posted
I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:SEATTLE, February 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The 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."
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
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."
posted
What is the significance of '500' when put into context? As in the total number of doctoral scientists?
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble is that I suspect this list will be written off and ignored by evolution-only supporters, who will continue to claim the scientific community agrees that evolution is the complete account of how life came to be as it is. And of course creationists will use it to attempt to claim evolution is no more supported by science than any other theory. Both sides in this debate seem to think it is necessary to overstate their position and refuse to admit any ground to the opposing side, even if that means denying facts.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the significance of '500' when put into context? As in the total number of doctoral scientists?
Short answer: Not significant at all!
Long answer: According to NSF there are about 540,000 doctoral scientists in the US alone (in 2001)(http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05301/).
Which means that 514 is less that 0.1%, and that's using the number of doctoral scientists in the US, never mind Russia.
In other words, this isn't enough data to disprove the statement that "ally that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.". Using just this statement we'd have to say that 99.9% of scientist believe it to be true, and I'd call 99.9% virtually every one...
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a huge leap to go from "we are skeptical of Darwinian evolution" to "therefore God must have done it."
Unfortunately, there a equally huge numbers of people willing to make that leap un-critically. And you can bet this tidbit will be touted by the ID crowd for decades to come as some kind of "support" for their ideas, when it's nothing of the kind.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it is a support for their ideas, since on of the biggest clubs used against those ideas is some variation of "All scientists know that darwinian evolution is true".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Careful examination of any scientific theory should be encouraged. Did the scientists signing this know it came from the Discovery Institute, and how many of them support intelligent design as an alternate theory?
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting that the largest group of signatories were biologists. Also that many of the scientists who signed are associated with very mainstream, prestigioous scientific organizations. I was especially interested to note that some of the scientists who signed were from the Smithsonian--when the Charter of the Smithsonian Institute states that among its basic purposes is to promote evolution.
It is not likely that these scientists would have signed this statement if they felt that the theory of evolution, or of natural selection, merely required some minor tinkering.
And note that this list of signatories does not include mere lab techs, they all have PhDs.
At the very least it must be conceded that not all scientists are comfortable with evolution. Here is the proof. That is the point.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You realize that given enough funding, I could get 500 religious scholars to procliam their doubts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
It seems to me that with zero funding, you could get 500 scholars of Christianity to say say that they doubt that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate it when people attack Evolution... it makes those of us who question junk-science environmentalism look like we're the same way...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
514 scientists at prestigious, mainstream institutions say that evolution should be under serious question in the scientific community, and that it is a problem that it is not. They are calling for that to be corrected.
If it were just one or two loners calling for this, they might be dismissed as oddballs. But 514 ought to be taken seriously.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Actually, it is a support for their ideas, since on of the biggest clubs used against those ideas is some variation of "All scientists know that darwinian evolution is true".
Hmmm. Well, I disagree with this assertion on several levels. First, "All scientists know that Darwinian evolution is true", while it might be a common (if over-stated) retort, it's by no means the strongest arguement against ID claims. Second, even if the statement is false, a lack of support for one idea does not constitute support of a competing idea. It's entirely possible that they are both wrong. Finally, I don't know anyone who has made the claim that "all scientist know" anything. I recall phrases like "scientist overwhelmingly support" and "Most credible scientists believe", and while they also might not be correct, they are far from blanket assertions that "All scientists" agree about anything. I've seen the "all scientists" claim much more often as a straw man from the other side. "You people are always claiming that all scientists . . ."
And I agree that all scientists should maintain a healthy degree of skepticism about most things. However, one can maintain that a given theory probably doesn't explain everything but still believe that it explains many other things.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:when the Charter of the Smithsonian Institute states that among its basic purposes is to promote evolution.
Virtually all scientists would agree that evolution occurs without any promotion on the part of the Smithsonian Institute.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to see how accurately the Discovery Institute has pursued its "wedge strategy," which it outlined back in the 1990s.
quote:The reintroduction of theism into public discourse in Phase III is set to begin sometime in 2003. But before Phase III can begin, Phase II must have already dethroned naturalism through a vigorous public relations and opinion-shaping campaign. This puts the cart before the horse. When will there be time to conduct careful research? Science is supposed to be a vehicle that provides the reason to believe that intelligent design is a better explanation than naturalism. To think that a scientist must reach his or her conclusions within a five-year span of time, running concurrent with a public relations campaign, is hardly good scientific practice. Not only will it put unnecessary pressure on the scientist to reach conclusions before the data warrants it, but it ignores the very nature of the scientific enterprise.
Of course, sometimes they slip up and let their true intentions become known:
quote:[In the year 2000], at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
Well then. Perhaps, rather than sending out petitions and staging "debates," the Discovery Institute could assist with the development and funding of some serious research. After all, if they're right, they should be willing to make a falsifiable claim and attempt to falsify it rigorously. Evolutionary theorists have done this and then some, and continue to do so today. The burden of proof, so to speak, is hardly on evolutionary theory.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Back in 2003, 200 scientists named Steve -- prompted by an article just like this -- came forward in support of evolution. The Steve-o-Meter currently stands just shy of 800.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the largest group of signatories were non-biologists. Though I will concede the single largest discipline represented are biologists. -Bok
Technically the largest group of signatories were "human."
But in the context Ron used it, the largest group was "biologist." Inferring that Ron meant only two groups - one specific and one residual - isn't the most natural way to read that sentence.
posted
Maybe we should all just step back and realize that in the long run it doesn't matter one way or another. Whether I evolved from an ape or was designed by God or clay molded by aliens will not affect how I live my life in the least. I mean its all great to philosiphise about some of this stuff but it upsets me when people get worked up about it.(not saying here neccessarily just in general) Just go out and live your life. Get married and have kids or don't and party down and go whitewater rafting but we only get a limited number of years on this earth. Fight the battles that are worth fighting.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that matter, why do I care what people with phDs in physics have to say about evolution? Not to mention things like aerospace engineering and aviation, mathematics, and computer science. Heck, why are those guys even included in a list of "scientists" Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, the issue being discussed here is not whether or not evolution is true, it is whether or not mutation combined with natural selection is the cause of evolution.
When Darwin published his theory of evolution and natural selection, there was little controversy about evolution. Many scientists prior to Darwin noticed and stated that evolution occurs. What was controversial at the time was that natural selection combined with random mutation was the driving force of evolution. Today, most scientists believe that enough evidence has been presented in favour of natural selection and random mutations as a means for evolution, but there still are some that disagree. These are the 500 people you see on that list. They are under no circumstances stating that they do not believe in evolution, instead they are stating that they believe that natural selection and random mutation aren't what causes evolution. This kind of skepticism is always welcome in the scientific community. If people always believed fully in the same things, new ideas would never emmerge!
However, in this case, I would say that these people are being a little too skeptical, as there is a plethora of evidence to support natural selection as the primary cause of evolution.
So once again, just to make sure that the discussion doesn;t get taken in the wrong direction, most of these scientists fully agree that evolution has and is occuring in the world, they just think that natural selection isn't the best explanation for how it is occuring.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, true, but my delineation was meant to point out a separate point. If you care especially for the biologists, why add in the others? Then you have over 100 biologists. Adding physicists, and chemists (depending on their focus), and possibly others is, to me, like changing the margins on a paper from 1" to 1.25" to meet a page requirement. If you care about them equally, don't point out the fact that biologists are #1 (because then you are at least insinuating a qualitative difference)... Of course in that case, you do leave yourself open to the fact many of the people, while smart people, don't necessarily have any deep knowledge on the issue at hand.
The "humans" designation, while valid doesn't add any sort value. My delineation does.
posted
Yes it proves that those of us that believe in evolution are wrong that 100% of scientists accept it is 100% true. Those that argue and yell that belief should be locked in a room with those that think the Earth is only 5,000 years old. Get rid of both groups, and then maybe we can have an educated discussion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
Why is this even news?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another notable thing missing is why these people doubt as much they do. Doubting something because you have a religious belief is no reason at all to consider a scientific theory suspect, for instance.
So we have a vague statement that doesn't even include a doubt in the existence of evolution itself and might be signed for many non-scientific reasons, which has only been signed by an insignificantly tiny minority of the scientific community, and even then mostly people from disciplines whose study involves no particular knowledge of evolutionary biology.
Yeah, I'm sure the scientific consensus on evolution is in doubt.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
There are 97 doctoral students. It's a 5-year program. Assuming equal distribution, the school graduates about 20 per year. That means it would take 25 years to graduate about 500 people.
You're larger point is, of course, still valid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here at the medium-sized university where I work, there are 97 doctoral students listed for biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering is one of at least a dozen doctoral programs in the sciences at the university. A doctorate usually takes five years. So we can probably estimate that we put out more doctoral scientists at just this university in just 5 years than are listed in the article.
There are 97 doctoral students. It's a 5-year program. Assuming equal distribution, the school graduates about 20 per year. That means it would take 25 years to graduate about 500 people.
You're larger point is, of course, still valid.
Math really isn't my forte but I was thinking that if we have 97 in one program and we have at least 12 programs I could estimate 50ish per program, so 600 would be a reasonable guess for five years.
I may still be getting that wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, this is hardly filled entirely with people from "prestigious, mainstream institutions," unless you're meaning to include those from what I'm sure is a most auspicious community college, the Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
[ [/b]
[/QUOTE]
A similar story in fact happenned during Darwin's lifetime, a publication "100 scientists against Darwin". He responded to the petition amused, to paraphrase Darwin:
"if the assertions of these scientists were valid, it would require only one of them"
Point being: Stupidity in larger numbers equals more stupidity, and what better way than to seek solidarity of the misinformed? We see it all the time, and among all large groups, (yes, even the "Darwinists" can be emensely stupid sometimes).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that it isn't a large number; it is a tiny number. It only sounds like a large number if you are ignorant of the facts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using bad science to demand bad science be taught is not exceptable in a good scientific community.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see where any of those scientists demanded that bad science be taught, or, in fact, that anything be taught. All I see is an encouragement to examine Darwinism more closely, which is basically an encouragement that good science be practiced.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought this might be interesting to those people who assume that all scientists believe evolution is true.
quote:A similar story in fact happened during Darwin's lifetime, a publication "100 scientists against Darwin". He responded to the petition amused, to paraphrase Darwin:
"if the assertions of these scientists were valid, it would require only one of them"
Actually, this was Einstein. And the pamphlet '100 scientists against Einstein' was published by the Nazis, who disapproved of 'Jewish science'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it were an encouragement that good science be practiced, they wouldn't be singling out a particular theory. The statement implies that such careful examination has not occurred in this case, which is, to put it mildly, false.
I think this is a fairly obvious example of the Discovery Institute pursuing its stated goal of discrediting evolutionary theory.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the point is that a large percentage of scientists consider evolution to be problematic, although that might be the case. The point of this list is that it is possible to be an expert scientist yet also find evolution problematic. While one or two scientists could be an anomoly, it is difficult to say 500 are.
Thus this would refute any argument that "If you don't believe in evolution as an explanation for life as we know it, you must lack an understanding of science."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see where any of those scientists demanded that bad science be taught, or, in fact, that anything be taught. All I see is an encouragement to examine Darwinism more closely, which is basically an encouragement that good science be practiced.
I see the same thing. I also think that Ron's title is intentionally misleading.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap: try rereading the statement. Point me to where they are saying evolution is [edit: silly fingers getting ahead of brain. problematic].
Keep in mind that modern evolutionary theory, while related to Darwin's theories, is emphatically not the same thing, and that scientists are generally supposed to be skeptical about everything.
If there weren't obviously an agenda behind it, based on the actual wording of the statement it should be possible to get every single scientist out there to sign it -- that they've only gotten 500 speaks about how dubious many scientists are of their claims, not how meaningful the statement is.
Not to mention the other points brought up in this thread: many of these people are in fields not involving evolution at all, and that it says not one whit about the scientific validity of evolution even if a well-educated biologist says he believes evolution is almost certainly false, if he says it because of religious faith.
quote:I think this is a fairly obvious example of the Discovery Institute pursuing its stated goal of discrediting evolutionary theory.
If so, they did a pretty bad job of it.
On the contrary, their tactics have been effective to a disturbing degree. This thread is just a relatively minor example of that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I don't think the point is that a large percentage of scientists consider evolution to be problematic, although that might be the case. The point of this list is that it is possible to be an expert scientist yet also find evolution problematic. While one or two scientists could be an anomoly, it is difficult to say 500 are.
Thus this would refute any argument that "If you don't believe in evolution as an explanation for life as we know it, you must lack an understanding of science."
Not a large percentage! A miniscule percentage. If this weren't an article designed to mislead, the headline would read, "We can only find a tiny number of scientists that doubt evolution".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there weren't obviously an agenda behind it, based on the actual wording of the statement it should be possible to get every single scientist out there to sign it...
Exactly. If you look at the words of this and the Steve statement, they don't contradict each other at all. Someone could easily sign both and be perfectly consistent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep...but people will automatically use this petition to refute evolution, much as Ron has tried to here, even though the petition itself doesn't state anything like that.
As a matter of fact, most biologists I know (remember I worked for USAMRIID so I knew a lot of them) would consider their life's work looking at and examining darwininan evolution, and would be in favor of studying it closely......that is the only way we can unravel it's secrects.
Just because someone signed this petition doesn't mean they think the current theory of evolution is wrong, or mean they support ID as a viable scientific theory.
Even though people/groups with an agenda might like us to believe otherwise....
posted
No, you are missing the point, Kwea. Forever proponents of evolution have been making claims like "all scientists believe in evolution" and "no reputable scientist doubts evolution." This statement that 514 reputable scientists at prestigious, mainline institutions signed, proves that such claims cannot be made. The only thing this proves--and it unquestionably does--is that there are many scientists uncomfortable with evolution and with the adequacy of natural selection to explain evolution, and they are calling for the whole scientific establshment to address this properly.
Cannot evolutionist proponents concede anything--even something so obvious and simple as this?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Forever proponents of evolution have been making claims like "all scientists believe in evolution" and "no reputable scientist doubts evolution."
Is dubious. People may have used it informally, but using this petition as a refutation of the statement is such a minor technicality, it evokes in me the term "rules lawyer".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That's the best news I've heard all day.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
