FAQ: The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Statement
Kalkidas
1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by
scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism's key claim that
natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for
the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have
signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr.
Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia;
U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association
for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of
Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe
Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and
discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and
Streptomyces.
2) When and why was the statement created?
The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in
response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who
doubted Neo-Darwinism. Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in
The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists
who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of
Neo-Darwinism. Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to
over 700 scientists, both in the United States and around the world.
3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in
a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering,
computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an
M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with 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." If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the
statement by emailing con...@Dissentfromdarwin.com.
If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please
visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity at
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com and join their statement by doctors who
dissent from Darwinism.
4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some
supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific
critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific
evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that
there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence
relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism
can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural
world.
5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing
alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or
intelligent design?
No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the
statement as written. Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or
disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism
about modern Darwinian theory's central claim that natural selection acting
on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.
Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of
the evidence for Darwinian theory.
6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
No. It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of
the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the
need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory.
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in
biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer
science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford,
Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and
University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or
researchers at major universities and research institutions such as
Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of
Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science &
Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
--
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare
Kalkidas
jillery
>
> If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please
The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
statement to be in that category.
Kalkidas
news:7123f4cf-9850-4ec5...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 9:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
[snip]
> The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
> infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
> evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
> theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
> actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
> the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
> have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
> entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
> believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
> statement to be in that category.
But it's not "dissent from evolution", it's "dissent from Darwinism".
jillery
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I was imprecise. I shall rephrase: I have seen way too many non-
scientific and disingenuous arguments base entirely on the opponents'
philosophical beliefs about what they believe Darwinism represents.
Better?
Kalkidas
Is this statement an inaccurate characterization of Darwinism?
"the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life"
As far as I know, no one has ever shown that "random mutation" can produce -
from a primordial single-celled creature - the varieties of complex
organisms that we observe in the world, no matter how much "natural
selection" is applied.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> FAQ:
> 1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
> The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by
> scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism's key claim that
> natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for
> the development of the complexity of life.
Nope. As your quotation below shows, the term used is "Darwinism", not
"neo-Darwinism". The terms are not synonymous. Misrepresentation is
not a good start.
> The full statement reads: "We are
> skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
> to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
> for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Quite so. It's *because* scientists were skeptical of the claims of
"Darwinism" that modern evolutionary theory developed.
> Prominent scientists who have
> signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr.
> Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer
Not an authority on evolutionary biology then.
> at the University of Georgia;
> U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell
A chemist, and not an authority on evolutionary biology.
>; American Association
> for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen;
A chemist, and not an authority on evolutionary biology.
> Russian Academy of
> Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe
> Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and
> discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and
> Streptomyces.
So what? There's nothing in that statement with which any scientist
would not agree.
> 2) When and why was the statement created?
> The statement was drafted and circulated by Discovery Institute in 2001 in
> response to widespread claims that no credible scientists existed who
> doubted Neo-Darwinism.
Neo-Darwinism or Darwinism?
> Discovery Institute subsequently took out an ad in
> The New York Review of Books and elsewhere showcasing over 100 scientists
> who were willing to publicly express their scientific skepticism of
> Neo-Darwinism.
Quite so. As there is nothing in their statement with which any
scientist would not agree, so what?
Mind you, none of the signatories have provided any *scientific*
challenge to evolutionary theory.
> Since 2001 the signatories of the statement have grown to
> over 700 scientists, both in the United States and around the world.
Again, so what? Mind you, 700 scientists (many of whom are no more
qualified as authorities on evolutionary biology than I am on quantum
physics) from all the scientists in the world is a pathetically small
number, especially when the statement is couched in such anodyne terms
that there is nothing with which any scientist would disagree.
> 3) Who is eligible to sign the statement?
> Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in
> a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering,
> computer science, or one of the other natural sciences;
So why did they not limit the list only to those who can be considered
to have some authority in the science of evolutionary biology? The
views of a chemist or mathematician on the subject are no more
authoritative than mine are on chemistry or mathematics/
> or they must hold an
> M.D. and serve as �a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with 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."
Quite so. It's the business of scientists to be skeptical. As an
evolutionary biologist I am *very* skeptical of the claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life - in fact, there is a very lively debate within the
science on this very subject. It has been the subject of several
recent papers in 'Nature' - the most prestigious journal in science.
Of course, "Darwinian" theory has been carefully examined and
questioned for 150 years, rather notably by Charles Darwin.
> If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the
> statement by emailing cont...@Dissentfromdarwin.com.
Why should any honest scientist sign such a deliberately misleading
statement?
>
> If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please
> visit Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity atwww.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.comand join their statement by doctors who
> dissent from Darwinism.
>
> 4) Why is it necessary to have such a statement?
> In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some
> supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific
> critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific
> evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism.
A flat falsehood, as any reading of the recent literature on the
subject would show.
> The Scientific Dissent From
> Darwinism statement exists to correct the public record by showing that
> there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence
> relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism
> can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural
> world.
In other words, because they have no scientific case to argue they are
attempting to mislead the public with a blatantly dishonest propaganda
exercise.
>
> 5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing
> alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or
> intelligent design?
> No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the
> statement as written. �Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or
> disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism
> about modern Darwinian theory's central claim that natural selection acting
> on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.
> Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of
> the evidence for Darwinian theory.
However, that is *not* the way in which the statement is used by its
promoters. It is widely cited in creationist sources as indicating
dissent not only from evolutionary theory, but from the principle of
naturalism in science.
>
> 6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
> No.
A flat lie.
>�It is a professional statement by scientists about their assessment of
> the scientific evidence relating to Neo-Darwinism and an affirmation of the
> need for careful examination of the evidence for modern Darwinian theory.
Another flat lie.
> 7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
> Yes.
Quite so. They get their papers published in leading academic
journals.
> Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in
> biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer
> science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford,
> Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and
> University of California at Berkeley. �Many are also professors or
> researchers at major universities and research institutions such as
> Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of
> Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science &
> Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
So what?
If they have scientific doubts, they presumably understand the
processes of scientific publication and are perfectly free to present
their doubts in a scientific forum. The fact that they have become
involved in such a blatantly dishonest propaganda excercise shows that
they have no scientific arguments to offer.
RF
John Harshman
The fact is that I could sign that statement if it were merely a
scientific statement. That is, I don't think that natural selection is
the only important evolutionary process. But I won't sign it because,
despite your FAQ's claims, it *is* primarily a political statement,
intended by its IDist promulgators to be used as propaganda in support
of ID.
And really: what could a physicist, engineer, or medical doctor be
expected to know about evolution? Contrast that with Project Steve,
whose signers must be in a profession relevant to evolutionary biology.
While we're on the subject, how many signers are there of the Steve
statement compared to the "scientific dissent" statement? How many of
the "dissenters" are named Steve?
chris thompson
>
> If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please
> dissent from Darwinism.
By my count, there are only FOUR doctors on that list named Steve, or
some variant thereof. HAHA
Chris
snip
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
> > dissent from Darwinism.
>
> By my count, there are only FOUR doctors on that list named Steve, or
> some variant thereof. HAHA
Alright! We win! [fist bump]
Mitchell
jillery
To the degree that it's disingenuously incomplete, yes. The laws of
heredity, the chemistry of DNA, the biomechanics of cellular
metabolism might have something to do with it. among other things.
> As far as I know, no one has ever shown that "random mutation" can produce -
> from a primordial single-celled creature - the varieties of complex
> organisms that we observe in the world, no matter how much "natural
> selection" is applied.
I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for. My impression
is your expectations are both unnecessarily high and uniquely applied
against Darwinism. It seems to me nothing short of a protoplasmic
blob leaping out of its laboratory beaker to screw the clueless but
oversexed lab technician will satisfy you. OTOH when scientists
examine the past and present life on Earth, they see a pattern of
complexity over time and distance consistent with common descent, and
in contrast to saltational creation or intelligent design.
chris thompson
> > > dissent from Darwinism.
>
> > By my count, there are only FOUR doctors on that list named Steve, or
> > some variant thereof. HAHA
>
> Alright! We win! [fist bump]
>
> Mitchell
Terrorist!
Ernest Major
writes
from Darwinism sign up to an ultradarwinist statement? The only reason
that Darwin and Dawkins couldn't sign it - apart from the not so hidden
agenda - is that it's too weak; the signers are skeptical that random
mutation and natural selection can account for the diversity and
disparity of life, while the rest of us are convinced that other
processes are involved.;
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
writes
selection") appear to be sufficient to account for the current diversity
and disparity of life.
Natural selection has been observed operating in the present at rates
for in excess of those need to account for the changes observed in the
fossil record. The disparity of dogs, pigeons and Brassicas suggests
that the hypothesis that sufficiently fast rates can't be sustained
because new variation doesn't arrive fast enough is not convincing.
--
alias Ernest Major
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
More specifically it's "dissent from some specific ideas about
evolution which were common a century ago but are not part of current
thinking."
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
I believe that they let in Nobel Prize winners from other disciplines.
>While we're on the subject, how many signers are there of the Steve
>statement compared to the "scientific dissent" statement? How many of
>the "dissenters" are named Steve?
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
Not particularly. But it's most certainly not an accurate
characterisation of "neo-Darwinism" or modern evolutionary theory.
> As far as I know, no one has ever shown that "random mutation" can produce -
> from a primordial single-celled creature - the varieties of complex
> organisms that we observe in the world, no matter how much "natural
> selection" is applied.
Which is more a demonstration of your ignorance than a defect of
evolutionary theory.
RF
John Harshman
Not according to the published requirements, of which there are only 3:
* Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?
* Do you have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a
related scientific field?
* Do you want the kind of success in life you always thought was
reserved for the "other Steves"?
Ernest Major
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <YPOdncSLxaK...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:7123f4cf-9850-4ec5...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.co
>>>>> On Mar 3, 9:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
>>>>> infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
>>>>> evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
>>>>> theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
>>>>> actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
>>>>> the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
>>>>> have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
>>>>> entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
>>>>> believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
>>>>> statement to be in that category.
>>>> But it's not "dissent from evolution", it's "dissent from Darwinism".
>>> Oddly enough, it's being used primarily as a claim of support for
>>>ID. The fact is that I could sign that statement if it were merely a
>>>scientific statement. That is, I don't think that natural selection
>>>despite your FAQ's claims, it *is* primarily a political statement,
>>>intended by its IDist promulgators to be used as propaganda in
>>>support of ID.
>>>
>>> And really: what could a physicist, engineer, or medical doctor be
>>>expected to know about evolution? Contrast that with Project Steve,
>>>whose signers must be in a profession relevant to evolutionary biology.
>> I believe that they let in Nobel Prize winners from other
>>disciplines.
>
>Not according to the published requirements, of which there are only 3:
>
> * Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?
> * Do you have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a
>related scientific field?
> * Do you want the kind of success in life you always thought was
>reserved for the "other Steves"?
>
and Steven Hawking (all physicists) are on the list. But I am probably
mistaken in thinking that there is a specific exception for Nobel Prize
winners - Weinberg and Chu are, but Hawking isn't. There are quite a few
physicists on the list.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Someone should ask about that. There aren't supposed to be any,
according to the rules. Is there another rule that says you can join if
you're famous, even if your field isn't relevant?
Ray Martinez
>
> If you are a medical doctor who is skeptical of Darwinian evolution, please
It doesn't matter how many scientists accept or reject natural
selection; evolution is not scientific: it is Materialism, also known
as Atheism ideology. This is why all Atheists are fire-breathing
Darwinism fanatics and "Christian" evolutionists their deceived
lackeys (= buffoons).
Ray
Kermit
False. It is a universally accepted (with a handful of religious
dissenters) by scientists in the field. It is a testable model which
explains and fits all the pertinent data.
> it is Materialism,
False; it is naturalistic methodology, as all science is. It is not
philosophical materialism.
> also known as Atheism ideology.
While philosophical materialism and atheism usually are fellow
travelers, they are not synonymous, and science is not philosophical
materialism. You have been told this before.
> This is why all Atheists are fire-breathing
Accepted as literary license.
> Darwinism fanatics
Atheists are not all fans of Darwin. many are ignorant or apathetic.
Most, however, do accept the science, because with damn few
exceptions, the only dissenters do so for religious reasons. Most
theists have no trouble with evolutionary science.
> and "Christian" evolutionists their deceived
> lackeys (= buffoons).
You keep asserting this, contrary to their claims and the evidence.
You also keep failing to support it with any evidence of your own.
>
> Ray
Kermit
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
We recognize that all of Kermit's replies are actually meant for the
"Christian" evolutionist; that is, the lackeys or buffoons of Atheists
(identified as such in my initial message).
Ray
bpuharic
>
>http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php
>
old news by a bunch of religious fanatics
no one cares. when they come up with evidence THEN they'll have an
argument.
>
David Hare-Scott
> FAQ:
> 1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
> The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by
> scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism's key claim
> that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary
> mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full
> statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
> random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity
> of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory
> should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the
You could get any biologist to say that natural selection does not entirely
account for life on earth as we know see it. So what?
Hare Scott Hare Scott
Scott Scott Hare Hare
Hare David Hare David
David David Hare Hare
bpuharic
>
>As far as I know, no one has ever shown that "random mutation" can produce -
>from a primordial single-celled creature - the varieties of complex
>organisms that we observe in the world, no matter how much "natural
>selection" is applied.
as a scientist who's a non biologist, i gotta say i find this line of
argument from creationists the least convincing.
no science is able to show anything from scratch. we chemists cant
determine the origin of each and every atom we use in our work.
biologists have demonstrated that a mechanism exists which can cause
populations to change with time....AKA evolution
kalkidas isn't particularly well educated so comes up short in his
argument in favor of his human hating god.
>
bpuharic
>FAQ:
>1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
>The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by \\
scientists who think the clock should be turned back 2000 years
>
>6) Is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism a political statement?
it's a religous statement by scientists who believe the scientific
method should be compromised in the name of religion
you should look up the 'steve' project. more scientists named 'steve'
have signed the petition in favor of evolution at the NCSE website
than the total number of guys who've signed the dissent from darwin
Ron O
You should know by now that "Darwinism" to creationists like the vast
majority of signees of this bogus political statement just means
anything that they do not like about science.
How can you deny that? Haven't you seen them call the Big Bang
Darwinism? If you haven't just stick around and ask Pagano.
The political propaganda statement is just an incomplete statement
about what biological evolution is. They do that on purpose. Why not
state exactly what they are against? Why pussy foot around? What
about genetic drift? Recombination is likely just as important as
mutation for generating new genetic combinations. Even bacteria can
recombine their DNA. Why leave out major factors if you are against
evolution in general? It is just a dishonest ploy and if you are
suckered by it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
This statement was put up by the ID perps. The same guys that lied
about intelligent design and ran a bogus bait and switch scam on their
own creationist support base. What kind of honest effort do you
expect from them?
Ron Okimoto
>
> As far as I know, no one has ever shown that "random mutation" can produce -
> from a primordial single-celled creature - the varieties of complex
> organisms that we observe in the world, no matter how much "natural
> selection" is applied.- Hide quoted text -
Cory Albrecht
Hark! What is that music I hear in the background?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBKBI7DOLHA>
Ernest Major
>
>"the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for
>the complexity of life"
Yes - it is an inaccurate characterization of Darwinism?
--
alias Ernest Major
VoiceOfReason
credible idea, get back to us.
Wombat
Who's the "we" these days? Your imaginary brother or the ghost of that
fraud from Stanford.
How much money did you give him anyway?
Wombat
Desertphile
wrote:
> FAQ:
> 1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
All scientists dissent from "Darwinism."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
wrote:
> "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7123f4cf-9850-4ec5...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 3, 9:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
> > infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
> > evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
> > theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
> > actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
> > the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
> > have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
> > entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
> > believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
> > statement to be in that category.
> But it's not "dissent from evolution", it's "dissent from Darwinism".
Yes, and all scientists dissent from "Darwinism."
Desertphile
wrote:
> "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:53935cde-e60a-4c0a...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 3, 10:23 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:7123f4cf-9850-4ec5...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Mar 3, 9:30 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
> >> > infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
> >> > evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
> >> > theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
> >> > actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
> >> > the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
> >> > have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
> >> > entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
> >> > believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
> >> > statement to be in that category.
> >>
> >> But it's not "dissent from evolution", it's "dissent from Darwinism".
> >
> > I was imprecise. I shall rephrase: I have seen way too many non-
> > scientific and disingenuous arguments base entirely on the opponents'
> > philosophical beliefs about what they believe Darwinism represents.
> >
> > Better?
> Is this statement an inaccurate characterization of Darwinism?
>
> "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
> complexity of life"
Yes, that is not "Darwinism."
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It doesn't matter how many scientists accept or reject natural
> selection; evolution is not scientific:
No scientist claims evolution is scientific: it's a natural
phenomena.
UC
> 1) What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
You don't 'dissent' from data, from logic, from reason, from science.
You can question the accuracy of the data and whether the truth is
being told, but this is laughable....in the extreme.
Kermit
Crap. First time I've sprayed my monitor in over a year. Just noticed
your new sig.
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> It doesn't matter how many scientists accept or reject natural
> selection;
Actually, that's correct. Natural selection is only part of the
mechanism of evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of the
mechanism by which it happens.
> evolution is not scientific:
False assertion. Evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by
the evidence.
> it is Materialism, also known
> as Atheism ideology.
No, evolution, like any other scientific theory, makes use of
methodological naturalism. The theory itself is not "Materialism",
which is a philosophic position. Neither is a scientific theory
"atheist ideology".
> This is why all Atheists are fire-breathing
> Darwinism fanatics
Not all atheists are "fire breathing Darwinism fanatics", as you already
know. Those atheists who accept evolution do so for the same reason
Christians accept evolution, ie, because it's good science.
> and "Christian" evolutionists their deceived
> lackeys (= buffoons).
Wrong again, Ray. No matter how much you'd like to believe that you
are not the buffoon here, it's still creationists who are seen that way.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 3, 12:26 pm, Kermit<unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> and "Christian" evolutionists their deceived
>>> lackeys (= buffoons).
>>
>> You keep asserting this, contrary to their claims and the evidence.
>> You also keep failing to support it with any evidence of your own.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> We recognize that all of Kermit's replies are actually meant for the
> "Christian" evolutionist;
Who is the 'we' here, Ray. All of those replies seem to be meant for
you, and you alone, Ray.
> that is, the lackeys or buffoons of Atheists
> (identified as such in my initial message).
Again, you may not like being the buffoon, but that's still what you've
become. Trying to shift that label onto reasonable persons just doesn't
fit.
DJT
John Stockwell
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7123f4cf-9850-4ec5...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The problems I have with the Scientific Dissent statement are 1. it
> > infers such skepticism should be applied uniquely to a particular
> > evolutionary theory, and 2. it conflates the meaning of evolution as a
> > theory with evolution as a natural phenomenon. In the 40 years I have
> > actively looked for it, I have found no scientific evidence against
> > the fact of evolution, and much scientific evidence for it. OTOH I
> > have seen way too many non-scientific and disingenuous arguments based
> > entirely on the opponents philosophical beliefs about what they
> > believe evolution represents. I consider this Scientific Dissent
> > statement to be in that category.
>
> But it's not "dissent from evolution", it's "dissent from Darwinism".
There isn't any such thing as "Darwinism". This is a political ploy by
the Discovery Institute to make it appear that they have some sort of
scientific movement. If even one of those scientists were to publish a
real, well-researched piece of science in a peer reviewed journal
dealing
with some apect of the modern evolutionary biologists, it would be
worth
more than a million signatures to this letter.
-John
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> It doesn't matter how many scientists accept or reject natural
> selection; evolution is not scientific: it is Materialism, also known
> as Atheism ideology. This is why all Atheists are fire-breathing
> Darwinism fanatics and "Christian" evolutionists their deceived lackeys
> (= buffoons).
And farming, ranching, fishing, and cooking are all Materialism, too, and
equally atheistic. Have you been deceived into partaking of their
fruits? If so, you had best stop eating now! And plumbing -- there is
nothing more Materialistic than plumbing. You must eschew drinking water
and toilets forthwith, to get right with God! Failure to do so will
prove that you yourself are simply a pawn of the Athist Conspiracy.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume