Dissent From Darwin

NotReady · #1 03-23-2007, 05:04 AM

This

and

this

provide a list (click on the link in the second link for the list) of many Ph.D's and others who reputedly question Darwinism.

I've never seen this and have no idea if it's legitimate or even very significant. I've never been much interested in truth by poll.

I'm mostly posting it to ask if anyone knows about this and has any information on it.

Phil153 · #2 03-23-2007, 06:08 AM

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.

yukoncpa · #3 03-23-2007, 06:23 AM

NotReady, from your second link, I looked up what wiki had to say:

[ QUOTE ]
An internal CSC report dating from 1998 which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID was leaked to the public in 1999. This plan became known as the Wedge strategy. The 'Wedge Document' explained the CSC's key aims are "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

[/ QUOTE ]

wiki

chezlaw · #4 03-23-2007, 07:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady, from your second link, I looked up what wiki had to say:

[ QUOTE ]
An internal CSC report dating from 1998 which outlined a five-year plan for fostering broader acceptance of ID was leaked to the public in 1999. This plan became known as the Wedge strategy. The 'Wedge Document' explained the CSC's key aims are "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

[/ QUOTE ]

wiki

[/ QUOTE ]
good one. It had seemed obvious that the ID movement was political and fairly well organsed. Nice to see confirmation.

chez

NotReady · #5 03-23-2007, 10:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I also agree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do? You really are skeptical of that statement but think one common ancestor is a virtual certainty?

If someone presented me with the following statement to sign:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of intelligent design to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design theory should be encouraged.

I wouldn't sign.

NotReady · #6 03-23-2007, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It had seemed obvious that the ID movement was political and fairly well organsed. Nice to see confirmation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised at the evil motives of the nasties who drew up the statement and obtained the list. But how does that affect the fact of the signatures?

chezlaw · #7 03-23-2007, 10:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It had seemed obvious that the ID movement was political and fairly well organsed. Nice to see confirmation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not surprised at the evil motives of the nasties who drew up the statement and obtained the list. But how does that affect the fact of the signatures?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry didn't get that far. I agree anyway, Darwinism should definitely be questioned, we don't think him infallable.

chez

luckyme · #8 03-23-2007, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't read the links, just responding to this statement.

I'm way past the skeptical, I think it is false that random mutation and natural selection account for....

Yet, I think the theory of evolution backs up the fact of evolution more robustly than almost any theory science works with in any field.

Unfortunately, the statement doesn't address the theory.

carry on, luckyme

bluesbassman · #9 03-23-2007, 10:36 AM

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

jogger08152 · #10 03-23-2007, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also agree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do? You really are skeptical of that statement but think one common ancestor is a virtual certainty?

If someone presented me with the following statement to sign:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of intelligent design to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design theory should be encouraged.

I wouldn't sign.

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

Incidentally, how would ID be tested?