Dissent From Darwin

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Are you saying that if you are sceptical about a theory, you shouldn't want to rigorously test it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just tracking the language of the Darwin Dissent. The operative language is the first sentence.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the already tiny minority who signed agreement with the statement aren't research scientists and/or biologists, but are rather physicians and (alas) engineers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested to see their specialties and positions also.

Thanks for the info on Project Steve.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the statement they agree with:

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.

I also agree with this statement. And I think the evidence for single cell -> human evolution is absolutely overwhelming.

The trouble is in the wording. Skeptical can mean something very different to a scientist. Note that they didn't ask an opinion on whether evolution by natural selection was unlikely, impossible or implausible. Why didn't they ask that question instead, and see how many people agree? It seems there's no such thing as straightforward honesty when doing God's Work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, disagreeing with the method by which evolution is believed to happen isn't the same as disagreeing with evolution itself. Evolution doesn't seem nearly as random as "random mutations"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is an old propaganda tactic by the Discovery Institute so they can claim ID has scientific "credibility." It's the best they can do given that ID does not even propose a scientific theory, has no body of peer-reviewed publications, nor enjoy any support whatsoever in the mainstream scientific community.

Many of the already tiny minority who signed agreement with the statement aren't research scientists and/or biologists, but are rather physicians and (alas) engineers, etc.

In response, the National Center for Science Education has started a parody of this list, called "Project Steve." It includes PhDs who signed a statement supporting evolution, but limited to scientists whose first name is a variant of "Stephen." I'm not sure which list currently has more signatures:

Project Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, we should not be considering physicians to be scientists. The focus of the discipline is ENTIRELY different from what we tradtionally consider hard science to be. A large minority of physicians are more than happy to take homeopathy and other alternative therapies as effective without so much as a single trial showing their efficacy. There are probably plenty of physicians who are also scientists, but it is FAR from a requirement. I can flat out guarantee you, right now, that I could find 25 people (at the very least) in my class that believe in ghosts, UFOs, horoscopes, that hot water freezes faster, that stepping on a crack negatively impacts maternal health, and so on. Medical school selects for certain traits and skills, and ingrains certain others, but it does a terrible job of selecting for incredulity, impartiality and skepticism.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested to see their specialties and positions also.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to the PDF
of the document.

Here's a few of the names listed:

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University
Aaron J. Miller Ph.D. Physics Stanford University
Mark Pritt Ph.D. Mathematics Yale University
Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK)
Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University
Robert Kaita Ph.D. Nuclear Physics Rutgers University
Richard Kinch Ph.D. Computer Science Cornell University
James G. Bentsen Ph.D. Chemistry M.I.T.
Mark C. Porter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering MIT
Cris Eberle Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Purdue University
Richard Hassing Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Cornell University

I think there's supposed to be 700 total. I didn't do a headcount but it looks like well over half have Ph.D.'s, most in some branch of hard science.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, disagreeing with the method by which evolution is believed to happen isn't the same as disagreeing with evolution itself. Evolution doesn't seem nearly as random as "random mutations"


[/ QUOTE ]

Take it for what it's worth. What is curious to me is trying to imagine what a Ph.D. in Molecular Biophysics from the University of London is thinking when he signs a statement like this. I don't see how the motivations of the group presenting the document have any bearing on that question.

[bluesbassman]

Here is a link to the Steve-o-Meter, which currently shows a count of 793. At least at one point, about 2/3 have a PhD in the biological sciences:

Steve-o-Meter

And here is the Project Steve FAQ:
Project Steve FAQ

Finally, here is the actual list showing the positions and credentials of the Steves:
List of Steves

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested to see their specialties and positions also.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a link to the PDF
of the document.

Here's a few of the names listed:

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
John Bloom Ph.D. Physics Cornell University
Aaron J. Miller Ph.D. Physics Stanford University
Mark Pritt Ph.D. Mathematics Yale University
Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK)
Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University
Robert Kaita Ph.D. Nuclear Physics Rutgers University
Richard Kinch Ph.D. Computer Science Cornell University
James G. Bentsen Ph.D. Chemistry M.I.T.
Mark C. Porter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering MIT
Cris Eberle Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering Purdue University
Richard Hassing Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Cornell University

I think there's supposed to be 700 total. I didn't do a headcount but it looks like well over half have Ph.D.'s, most in some branch of hard science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw some of those. It's pretty light on biologists is my point. It should put up a red flag in your head that it's mostly physicists and chemists arguing against this.
It'd be like me (a biologist Ph.D.) disagreeing with some major theory of advanced physics. I just don't have the knowledge to make a well-informed decision in many cases (and I certainly wouldn't be deluded, arrogant, and brash enough to sign my name to something, something that I have no expertise in, that tries to undermine the foundation of another science - I really am amazed by these people).
From the smart people I know that are deniers they often misunderstand the theory. Their logic is often fine but the problem is from the starting point of that chain of reasoning. Invariably, they either have large gaps, or have some errors, in their knowledge of evolutionary theory.

[PairTheBoard]

I've maintained for some time the intuition that Random Mutation and Natural Selection were insufficient to account for the speed of evolution. I say "intuition" because I'm no expert on the field. But I've thought that science had some suprises in store for it as far as the mechanisms of evolution go. My feeling is that something else it at work that tends to "direct" the process. Maybe this "direction" is like a catalyst directing a chemical reaction. Or maybe it even involves intelligence. After all, we know intelligence has evolved. Why isn't it possible that evolving intelligence somehow plays a role in directing its own evolution? Do we really understand all aspects of intelligence that well?

When I first brought up these ideas on this Forum some time back I was immediately accused of promoting Intelligent Design. Of course I was not doing any such thing. The speculations I'm making involve only natural processes. Jumping to the conclusion that what I was saying had anything to do with Intelligent Design was a mistake. It looks like the people with this "Wedge" strategy are counting on the general public making the same kind of mistake.

I'm happy to see there are apparently qualified people whose skepticism about the sufficiency of Neo-Darwinian mechanisms for evolution support some of my intuition. I was also happy to see this Link provided by John21 in This Post where he discusses the work of Lynn Margulis who stunned the Evolution community with her endosymbiotic experimental observations. This is exactly the kind of "suprise" I expected. I suspect we would see many more if we could live long enough.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw some of those. It's pretty light on biologists is my point. It should put up a red flag in your head that it's mostly physicists and chemists arguing against this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting you should say this. Lynn Margulis makes the same complaint about those working in the field of Evolution and the most vocal "expert" proponents of Neo-Darwinism. That they are weak on biology and its chemistry. Link to Interview with Lynn Margulis

PairTheBoard