The CSC recently announced that its list of science PhD’s who do not buy into the extraordinary claims of evolution has grown to over 500, and now has a home at www.dissentfromdarwin.org. 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.
Now that’s a statment I could sign up with, if I had pursued a PhD. Sigh. Maybe I’ll get one in ministry after my M. Div. Here’s one paragraph from the announcement I particularly like:
Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."
Oh Seeker…I think this does well enough to disprove this nonsense.
I'm not following you. Are you saying that because some of the signers are Christians, that this discounts their scientific credentials?
One thing that I hope any academic could agree on is the dichotomy between faith-based arguments and empirically based arguments. Aren't there people secure enough in their faith to know that both are possible within the same mind?
So my biases can be up front…while I believe in Int. design…it is a faith-based doctrine, and not…NOT credible science. I'm fine with the distinction.
You wouldn't go to a podiatrist to get an update on your teeth Seeker, so you'll excuse me if I take issue with a list of 500 scientists who study issues like poultry farming. Or economics.
I think the reality is that most of the signers on that document never believed in evolution. Most are evangelical Christians who have always believed in ID, or Creationism, or both since they're the same thing.
Furthermore, if you're going to claim that the tide is turning against evolution, maybe you could at least acknowledge that another group of scientists was able to put together a list of 700 scientists all named Steve that agree with evolution.
So help me understand. You are saying that this list means nothing because:
– anyone who is a Christian must be discounted, even if they have a relevant PhD
– anyone who does not have a relevant PhD carries no weight in this discussion (and which fields do you think are not relevant?)
Correct?
And I don't know if the tide is turning at all, but there is valid dissent. I think that's the claim.
For the record, here's the first three pages of fields of study I glean from the PDF list:
chemistry
dendrology
embryology
genetics
molecular biology
computational quantum chemistry
biochemistry and molecular biology
biolgoy
bacteriology
biology
astrophysics
mathematics
medicine
geophysics
mathematics
genetics
biology
microbiology
entomology
biochemistry
microbiology
geology
phsychiatry and biobehavioral sciences
molecular and cellular biology
physics and astronomy
mathematical physics
biology
chemistry
physics and astronomy
cell biology, neurobiology and anatomy
medicine
biochemistry
computer science
microbiology
physics
anthropology
computational quantum chemistry
biolgiy
geophysics
chemistry
philosophy
kniesiology
physics
chemicsty
molecular and cell biology
electrical engineering
mathematics
neurological surgery
thermodynamics
mechanical engineering
medicine
engineering
agronomy
meteriology
biology
chemistry
mechanical engineering
chemistry
geophysics
p[hysics
statistics
physical biochemistry
nuclear engineering
physiology
areospace engineering
mechanical engineering
medicine
history and philosophy of science
biochemistry
physics
natural scineces
nuclear chemistry
computer science
chemical engienering
surgery
compter engeineering
chemistry and biochemistry
paleoantrhopology…
Seeker,
I did not say that being a Christian automatically prevented a scientist from taking a position. I said that it is QUITE possible that Christians who previously believed in ID/Creationism became chemists and kept on believing in ID/Creationism. Which means they didn't change their minds, because they had long ago decided that they believed in ID/Creationism.
But again, what does a mathematics PhD have to say about evolution? Isn't his understanding of the evidence no difference than yours or mine? His or her PhD is in a science totally unrelated to evolution. I don't think that's overwhelming evidence of a changing tide.
Finally, how do you respond to the fact that 700 scientists named STEVE back evolution? Doesn't the overwhelming opinion of numerous learned scholars make you think, even for a minute, that you might be wrong?
Actually, I think mathematics is part of one of the most important objections to evolution – the statistical impossibility of it. But I agree, it may not be as directly related as the physical and life sciences.
Again, I think that most scientists probably believe in evolution. Evolution has that in its favor. But this list is merely proof that people with valid credentials (and as you point out, some of them are at best marginally related) dissent. The tide isn't turning much at all (yet).
I think that this growing number proves, NOT that a majority of scientists have doubts, but that there is SIGNIFICANT dissent in the scientific community, which evolutionists have said does not exist.
Of course, I might be wrong. Perhaps most of these people have religious, not scientific motivation. But the same can be said for the other side – how many, based on their belief system, discount ID, and avoid significant data that contradicts evolution due to their a priori belief system? Should we discount the members of the Steve list if they are atheists because they might have ulterior motives?
The growing number of public dissenters may mean nothing, but it may instead mean that the current scientific orthodoxy (evolution), which works hard to suppress dissent, is wrong. This suppression, as seen in punishing people who even consider ID as having something to say, is also evidence that science has a problem, at least with open mindedness, and at worst, protecting an idea that is may not be true.
Evolution is an idea that people have so much of their careers and personal beliefs invested in, that challenges to it are also challenges to their lifetime of committment and belief. These are strong motivators to make people support evolution for reasons other than science. This can't be discounted.
Seeker,
I think the more important thing to look at isn't the scientists who are atheists, but rather the religious scientists who still believe in evolution. Surely, Jews and Christians who are both scientists, believers in evolution and religious would have some sway over you.
Then again, maybe not. I don't know. But rather than looking at those scientists that you're going to disagree with straight out of hand – atheist scientists – I think you might at least find it interesting to read the writings of religious scientists who can square the idea of science and religion. There's something to be said for the middle ground.
Well, this strays a little from the main line of thought, which is that the list "proves" that there is "significant" dissent on evolution among scientists. I understand that you question its worth since many of the signees might have religious reasons, and not necessarily scientific ones, for signing the doc. I partly agree, but must also turn that around and say the same for the list of Steves. They are both a little suspect, but shouldn't be dismissed entirely.
Regarding how I view Jews and Christians who are evolutionist scientists, I consider this data but discount it somewhat for the following reasons:
1. I don't make my evolution/creation decision primarily on what the experts say, esp. when I can develop some of that expertise myself.
It's sort of like taking medical advocacy into your own hands. When I had a shoulder problem, both of my doctors, including a surgeon, recommended surgery. I did some research, and ended up being 90% cured by chiropractic.
In the case of evolution, I base my decisions primarily on the data, including my own reading (of both sides of the issue) and understandings of the historical data and assumptions behind evolutionary thought. Secondarily, but not unimportantly, on my biblical and intellectual world view. As I have said previously, I think the fact that evolution integrates so well with atheism, social darwinism, and eugenics (NOTE: it doesn't *teach* these, but is consistent with these views), I find it suspect.
2. The actual number of "true" Jews and Christians who believe evolution may be hard to determine, and most certainly less than we think
In Judaism, there are roughly four types of Jews – Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, and JINO (Jews in Name Only). Same w/ Christendom – I don't expect liberals to insist on the voracity of scripture, so is their belief in evolution really problematic? No.
Second, a recent survey of evangelicals showed that their biblical literacy was very low – so even though they may believe the basics of xianity, they may have never learned to think biblically, nor how to logically examine primary assumptions behind evolutionary interpretation of data.
I am right now in a http://www.ninthhouse.com training, and it is making me realize that most of us fail to examine our primary assumptions, and how we filter data without thinking.
3. I suspect there are more doubters than we realize.
The truth is, doubters in evolution are punished for raising doubt or advocating other points of view. I suspect that we'll see that the scientific community may actually have a much higher rate of doubt in evolution, somewhere closer to the public value of 50% – scientists may not be as different from "regular" people as we think.
4. I have some books with differing viewpoints, haven't got to them yet
One of these is Three Views on Creation and Evolution, which has proponents of YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution making their cases and critiquing one another. Should be a good read. That is a good suggestion – I mean, even some Catholics think that evolution and the bible are compatible.
However, again, while I may trust their arguments more than an atheist's, I'm not sure their logic, either biblical or scientific, will be convincing. We'll see.
————————-
On the same note, however, what about the growing number of evolutionary dissenters who are NOT religious? Who want to give ID a chance, or who want more room to critique evolution without censure? Do they carry any weight with you? Are there any significant ones that you know of? If not, I may need to go dig them up ;)
Seeker,
Saying that because eugenicists used evolution to explain their abhorrent position is reason enough to discount something is ridiculous. Why? Because saying that slavery, justified numerous times by those pounding a Bible, is proof that Christianity is suspect is similarly silly.
Darwin isn't at fault because others misinterpretted what he was saying. How can you possibly blame his idea for the idiotic offshoots that it produced? Any great idea by mankind by be spun idiotically. I hardly think that's a reason to ignore great ideas. (For instance, the wheel. It led to mobility. Mobility led to intermingling of different people. That intermingling caused war. War is bad. Hence, the wheel is at fault. You don't believe that.)
I suppose there MIGHT be more doubters, but when one list produces 500 dissenting scientists – some of whom seem to be on the list to increase the numbers, rather than the validity – while the other list produces 700 signees named Steve, I think the odds that the dissent on evolution is at 50 percent are pretty, really, probably, low.
Where are the atheist scientists who believe in ID? How does an atheist who doesn't believe in a higher power believe in a higher power? You'll have to explain that scenario to me.
Well, maybe you don't like my reasoning. When I encounter a new fact, idea, or philosophy, I compare it to what I've already proven to be true. Part of this is seeing where it integrates with other areas of knowledge. If it integrates poorly, I suspect it may be wrong, and conversely. I think we all do that. I'm not saying that is conclusive, but because evolution integrates so well with these other ideologies, it gets an initial "guilt by association" charge.
Of course, I'd have to do more reasoning to dispel such associations if they were not true.
Like the case of the Bible and slavery. At first, it might seem that the bible should be rejected because people have defended slavery with it (a practice which I abhor). However, on further inspection, it seems likely that those who supported slavery w/ scripture were bastardizing it, not teaching it with fidelity. While the bible does support indentured servitude (like for the paying of debts), it has strict rules for caring for the conquered people who are now your servants. Admittedly, it does not outright condemn slavery, but neither does it condone the types of abuse and inequality that we usually associate w/ slavery. Add to that the fact that Christianity pioneered and led the abolitionsist movement in the west, and you have to reconsider the integration of slavery and xianity. I'm not saying that xianity is totally in the clear, but it shows that you should look at how ideas connect, and you should do more research.
Regarding ID and atheists, ID does not require the supernatural. I think of Crick (one of the guys who discovered the structure of DNA), who, upon realizing that the level of complexity probably could not have evolved here, suggsested the whole transpermia. That's a type of ID.
And we should not just look at atheists, but anyone who is a non-Christians or Jew who believes, and ask why. Agnostics who are open to the supernatural may also be considered important – or would you discount their opinion too because any consideration of design is religion?
Seeker,
Look man, I'm trying to be fair. But numerous scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, have pointed out the evil of eugenics. If you're going to let Christianity off the hook because Christians led the charge against slavery, you're going to have to do the same for evolution. You have to be somewhat consistent here.
ID seems to require religion, doesn't it? That something Intelligent Designed our world. I mean, the Intelligent is some manifestation of God. Which seems to run counter to everything believed by atheists.
Well, just because Gould is against eugenics doesn't mean that it is not compatible with it – maybe he just doesn't like eugenics, and doens't like the easy integration of the two, even though they exist. That's not proof, that's more like denial ;) But I take your point, the same logic can be applied in the slavery/bible issue.
Regarding God and ID, yeah, any intelligence smart enough to design what we see as life has to be on the order of a God.
However, that being the case, then you might also say that the incredible "design" we see in nature, if created by our magical evolutionary process -well, that makes evolution the creator, i.e. the god. Well, that is, until it "proves" that all this could have happened by natural processes. Can I express my extreme doubt right about now?
The church's being against eugenics doesn't mean it's not compatible with it, either. Fact is that eugenics laws were passed in states most often with strong church backing. The OT is rather rife with incidents that make sense only in the light of applied eugenics.
Don't get sidetracked by irrelevancies. Darwin himself was rabidly anti-slave and anti-racism.
Well, I think we need to look at a few different things:
1. What do the original documents say?
2. What did the authors intend, both in the documents, and in other writings?
3. How have the official keepers of the ideology interpret and apply the writings?
4. How does this ideology integrate with other ideologies?
5. How did/do the common people interpret and apply the writings?
I think all of these should be looked at when evaluating an ideology, be it the bible or evolutionary theory.