Last month we reported on the List of Scientists who signed on to the Dissent From Darwin list. That list has another 100 members this month, and in addition, one mathemetician submitted an interesting letter that The Discovery Institute has published. Here’s some snippets.
I am a PhD mathematician who has recently (in the last couple of years) examined carefully the claim that the neo-Darwinian synthesis adequately accounts for the variety of life on earth. I have read countless texts on geology, biology (and cosmology) in a multitude of sub-disciplines and can honestly affirm that I am skeptical that the evidence points toward anything like mutation plus natural selection as being the cause of the variety of life that we see both today and in the fossil record.
Furthermore, I do not find any of the more involved hypotheses to hold water. Many of them are without evidence, or inferred from studies which are chosen specifically to support that particular hypothesis, and even then the fit is poor. Also, individual hypotheses which are cited as being well-supported components of the theory of evolution, in fact contradict one another.
Yep.
A mathemetician doesn't believe in evolution? That settles it – God created the world in seven days. Hold on a moment…
…yep, my 7-11 attendant just said that mole on my arm isn't cancerous. Whew. My doctors said otherwise, but the 7-11 attendant said he'd read some books, so I'm definitely going with that guy.
Just one question. How many of them are named Steve? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_s...
I think it would be truely interesting if some real scientists did a study on the inexplicable appeal creationism has for otherwise intelligent people.
I think it would be interesting if some real scientists could separate their evolutionary faith assumptions from their science – oh wait, that's what the dissenters list is ;)
Don't bother trying with that list of scientists named Steven – Seeker doesn't consider that to be anywhere near as overwhelming as the list of 600 scientists who disagree.
One of the most ridiculous notions in this whole debate is that the vast majority of scientists who happen to believe that creationism is b-o-g-u-s don't turn around and worship at the altar of evolution. That's just what the evidence currently supports. If somebody comes along with a better idea, with better evidence, with better arguments, then surely that argument will win the idea.
Creationists show up with a Bible and claim that the argument is settled.
Sam, I think you are making some classic fallacies here:
– the majority is always right (it's not)
– the majority is objective and unbiased (cf. Nazis)
– the minority are autmatically wrong if they have an axe to grind (which would mean that any group that has an ideological interest would be excluded)
If somebody comes along with a better idea, with better evidence, with better arguments, then surely that argument will win the idea.
Well, in an ideal world, that would happen quickly. In the real world, the established orthodoxy sometimes holds on to power, resisting the new ideas for quite some time. You may counter that these are not new ideas, but old, discredited ones rehashed, but I disagree – in fact, the more information we gather, the more confused and complicated evolutionary phylogenies and theory become, because they are trying to make their bogus theory fit the evidence.
Seeker,
You're not serious are you? You apply the majority rules argument to EVERYTHING else you do, including gay marriage, abortion, other moral issues, etcetera. You're all to happy to utilize a majority should rule argument anywhere else. Except when you're in the minority.
Still, none of that has anything to do with evolution. Because there is no evidence to support creationism – other than a book whose accuracy should be questioned – it is hardly on level with evolution.
You apply the majority rules argument to EVERYTHING else you do, including gay marriage, abortion, other moral issues, etcetera.
No, you just like to think so.
And where do I use the majority rule? Nowhere. You are just projecting what you WANT me to be, since painting me in the likeness of the extremists you despise allows you to dismiss my arguments without addressing them directly.
While it is important to consider what the majority thinks, it in no ways indicates what is true – that's rather poor epistemology.
Because there is no evidence to support creationism – other than a book whose accuracy should be questioned – it is hardly on level with evolution.
That is as ignorant as me saying "there is no evidence to support evolution." (which I do not say). It shows that you are not really in discussion, but entrenched in your position come hell or high water – a fundie who doesn't want to hear any more contrary evidence that threatens their world view. Welcome to the family of fundies.
What I say instead is that the evidence for evolution is weak, that contradictory evidence is ignored, that many of the foundational assumptions are poor or circular, and that most evolutionists have an un-admitted ideological committment to evolution and against creationism. That's part of the problem.
Seeker,
There's nothing wrong with finding something wrong which has no evidence to support it. It's very easy to believe in evolution when the overwhelming evidence points toward it. It is very difficult to believe in creationism when hardly any evidence points to it.
And as for your majority rule: of course you never EXplicitly argue for majority rule. You simply regularly hint at it.
Finally, I'm hardly a fundamentalist. Why? Because I can be convinced of issues that I don't agree with. I can change my mind. You on the other hand? Not so much.
And as for your majority rule: of course you never EXplicitly argue for majority rule. You simply regularly hint at it.
Whatever dude, I don't see any good quotes from me – again, all projection, I think.
You are a fundy because you misrepresent your opponents and use absolutes like "absolutely no data." The more I read about the evolution/creation debate, the more I am convinced that the data does not prove either side beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence for creation that you are blind to is often very compelling. That's why educated people are signing up on the Dissenters list. Because of the evidence or lack of it.
I'm sorry: Is there any proof of creation?
Actually, creation science is not about proving the first cause, as much as it is assuming it (like the big bang), and then, by employing the other principles implied in creationism and in observed science, answer the question "if that were so, how would that explain what we see today? How would it predict?"
So for example, in the geological strata, it would propose that all creatures appear fully formed and at once, with no predecessors. Voila! That's what we see, esp. in the Cambrian explosion.
Also part of the creationist cosmology is the global flood. Do we see evidence for that? In the Young Earth cosmology, we would look for evidence to support or contradict that.
The creation event is just the assumed initial cause of creation science, just like the big bang is the initial assumed first cause for another cosmology, or perhaps in the case of evolution, abiogenesis.
But real science is involved in what happened since then, and creationism fits the second law of thermodynamics well (the creation is running down), the fossil record (Cambrian explosion and lack of intermediates), genetics (information is created by intelligence, mutations cause harm, organisms regress to a genetic mean, rather than evolving into other workable creatures), and many many other details of other disciplines.