o$1...@news.umbc.edu...
Perhaps someone should call these people up and ask them why they signed a
quasi-pro creationist statement. I'm sure many of them will be surprised at
how it is being used.
James Spencer
<c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> How the hell can real sciences have a philosophy? I'm not talking
> about somebody's baggage, I mean pure science.
>
> IMHO these should be sociology disciplines or some such.
Then maybe you can define in concise terms that we would all agree with
what we mean by as basic a term as "science." Issues about what what
kind of evidence is it to induct or deduct something from an
observation, what do mean by "knowing", what do we mean by "observe",
etc. These are legitimate questions for science and scientists to be
aware of. If you will look, you will find that many, if not most, of
the greatest of our scientists, have deep interests in philosophy.
None of this is to suggest that the folks listed have the knowledge to
be critical in this area and, in any case, as has been pointed out, the
assertion signed onto by the hundred odd is self-evident but it is not
helpful to reject as "sociology" efforts to give greater understanding
and meaning to scientists efforts in the laboratory.
Spence
Michael G.
<jac...@linux2.gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>Brian O'Neill <bria...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>: "Kathleen Hunt" <hu...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>: news:3D051B30...@u.washington.edu...
>
>:> can someone point me to details about
>:> who the 100 pro-ID scientists are that the editorial refers to?
>
>: Here's the list of 105 (to be exact) provided on the Discovery Institute's
>: website:
>
>: "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.
>
>
>: 83. Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research
>: Institute
>
> I'm a tad surprised to see this name on the list. He's
>an excellent scientist in marine carbon chemistry, with some investigations
>related to abiogenesis.
"WE ARE SKEPTICAL" of "DARWINIAN THEORY" is not necessary equivalent
to support for ID. I would be curious as to their actual positions on
ID.
Michael Painter
news:3d06d660...@news.charter.net...
http://www.mbari.org/~etp3/ is Peltzer's web site with email address.
James Acker
: "Michael G." <mag...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
I didn't make my comment to invite harassment of Dr. Peltzer.
It would certainly not be out of the question for an excellent
scientist of his accomplishment to also be a committed Christian
who does not believe solely in "purely natural" evolution. (I'm
not nearly as accomplished as he is, but I also do not believe
in "purely natural" evolution either.)
Now, one point to note is that if read literally, the statement
is somewhat accurate. I know from reading t.o. that random mutation
and natural selection don't account (entirely) for the complexity
of life. There's also gene duplication, genetic drift, etc.
The thing that perhaps should be brought to the attention
of some of the signees (other than the obvious Discovery Institute
folks) is that the statement might be used to encourage the teaching
of pseudoscience in scientific classrooms. I expect that very
few scientists want that. So one person might send a message
with that query -- and should state that they are going to do
so here so that others don't do the same. Due to my professional
position, I cannot.
dave95
up for ID! Particularly Nobel Prize winners. Make it big news! Other
areas of science would just love some controversy like this to raise
public awareness. Your so lucky having that sort of debate to fuel
interest in your subject. Few would be interested in evolution
otherwise.
Dave95