Evidence for Evolution

[Rían]

I"m back after hosting a bridal shower and then being sick for a week

While I'm catching up on the thread, I wanted to post some info that I finally got a copy of (this is what I had mentioned to you several weeks ago, Jonathan). It addresses the oft-heard (and very unfounded, IMHO) opinion that no "real" scientist has any trouble with evolution.

I had heard of something in a journal and was intrigued by it, so I called them up and got a copy of the issue. It's a two-page statement in the Weekly Standard, the October 1, 2001 issue, that about 100 scientists put in, and it goes like this:

from the October 1, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, pg. 20 & 21
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

"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."

And then follows the names of 100 or so scientists that support that quote.

Here are a few:

Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad. School
Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. of Chemistry, NAS member
Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U.
RObert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton
Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry, U. of Illinois
Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State
Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytial Chemistry, U. of Michigan
George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida
Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology, George Mason U.
James Keener, Prof. of Mathematics and Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah
Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore LaboratoriesGregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U.C. Davis
Joseph Atkinson,PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T., American Chemical Society member
Lawrence H. Johnson, Emeritus Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho
Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical school
William S. Pelletier, Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Georgia
Brian J. Miller, PhD Physics, Duke U.
Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
John L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, U. of New Mexico
Ralph W. Seelke, Prof and Chair of Dept. of Biology and Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin, Superior
Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular and Cell Biology, U. of Texas
Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico
Bijan Nemati, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
Philip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan
Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute.


Anyway, there's a few of the names. And those are only the ones that heard about this statement and signed up, and that are brave enough (like Galileo) to stand up for an unpopular opinion that they think is right.

[Insidious Rex]

So then what do they believe accounts for it? How many of them said that it was the work of god?

[jerseydevil]

How many of them do NOT support evolution though and are only stating that there are flaws in evolution. from the statement you posted it doesn't say anythign about them believing in creationism - but them only saying

Are against it being "...asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things...all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."

In no way does that say they don't support evolution or think that it isn't the MOST scientifically valid theory out there. They are just saying that are against it being stated that there are no problems with evolution and that evolution is 100% proven.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

from the October 1, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, pg. 20 & 21
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."

The statement "evolution fully explains the complexity of living things" is certainly flawed. However it's by far the best theory we have
to explain how organisms could go from simple to complex. Then you can't know everything about everything so in every science and scientific theory, there are loopholes or even anomalies that scientists try to elucidate. Since technology develops rapidly, the scientists are often successful to explain them. However as you find answers to questions, new questions will arise. So it's likely that no scientific field will ever be comprehended to a 100%.

So what I'm saying is that in biology as well as physics, chemistry, economy etc. there will always be people who don't adhere to the general ideas.

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

"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."

Evolution doesn't seem to be the domain of some of the scientists listed. What the heck do quantum chemistry and plamsa physics have to do with Darwinism?
No, I guess the scientists who deal with biochemistry, cellbiology etc. are the ones who are the most interesting on that list because they should be able to really explain why they think the theory of evolution is flawed.

[Insidious Rex]

Well I found a bit more about this mysterious list of scientists supposedly renouncing evolution. It seems it originated from the Institute for Creation Research (NOT the actual scientists as Rian implide) which back in 2001 took out full page advertisements in main stream publications like the New York Review of Books and the London review of Books and the like announcing “a scientific dissent from Darwinism�. Most of the page was taken up by the names of a hundred or so scientists who it said were 'skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life'. On the ad they agreed that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged�. Hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say. Remember scientists unlike religionists disagree with dogma in all forms. Even scientific dogma. So this makes perfect sense. But since many creationists don’t play on the same level field of course they will attempt to use these points of view to their advantage.

The ad did NOT however include ANY arguments by ANY of these individuals. Of course many scientists would say they couldn’t fully support the original statement in the ad since they are aware of issues with evolution that havent been fully fleshed out yet. But if you were to ask them do you think evolution is a mistaken theory and creationism makes more sense guess how many scientists would sign off on that. But the creationists took this one comment and ran with it as they like to do waving it in the air and shouting “See! Well respected scientists reject evolution proving creationism!� You can find dozens and dozens of creationist web sites doing just this with this list. Looks like yet another case of manipulation to me.

Furthermore, I started going through that list one by one. Right from the start I found that many of these folks describe themselves as Christians first and scientists second. Nothing wrong with that necessarily but its sneaky not to at least note that as being the case rather then acting as if religion does not enter into the picture with these folks at all. for example:

One of the world's leading theoretical chemists and a five-time Nobel Prize nominee is chemistry professor Henry "Fritz" Schaefer III. He directs the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the U. of Georgia in Athens (UGA). […] Schaefer is also an outspoken Christian professor. Along with university biochemist Russell Carlson, Schaefer's Christianity is integrated into his activities on campus. Both invite students home for a meal and an evening of discussion on faith and science.

Now many many scientists who happen to be Christians firmly believe the theory of evolution DOES make sense considering the evidence. How come no mention of them? No one ever said Christians cant also be intelligent. Cant be successful scientists and researchers. Of course they can. There are tens of thousands of them. But that doesn’t mean you can turn the concept of evolution on its head simply because some disagree with a carefully worded statement about it. That’s just silly.

[Insidious Rex]

What Id like to see is numbers of scientists that call themselves "christian" and also say they dont believe in creationism. I bet the percentage of christian scientists who reject creationism is pretty high.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well I found a bit more about this mysterious list of scientists supposedly renouncing evolution.

OK, Rexy, where did you get THAT wild idea?! Where did anything in my post say they were "supposedly renouncing evolution"? Sheesh!

THIS is what I said : "It addresses the oft-heard (and very unfounded and unfair, IMHO) opinion that no "real" scientist has any trouble with evolution."

I've heard that and seen that in print many times (the false statement that no real scientist has any problem with evolution), and it's obviously wrong. I just heard it again a few months ago when a friend of mine told me that her biology teacher at college said that.

THIS is what they signed their names to: "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."

My goodness, the way some people react to ANYTHING at ALL said against evolution just confirms my opinion that many people hold it as a "religious" belief. I mean, why object to what I posted? I would HOPE that the reaction to what I posted would be something like "Hey, that's good to hear that some good scientists have issues with evolution! It's always important to have some dissent so we can keep an eye open for errors so we can correct them!" But no - it just seems like I can't even bring up that some good scientists are "skeptical" without some evolutionists having a hissy fit! This is a warning signal, IMO.

t seems it originated from the Institute for Creation Research (NOT the actual scientists as Rian implide)...

I didn't "imply" anything. You may have read something into what I said, tho. And I certainly hope YOU wouldn't imply or say that these scientists' names were used without their consent!

...which back in 2001 took out full page advertisements in main stream publications like the New York Review of Books and the London review of Books and the like announcing “a scientific dissent from Darwinism�. Most of the page was taken up by the names of a hundred or so scientists who it said were 'skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life'. On the ad they agreed that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged�. Hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say.

So what's wrong with taking out an ad if they want to make a point in public? And if it's "hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say", then why did you react so strongly when I posted it?

Remember scientists unlike religionists disagree with dogma in all forms. Even scientific dogma. So this makes perfect sense. But since many creationists don’t play on the same level field of course they will attempt to use these points of view to their advantage.

I don't get it. If a bunch of scientists say they are "skeptical" of evolution, then what's wrong with using this? And I resent the implication that many creationists are cheaters

The ad did NOT however include ANY arguments by ANY of these individuals.

So? You expected detailed arguments in an ad?

But if you were to ask them do you think evolution is a mistaken theory and creationism makes more sense guess how many scientists would sign off on that.

I have no idea. ALL I'm trying to point out is what I said in the original post. I never even mentioned creationism.

But the creationists took this one comment and ran with it as they like to do waving it in the air and shouting “See! Well respected scientists reject evolution proving creationism!� You can find dozens and dozens of creationist web sites doing just this with this list. Looks like yet another case of manipulation to me.

I haven't seen "dozens and dozens of creationist web sites" doing this. I haven't even seen ONE creationist web site doing this. Are you serious? If you are, then I would agree with you that they are wrong. Would you agree with me that EVOLUTIONISTS are wrong when they say that no real scientists has any problem with evolution? I would certainly hope so!!

Furthermore, I started going through that list one by one. Right from the start I found that many of these folks describe themselves as Christians first and scientists second.

Where do you see them describing themselves as "Christians first and scientists second?" Why would that matter? Does that automatically make them unethical?

Nothing wrong with that necessarily but its sneaky not to at least note that as being the case rather then acting as if religion does not enter into the picture with these folks at all.

"sneaky"?
Wow. Again the assumption that "religious" people can't separate their religious beliefs from the lab. I would hope that you have the SAME problem with atheists who support evolution. If not, why not? Are you proposing that anyone who is "religious" in any way be barred from a career in science?

for example: One of the world's leading theoretical chemists and a five-time Nobel Prize nominee is chemistry professor Henry "Fritz" Schaefer III. He directs the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the U. of Georgia in Athens (UGA). […] Schaefer is also an outspoken Christian professor. Along with university biochemist Russell Carlson, Schaefer's Christianity is integrated into his activities on campus. Both invite students home for a meal and an evening of discussion on faith and science.

OH MY GOD!!
oh wait- so what's wrong with that? I don't see anything.
I find the insinuation that there's anything wrong with that beneath you, frankly.

Now many many scientists who happen to be Christians firmly believe the theory of evolution DOES make sense considering the evidence. How come no mention of them?

Because they wouldn't be in that ad!
Again, what I was trying to show is that some intelligent scientists DO have issues with Darwinian evolution. That's ALL.
Why in the world aren't you glad that some intelligent scientists have issues with evolution? Isn't that for the good of science? Maybe they think evolution happened, but only have trouble with the "random mutations" part. They specifically called out "random mutations" and "natural selection". They did NOT say they didn't think evolution happened. Why do you react so strongly against this simple statement on their part? Seems like an emotional bias to me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't get it. If a bunch of scientists say they are "skeptical" of evolution, then what's wrong with using this? And I resent the implication that many creationists are cheaters

Because generally when you post things like this - you seem to be trying to use it as evidence that they don't believe or support evolution. Which isn't the case at all. In no way does that the thing you quoted support your position, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. As IR said - science is about finding the facts and questioning everything, that includes what we know about evolution.

Where do you see them describing themselves as "Christians first and scientists second?" Why would that matter? Does that automatically make them unethical?

It doesn't make them very good scientists if they don't leave their religious beliefs at the lab door and hence their credibility would be questioned.

Wow. Again the assumption that "religious" people can't separate their religious beliefs from the lab. I would hope that you have the SAME problem with atheists who support evolution. If not, why not? Are you proposing that anyone who is "religious" in any way be barred from a career in science?

Well here you go with the wrong assumptions again. Evolution has NOTHING to do with whether there is or isn't a god. It has ONLY to do with a process. In order to be scientific - it must be explained through natural processes - wouoldn't you agree? Or do you think that we can just throw miracles and god into the places that science can't explainand just be done with it?

Why in the world aren't you glad that some intelligent scientists have issues with evolution? Isn't that for the good of science? Maybe they think evolution happened, but only have trouble with the "random mutations" part. They specifically called out "random mutations" and "natural selection". They did NOT say they didn't think evolution happened. Why do you react so strongly against this simple statement on their part? Seems like an emotional bias to me.

Basically because it's the way you seem to try to use these little articles and things you find. No where did they say they have issues with evolution - YOU put that in there. What they said was this...

"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."

And if they are highly religious then they can BELIEVE that evolution was helped by a higher being - but unless they can SCIENTIFICLY back up the statement - then it isn't science and is ONLY belief and can not be made part of the theory.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

In no way does that the thing you quoted support your position, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

For the THIRD time, my "position" in that particular post about the statement by those scientists was this: "It addresses the oft-heard (and very unfounded and unfair, IMHO) opinion that no "real" scientist has any trouble with evolution." And the article certainly supports that position, so that's why I posted it.

IMO that post was very relevant to the evolution thread. I never mentioned creationism at all in that post. I don't see why there's any problem with that post - I think it is very interesting, and certainly on topic (evolution), and addresses the false statement that I've heard and read before that no scientist doubts evolution at all.

No where did they say they have issues with evolution - YOU put that in there.

IMO, these scientists saying "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" certainly means they have issues with evolution. Your opinion may differ.

I don't see what the big deal is, but I'm not surprised - in my personal experience, I find that many evolutionists vehemently support evolution and vehemently deny any type of claim against it in a very unscientific and highly emotional manner, and in such a way that makes me suspect they have serious emotional (i.e., unscientific) biases in favor of evolution. That's my experience; yours might be different.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

For the THIRD time, my "position" in that particular post about the statement by those scientists was this: "It addresses the oft-heard (and very unfounded and unfair, IMHO) opinion that no "real" scientist has any trouble with evolution." And the article certainly supports that position, so that's why I posted it.

IMO that post was very relevant to the evolution thread. I never mentioned creationism at all in that post. I don't see why there's any problem with that post - I think it is very interesting, and certainly on topic (evolution), and addresses the false statement that I've heard and read before that no scientist doubts evolution at all.

Again - NO WHERE does it say anythign about them doubting evolution. You seem not to have afull understanding of what the theory of evolution is about - and where it begins and ends. It explains a process, but it does not say whether any supernatural being was involved in that process. That is outside the realm of science - which you seem to constantly want to bring into the realm of science. I need to repost parts from that website that Jonathan had posted so you can see the difference and what science restricts itself to.

IMO, these scientists saying "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" certainly means they have issues with evolution. Your opinion may differ.

No - they have issues with whether it can be explained completely by natural means - which evolution isn't about wether it is by god or by nature. But science can only answer thing on a natural level and can NOT take into account mythical beings.

I don't see what the big deal is, but I'm not surprised - in my personal experience, I find that many evolutionists vehemently support evolution and vehemently deny any type of claim against it in a very unscientific and highly emotional manner, and in such a way that makes me suspect they have serious emotional (i.e., unscientific) biases in favor of evolution. That's my experience; yours might be different.

I'm not denying the statements the scientist made there concerning whether everything is known about evolution or whether there are questions about it. I';m questioning your attempt at twisting their statements to support your claims - when they do not say what you are saying. Pure and simple.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Again - NO WHERE does it say anythign about them doubting evolution.

I disagree. I'll repeat the quote, and bold the relevant parts:

from the October 1, 2001 issue of the Weekly Standard, pg. 20 & 21
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS's Evolution series, that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world."

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

"We are skeptical 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."

EDIT - and btw, I don't "twist" (except when dancing to the Beatles' "Twist and Shout")

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The statement "evolution fully explains the complexity of living things" is certainly flawed.

I agree.

However it's by far the best theory we have to explain how organisms could go from simple to complex.

But it's an assumption that they did go from simple to complex, don't you agree?

So what I'm saying is that in biology as well as physics, chemistry, economy etc. there will always be people who don't adhere to the general ideas.

I think that's healthy for science, don't you?

Evolution doesn't seem to be the domain of some of the scientists listed. What the heck do quantum chemistry and plamsa physics have to do with Darwinism?

Well, I've certainly heard chemistry and physics being discussed in these debates.

No, I guess the scientists who deal with biochemistry, cellbiology etc. are the ones who are the most interesting on that list because they should be able to really explain why they think the theory of evolution is flawed.

Yes, I think those scientists would have the most to say on this issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree. I'll repeat the quote, and bold the relevant parts:

EDIT - and btw, I don't "twist" (except when dancing to the Beatles' "Twist and Shout")

No need to highlight Rian - I am perfectly capable of reading and it is MY OPINION that you DO twist the facts. Just by the words that you highlighted demonstrates how you twist the facts - because when you don't include the other words - it gives it an entirely DIFFERENT meaning. YOU now have it saying, with the bold, that they are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. And that is NOT at all what they said. YOU even COMBINED two sentences together. Give me a break - you actually expect after this demonstration to believe that you do not twist the facts?

EDIT - as for the stuff you highlighted in the second paragraph - that was editorial commentary - not what the scientists said. There is another example of twisting the facts from my viewpoint.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But it's an assumption that they did go from simple to complex, don't you agree?

But Creationism also contains the idea that first, chronoligically, there were animals with a less complex biology, then more complex animals came after.

If this is indeed correct, it seems that everyone has this idea and there is significant evidence to, dare I say it, prove this.

So then we have two ideas about this: one, that God made them in that order, and two, that some of the simple ones evolved into the complex ones we see today.

Science does acknowledge that at some point, all theories have to make some assumptions. We must assume, for example, that the world came to exist somehow, and reality isn't just the figment of our collective imaginations. Including some assumptions into the theory does not make evolution a bad theory.

[azalea]

Administrative reminder: Everyone needs to remember not to make personally directed comments! Please simply comment on the post and not the poster. This is very important for keeping the threads civil. Thanks for your cooperation.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK, Rexy, where did you get THAT wild idea?! Where did anything in my post say they were "supposedly renouncing evolution"? Sheesh!

that’s the preponderance of how that ad is being used on the web sites I looked at. And it’s the standard tactic for creationists to take. Its not surprising at all.

THIS is what I said : "It addresses the oft-heard (and very unfounded and unfair, IMHO) opinion that no "real" scientist has any trouble with evolution."

which says nothing about how they feel about evolution. Why not lay out WHY they have “trouble� with evolution? Its meaningless to make a carefully worded sentence and just have people sign off on it. If you want to undermine evolution you need to have these scientists say WHY they feel its so troubling. Or else like I said its meaningless.

THIS is what they signed their names to: "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."

My goodness, the way some people react to ANYTHING at ALL said against evolution just confirms my opinion that many people hold it as a "religious" belief.

Did I not just quote that myself?

On the ad they agreed that “careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged�. Hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say. Remember scientists unlike religionists disagree with dogma in all forms. Even scientific dogma. So this makes perfect sense.

So what are you ranting about exactly? Did you see me anywhere saying A SCIENTIST WOULD NEVER SAY ANY SUCH THING!! HOW DARE YOU SPEAK IN THIS WAY ABOUT THE WORD OF SCIENCE!!! No. if you had read what I said you would see that I had no problem with the statement at all cause its so ridiculously vague that it makes sense. Of course we don’t know absolutely how evolution works. This has nothing to do with the fact that it still by far best fits the given evidence though.

I mean, why object to what I posted?

why ignore the fact that I didn’t?

I would HOPE that the reaction to what I posted would be something like "Hey, that's good to hear that some good scientists have issues with evolution! It's always important to have some dissent so we can keep an eye open for errors so we can correct them!" But no - it just seems like I can't even bring up that some good scientists are "skeptical" without some evolutionists having a hissy fit!

hm... so when I said:

Hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say. Remember scientists unlike religionists disagree with dogma in all forms. Even scientific dogma. So this makes perfect sense.

and

No one ever said Christians cant also be intelligent. Cant be successful scientists and researchers. Of course they can. There are tens of thousands of them.

is disagreeing that Christians can be good scientists and having a hissy fit? Look in the mirror rian if you want to see the only person here having a hissy fit… and the fact that you cant handle the comments to that post without having an attack about being wronged shows me that you don’t want to go beyond the simple statement you made about it. That you don’t want to investigate what it really means at all. gee. Definitely a “warning signal� there.

I didn't "imply" anything. You may have read something into what I said, tho.

you sure as heck did. Heres word for word what you said:

It's a two-page statement in the Weekly Standard, the October 1, 2001 issue, that about 100 scientists put in

so the scientists got together and “put� this ad “in�? no it was the creationist body that did it and got the scientists one way or another to sign off on it. I was being kind in using the word “imply� quite frankly.

So what's wrong with taking out an ad if they want to make a point in public? And if it's "hardly a blasphemous thing for a scientist to say", then why did you react so strongly when I posted it?

rian WHERE do I say they shouldn’t be allowed to do this! Where! Why do you keep saying I did? ALL I did was comment on it. should I NOT be allowed to comment now? Simply because the comments and questions I bring up expose this for what it is rather then what the creationist lobbying body wants it to be?

And I resent the implication that many creationists are cheaters

implication? It’s a known fact. MANY creationists use whatever tactics it takes to try to make their point of view look right. Even if its false generalizations, or playing fast and loose with the facts or just down right lying and intimidation. But hey can you blame them? What other tools do they have?

So? You expected detailed arguments in an ad?

I certainly want more then just some vague statement and a list of names. That means nothing to me. I want to know WHAT each of those people mean when they say that. When they agree to that sentence. I want to know if they believe creationism is more accurate then evolution. I want to know what facts they draw on to lead to this conclusion if so. They could certainly have put in a paragraph or two on that but they never would because it would undermine what they are trying to do by posting the ad which is so sew seeds of doubt about evolution in whole form even when it said nothing of the kind.

I haven't seen "dozens and dozens of creationist web sites" doing this.

I have. Well maybe not “dozens and dozens� but I saw a full page of google searches going straight to creationist and/or Christian web sites with that add referenced in the name of evidence against evolution.

Where do you see them describing themselves as "Christians first and scientists second?" Why would that matter? Does that automatically make them unethical?

I saw it on another creationist web site where they were lauding the guy and saying how great he is. so its not as if they were trying to trash him. They think hes awesome. Hes the poster child for thousands of creationists. And youll note I said it DOESN’T matter if hes a Christian since (once again) “No one ever said Christians cant also be intelligent. Cant be successful scientists and researchers. Of course they can.�

Are you proposing that anyone who is "religious" in any way be barred from a career in science?

try reading what I just said and see if you can answer this one…

OH MY GOD!!
oh wait- so what's wrong with that? I don't see anything.

oh my god. Whats wrong with POSTING that? I don’t see anything wrong with posting that he takes his students home to have prayer meetings with them. Do you? If not whats the fuss exactly?

Maybe they think evolution happened, but only have trouble with the "random mutations" part. They specifically called out "random mutations" and "natural selection". They did NOT say they didn't think evolution happened. Why do you react so strongly against this simple statement on their part?

that’s the point! THEY don’t say squat really. they make NO statement. But others use their agreement of that one statement as fodder to trash all of evolution. I seriously doubt they would happily endorse such a thing. So what I would like to know is exactly why they have an issue with evolution. What specific aspects of it have they seen through their work to be flawed? Is that really too much to ask?

[Earniel]

I'm not sure what's the big deal with scientists having a disagreement or two on parts of the evolution-theory. Frankly I think I've known that for - what, a decade or so? This is rather old news. It would be new to me that scientist all over the world agreed 100% with the current evolution theory! IMO it's a bit silly trying to use this as an argument for creationism. It's not like all this is OMG-a secret evolutionists cover-up!

For those who can receive (I pressume BBC) radio 4, there is a bit on this on Tuesday the 12th at 11am (according to my BBC newsletter). The series is named Scars of evolution, presented by (the great ) David Attenborough. The series will be exploring the conflicting theories of the evolution of man. I'm hoping they will post a transcript on site afterwards as I can't receive that broadcast in Belgium.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

For those who can receive (I pressume BBC) radio 4, there is a bit on this on Tuesday the 12th at 11am (according to my BBC newsletter). The series is named Scars of evolution, presented by (the great ) David Attenborough. The series will be exploring the conflicting theories of the evolution of man. I'm hoping they will post a transcript on site afterwards as I can't receive that broadcast in Belgium.

You can listen to BBC Radio over the web - here is BBC 4

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm not sure what's the big deal with scientists having a disagreement or two on parts of the evolution-theory. Frankly I think I've known that for - what, a decade or so? This is rather old news. It would be new to me that scientist all over the world agreed 100% with the current evolution theory! IMO it's a bit silly trying to use this as an argument for creationism. It's not like all this is OMG-a secret evolutionists cover-up!

To me, the big deal is when magazines and supposedly scientific tv programs and even college professors (like my friend's professor) say, incorrectly, things like the PBS series said - "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world." My friend's college professor actually said that in her class, except she went even further and said "ALL scientists". And this is a college professor! These statements are just wrong, IMO, and lead to wrong thinking and close-mindedness - the antithesis of science.

Beneficial mutations and natural selection are two of the most basic tenets of evolution - and these distinguished scientists "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." IOW, they have problems with the theory of evolution as it currently stands - they don't think the proposed mechanisms can account for the actual observed data.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Beneficial mutations and natural selection are two of the most basic tenets of evolution - and these distinguished scientists "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." IOW, they have problems with the theory of evolution as it currently stands - they don't think the proposed mechanisms can account for the actual observed data.

That isn't what it says - and anyway - science is NOT science if you can not come up with NATURAL explanations. As IR says - you throwing somethign out there that has one quote that has soemthign the scientists say - and then an editorial paragaph is misleading.

Since he asked - I will ask also - where is the FULL quote of what the scientists said. WHAT problems with evolution do they have? And as i said - Evolution deals with a process - it does not deal with whether a higher power had any hand in it. That would be outside the realm of science. IF these scientists are saying that the only way to explain the complexity of life is by god - then they are not making scientific statements and they are the ones who should be critically judged. Do you think that miracles and god should be used in science?