100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism

Richard

Muse
Richard
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
960
Oh my GOD(s) I was wrong all the time.. look at all these scientists.

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism

Monday, September 24, 2001
Contact: Mark Edwards 206.292.0401 x107 / medwards@discovery.org

SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just picking one of the 100 more or less at random, I Googled John Baumgardner of Los Alamos. Makes for some really fun reading. This guy is a hoot!
 
Richard said:
Oh my GOD(s) I was wrong all the time.. look at all these scientists.

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am 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."
Click to expand...

The deception is that the second part of that statement is reasonable, and even advocated by every scientist I know (though most would use 'Evolutionary' rather than 'Darwinian'). Careful examination of any theory and its evidence should be encouraged.

But they make it sound like that second part is contingent on the first part. It's really a non sequetir.

It's like the infamous advertisements with a quote on one half of the page, and a picture of someone famous on the other. If you read the fine print, it turns out that the quote is from someone in their PR department, and the picture is actually a separately paid for advertisement. But the placement and composition makes it look like the famous person is the one being quoted.

Despicable.
 
I googled Jed Macosko, and found that he is a reasercher in the mechanisms of cell biology.

But nowhere on his home page does he cite a single scientific criticism of Darwinism (whatever that is), so he lacks the moxie to state this belief on his home page at his university. I wonder why?

Also :Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia I googled him, none of his research is on the scientific criticism of Darwin. I wonder why?

So then i went to the Discovery Institue to see what the scientific controversy was:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
Click to expand...
very lame that is all i can say, no science, just some quotes, false arguments and the usual drivel.

They have a recruitment drive as well
If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you 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," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JamesM said:
I struggle to reconcile how someone as smart as Schaefer manages to be such a dumbass.
Click to expand...

I Googled Schaefer and the claim made by DI is misleading. On http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/, there is an intro that some mag or other "speculated that he had been nominated five times for the Nobel Prize". It's strictly speculation although this guy is pretty well decorated. Reading his bio, I didn't see anything that would qualify him for a Nobel. Some pretty good theoretical computation discoveries but nothing revolutionary enough to be considered Nobel-worthy.

However, the guy is a computational chemist (and a christian apologist) but we are now in an era where science has become so broad that some scientists really don't carry much weight in areas of study other than their own specialty. For example, I am a chemist, a trace organic analytical chemist. I have absolutely nothing in common with Schaefer although he is a chemist too and we couldn't talk shop on our best day other than to compare the pranks we pulled in labs.

The plausibility of macroevolution is squarely on the shoulders of biologists who touch upon the specific subfields that are specifically relevant to the variability of genetic material, adaptation, and so on. Of course, other disciplines constantly generate corroborative findings for evolution but only biologists can illuminate the mechanisms of evolution. My word for or against the plausibility of evolution really carries no import because I am do not practice in that arena and I really don't have the time to make it an avocation.

So, 100 scientists? Bid deal. It's not that they are scientists, it's how much they know about the topic at hand that would make the difference.
 
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

I am skeptical that anyone that specializes in evolutionary theory makes that claim, since mechanisms other than random mutation are part of the theory.

That's pretty dishonest on the part of the Discovery Institute.

Linda
 
fls said:
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

I am skeptical that anyone that specializes in evolutionary theory makes that claim, since mechanisms other than random mutation are part of the theory.

That's pretty dishonest on the part of the Discovery Institute.

Linda
Click to expand...

Interestingly that's exactly what Kleinman says. He is a creationist biologist who can mainly be found in the "Annoying creationists" thread here. Somehow creationists just can't seem to grasp the fact that there is more to evolution than this.

Richard said:
Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")
Click to expand...

There isn't any evidence that doesn't support Darwin, so this is exactly what they do. All media thrives on controversy, so if there was any negative eveidence we can be pretty sure they'd be shouting it out for all to hear. The fact that they don't is awfully telling.

It's also quite interesting to note how many of those scientists have nothing to do with biology, or even science in some cases. Call me picky, but if I wanted an expert opinion on biology I wouldn't ask quantum chemists, physicists and theologians.
 
Slimething said:
I Googled Schaefer and the claim made by DI is misleading.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my estimation of him being smart is based on my knowledge of his computational work, not the alleged Nobel business. I'm pretty sure the Nobel committee don't disclose who they consider for the prizes.
 
Cuddles said:
Interestingly that's exactly what Kleinman says. He is a creationist biologist who can mainly be found in the "Annoying creationists" thread here. Somehow creationists just can't seem to grasp the fact that there is more to evolution than this.
Click to expand...
All arguments shall be against straw people.

~~ Paul
 
I googled William S. Harris, UMKC, and I looked him up through the alumni page. I can't find evidence of him that isn't wrapped up in this claim.

I am skeptical of claims for the ability of William S. Harris to exist as represented.
 
:boggled: Idiots like these 100 are the reason that the bulk of the world's populace is ignorant of basic facts of life. No wonder our schools are full of borderline basket-weavers who barely know enough to put food into their mouths and not straight up their poop-shoots. I weep for the future.
 
JamesM said:
Yeah, my estimation of him being smart is based on my knowledge of his computational work, not the alleged Nobel business. I'm pretty sure the Nobel committee don't disclose who they consider for the prizes.
Click to expand...

IIRC, they don't reveal, but it always leaks. Apparently a lot of people are eligble to nomination somebody, and there are always huge numbers of silly nominations.
 
Anybody care to estimate how many scientists there are in the world?

I think 100 is a very small minority.
 
GodMark2 said:
The deception is that the second part of that statement is reasonable, and even advocated by every scientist I know (though most would use 'Evolutionary' rather than 'Darwinian'). Careful examination of any theory and its evidence should be encouraged.

But they make it sound like that second part is contingent on the first part. It's really a non sequetir.

It's like the infamous advertisements with a quote on one half of the page, and a picture of someone famous on the other. If you read the fine print, it turns out that the quote is from someone in their PR department, and the picture is actually a separately paid for advertisement. But the placement and composition makes it look like the famous person is the one being quoted.

Despicable.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, 'Careful examination of the evidence' is a perfectly good sequitor from being 'skeptical'. The problem is that the words mean something different to a skeptic than they mean to the general public.
 
casebro said:
Anybody care to estimate how many scientists there are in the world?

I think 100 is a very small minority.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. Project Steve has more than 700 signitures from scientists who believe evolution should be taught. And they're slightly more selective. All of them have the first name Steve or some variety of Steven or Stephen.
***
ETA:
Oops. Didn't notice KingMerv00 beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
hopfen said:
Just picking one of the 100 more or less at random, I Googled John Baumgardner of Los Alamos. Makes for some really fun reading. This guy is a hoot!
Click to expand...

It boggles my mind how someone like this can be a respected geophysicist and yet still be a nutcase. I googled his name too and while most of the links were by his creation buddies there were a few others. One good one was this one where another geologist asks him some very pointed questions. My favorite line was this (The part in italics are the other guys questions/statements):

17. John, you’re a great geophysicist and Terra was a revolution in code-writing, but you’re not a geologist and perhaps a few courses in geology might help.

Baum: I’m not a geologist, but I see a lot in the southwest. let’s get back to the flood. Remember it’s going to be very fast movement. The oceans are going to open quickly with lots of eruptions and steam.

18. John, don’t you have a heat problem?

Baum: Yes, we know that.

19. John, it’s not a small heat problem.

Baum: Yes, we recognize that we have cooling problems to solve. Specifically how are we going to cool all that oceanic lithosphere.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom