Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc. question Darwinism - TheologyWeb Campus

PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism I posted something similar a while back.

Stand by! Flame suit on!

Check!

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Quote: : (Post 1855236) I posted something similar a while back.

Stand by! Flame suit on!

Check!

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism It is rather sobering that the combined result of the few hundred "doubters" and the millions spent by the Discovery institute is fewer research papers than I will produce as a result of my PhD and my £14,500 p/a grant.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism 26 signers, none of whom are named Steve, compared to the 787 Steves (PhDs and MDs) who subscribe to the following statement Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.

Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence.

It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

And as I say, these are only those named STEVE (or variations thereof).

The list is HERE Makes the Discovery.org list look laughably pathetic :lmbo:

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Yes that's great and I'm sure we could find just as many - or near enough- that doubt the germ theory of disease. It's not about who doubts but the reasons for the doubts and the evidence they can present to support it. So TLM are you just posting this for fun or do you want to discuss it?

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Uhh...Minn, that list is 17 pages long.

There are a lot more than 26 signers.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Quote: : (Post 1855376) Uhh...Minn, that list is 17 pages long.

There are a lot more than 26 signers.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism The Discovery Institute's 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.” A few notes.

:teeth: First of all, "skeptical" does not mean deny.

So, while these people may be skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, it doesn't mean they have discarded the idea, although the DI would love you to believe otherwise. Then one has to look at what they are skeptical about.

Is it evolution itself?

Nope. By signing on, these scientists and others are simply saying they are skeptical of the mechanisms of evolution. And, of course, the obviously bone they throw to the scientist who isn't quite sure he wants to sign on, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" is meant to win them over by showing how open and fair minded the DI is.

Yeah, Right!! Who would disagree that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, or any reasonable theory for that matter , should be encouraged"?

They might just as well have thrown in, "Careful driving should be encouraged" for all the relavance either has. Then we have this: Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series.

At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.” source Now, one may certainly wonder about the “ virtually every scientist " part, and just what should qualify as " virtually every.

" Would 80 % qualify?

How about 90%? Would 95% of the scientists qualify as "virtually every"?

Well, just taking the "Steve" statistics, we find out that for every scientist who is skeptical about the mechanism of evolution there are 196 who are not skeptical.

Doing the simple math, this comes out to 99.48 percent of the scientists who accept evolution.

AND DON'T FORGET, It's almost a certainty that many of those who are skeptical of the mechanisms of evolution, still accept evolution as the creative force of change.

The DI is comparing apples and oranges and is hoping you don't notice.

:no: But then, such tactics are the norm rather than the exception among creationist organizations.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Most scientists have a inadequate background with which to properly judge the theory of evolution.

Sadly, this is true even of many biologists.

When a scientist of adequate background does disagree with the theory of evolution, that disagreement usually involves a coherent set of testable arguments by the objector and is more likely to be found in the requisite literature than in a public petition. -Neil

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism From the Institute's latest article (Quote: d by Jorge in his OP in Natural Science 301). "Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," says dissent list signer Dr.

Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine. source And as we all know, when it comes to addressing the validity of the theories of evolution no one is better qualified than your local professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics.

:lol: Oh yes. It also helps one's understanding of species diversity if you're one of "New York's best doctors." :lmbo: Hey all you ID lovers ou there, are you really the dense idiots the Discovery Institute is assuming you are?

No need to reply.

:wink:

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Oddly, in retrospect, one of the only scientists in the ID camp to really mount a challenge to evolution was Michael Behe.

He doubted evolution, came up with a particular formulation of that doubt, "irreducible complexity,” and worked up a set of examples which he thought supported his case.

True, he argued largely in colloquial media, but though unorthodox, that is not entirely unheard of even in mainstream science. Where he went wrong, IMHO, was in his response.

Many of the critics who attacked his theories did so on sound scientific grounds.

Behe should have responded by either working up stronger examples, modifying his theory, or abandoning it all together.

In particular, he should have turned to novel laboratory and field investigation to look for new results which supported or refuted his theories.

Instead, he appears to have largely retreated largely from the scientific portion of the fight into discussion alone.

Again, this is not unknown even in mainstream science, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that it does nothing to support his thesis. I firmly believe that evolution is the best current explanation for the diversity of life.

However, I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

But no one is going to convince me until they do the scientific heavy-lifting to prove an alternate case.

Perhaps a few of the hundred scientists on the list are doing this, but I’d wager that most are doing no primary research at all regarding alternate theories to evolution.

If (and it’s a big, big if) evolution is ever supplanted, it’s likely that the champion of the replacement theory will come from within the ranks of mainstream science, and most likely from some scientist (or graduate student) schooled in and working within the framework of the current theory of evolution. -Neil

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism I would hope that no matter WHAT'S being examined, be it evolution or something else, scientists would continue to maintain a healthy level of academic skepticism.

When a scientific theory's taken for granted and accepted without question, we've got a problem.

It isn't the nature of scientific research, or its aim, to set anything down in stone, absolutely immoveable.

That's what I see individual people doing with evolution, or specifically, Darwinism.

I have no problem with evolution, I just think it should be opened to questioning.

Same with Darwinism specifically -- accepting one man's theory as absolutely correct, which I've known people to do, is a mistake.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Minn, Minn, Minn.

You do realize that the collection of names for that "Project Steve" thing has been going on, oh, maybe 196 times longer than the collecting of names of scientists who question Darwinism, right? No, of course you don't realize that.

Your mental faculties simply aren't evolved (*smirk*) enough to think that complexly.

More's the pity.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Quote: : Laughing Man (Post 1856578) Minn, Minn, Minn.

You do realize that the collection of names for that "Project Steve" thing has been going on, oh, maybe 196 times longer than the collecting of names of scientists who question Darwinism, right? No, of course you don't realize that.

Your mental faculties simply aren't evolved (*smirk*) enough to think that complexly.

More's the pity.

Re: PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc.

Question Darwinism Silly Laughing Man, don't you realize that no true Scotsman--er, I mean scientist would ever question evolution?




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet