"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“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.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[Shermana]

The claims made in the document have been rejected by the consensus of the scientific community.

That's the point about the whole "concensus thing". Is it purely about numbers? Does the minority opinion not count?

It appears to me that the intelligent design proponents are manufacturing dissent in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims.

Why is this manufactured? They didn't have to sign anything.

The fact is that there is a nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit.

So again, appeal to the numbers. This is a common trend.

The statement in the document is described as artfully phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.

Why is it a misleading spin exactly?

Few of the signatories were from biological subfields

That's just plain false. Do you want to count how many are in such fields?

associated with organismic and population-level biology — the divisions of biology most closely associated with the study of evolution.

There's plenty associated. And again, it appears the objection is purely about numbers, not what they have to say.

None was recognizable as a prominent contributor to the scientific literature debating the role of natural selection in evolution

What scientific literature exactly?

.Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the piece about the alleged scientific dissent, might assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself, rather than to the universality of natural selection as its mechanism.

Irrelevant, they said they were skeptical of the Darwinian model. That's all that needs to be said.

Yes, there is healthy scientific debate about the role natural selection plays in evolution. But arguments within the scientific community about how evolution occurs should not be confused with arguments, conspicuously absent from the scientific community, about whether evolution occurred.

Why shouldn't they be?

NCSE (National Center for Science Education) contacted a sample of the signatories and asked them specific questions about their attitudes concerning evolution, namely whether or not they accepted "evidence for common ancestry, meaning that different species today shared common ancestors in the past," and whether or not they were convinced "that humans and chimps both share a common ancestor." One signatory responded that "the definition of species is very troublesome," he added that "I certainly do accept that SOME (perhaps most) modern species shared at least a recent common ancestor." On the question of whether chimps and humans share a common ancestor, he said, "I believe the genetic evidence is overwhelming for the morphology." Another signatory has elsewhere written, "I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent."

Are you saying that the definition of "Species" is not troublesome? (i.e. are you among those who falsely state that there's no species problem?) Are you saying there's a problem if they disagree with the idea that men came from monkey-things? As a neo-Lamarckian who believes in Epigenetics, I definitely believe that many animals share a common ancestor. And that they can produce fertile offspring together.

One should not draw the conclusion from the Discovery Institute's propaganda that there is a growing movement of scientists who doubt evolution

.

Why not?

Many of the names on the list are not new to anti-evolutionary activity.

Why would that matter? Are you sayiing one side is biased and the other isn't?

It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.

It's regrettable that the concensus pushes a theory that has no real observable evidence and that the minority opinion is merely ridiculed as if their views have no merit by some. But it's a good thing the majority rejects Macro-evolution in the USA at least.

[

quote="In their 2010 book Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, science and religion scholar Denis Alexander and historian of science Ronald L. Numbers"]
After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.

So again, your argument is basically about raw numbers rather than what they say. That's definitely the trend so far.

Compare that with Project Steve. The statement is unambiguous. Many of the signatories are leaders in the field of Biology.

If you point to Project Steve, you prove that you're not concerned with context or the actual subject matter and are more concerned with ridicule. Which is the obvious case in question.

The question that should be asked is not whether there really is any valid scientific dissent from Darwinism, but why do the promoters of Creationism use misleading and dishonest tactics?

[/quote]

Again, with the accusations of "Dishonesty" in lieu of actually discussing the claims in question. What's dishonest is pushing a theory that has no observable evidence and skews the line between macro and micro evolution, acting as if "Speciation" has actually occurred in which two new "species" can no longer reproduce fertile offspring.

I appreciate you demonstrating exactly what I was looking to expose. Maybe you'd like to answer the quesitons directly and call them all frauds? Any other takers?

[Shermana]

First off Burt, thank you kindly for directly answering the questions.

Not all, but some are. A few names stands out: Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and William Dembski. They are well known "cdesign proponentists."

That may be, but I don't think that would constitute being "fraudulent" anymore than calling a pro-Darwininist fraudulent who is provenly anti-Design. The bias works both ways.

Not all of them, most are simply not aware of the evidence, while others were tricked into signing the document thinking it was a genuine statement for scientific skepticism or academic freedom.

I don't know how many of them were tricked, but I doubt that there's much real "evidence" that they're unaware of on this regard. I think this boils down to more or less what they think ABOUT the so-called "evidence".

No, I suspect almost all creationists actually believe, and as mentioned above a minority weren't aware this would be used as propaganda by creationists.

Whether its used as "propaganda" or not, I'd say they knew what they were signing for the most part.

I would say the expertise of those who signed are not in the relevant field of biology, and hence cannot be considered as professional opinion. As such I do not consider their view scientific.

But as I've shown, most of them seem to have relevant degrees. There are a few "mechanical engineering" and "Computer engineering" but I'd say at a quick count, it seems most of them have relevant degrees, even if its in chemistry. And to say that a PH.D. in Math for example doesn't understand the evidence-in-question I'd say you'd have to say the guy failed basic Biology or something.

Sure, I am guessing their basis for that claim is the Bible. Having said that, I also don't see the statement equates to a rejection of the majority opinion: A scientist should always be skeptical of any scientific theory, including the role played by random mutation and natural selection in evolution.

Well we agree that they SHOULD be skeptical of any theory. I don't know how many of them actually believe in the Bible per se, I'd guess a lot of them do, but it would be rather unprofessional if they discounted evidence for their view altogether, and I don't think too many of them would actually do that especially in the Biological fields. Even if just ONE Micro-biology PH.D. disagreed, to say that he's basing it purely on his belief in the Bible I'd think would be a stretch.

It's not a matter of honesty, one can be honest and still be wrong.

Well we agree on that at least. The question is...are they really wrong? Does the matter of raw numbers make them wrong?

Sure, creationists tends to get their news after it's been filtered by the likes of Discovery Institute.

That's a very fair contention, but the same could be said that there's filters for the anti-religious side too.

I wouldn't call a fraction of a percent "plenty." Non is evolution a matter of popularity.

Well, I'd think even if there's a few there's still room to hear them out; for example, most scholars think Galatians was written by Paul, but there's a FEW scholars who disagree, and their arguments are rather compelling. And yes, it's not really a matter of popularity, but however, it may be a matter of peer-bias and a sort of "professional-pressure" to adhere to what ultimately may be an ideological position just as much as the religious viewpoint is an ideological position.

No, one should not brush off anyone's opinion because the majority disagrees with them. An opinion should be judged based on its merit.

Okay, we're in agreement on the very premise of the OP then. The question is on the specifics of what they are dissenting against.

Well, the dissent from Darwinism doesn't mentioned any evidence against evolution, but judging from what I have seen from "cdesign proponentists," I would have to say no.

This OP is not really meant to debate the debate itself, it's more or less about the issue of whether or not their opinions are valid and whether the majority concensus is necessarily right just because its the majority. There are many threads devoted to the issue of the debate itself.

I suppose you could make a case that the average person who accept evolution is as reliant on expert opinion as those who "dissent from Darwinism," so whether they listen to evolutionists or creationists is biased by their worldview. But with regards to evidence, there is no competition.

We are in agreement mostly here too, it's more or less about the "worldview" in how one perceives the "evidence" isn't it.....

Sure.

Very good, thank you for the honest response.

[McCulloch]

The minority opinion does not count when the minority is an insignificant number, mainly made up of non-specialists. Some of the signatories regret having done so. The statement that they signed indicated that there is a willingness to be skeptical about the mechanisms of evolution, yet the Creationists spin this as a significant level of scientific dissent. The numbers of scientists are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. Even more so when you include only the leading scientists in the relevant fields of Biology. There is healthy debate in the scientific journals, by the leading biologist in the field about the mechanism of evolution. None of the signatories are conspicuous contributors to those journals. Of the 105 scientists listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution, according to Skip Evans of the NCSE and Kenneth Chang, science reporter for The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/scien ... ref=slogin

To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engines.

The numbers of scientists supporting Creationism is not growing nor is it significant. The same few names come up again and again. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.

[Shermana]

The minority opinion does not count when the minority is an insignificant number,

So that's an appeal to numbers, thank you.

mainly made up of non-specialists.

Would you like to count and prove for a fact that the majority are not in fields which are "specialists" related to the subject?

Some of the signatories regret having done so.

Perhaps a few, but of those signatories, how many are among the "Specialists"?

The statement that they signed indicated that there is a willingness to be skeptical about the mechanisms of evolution, yet the Creationists spin this as a significant level of scientific dissent.

That would be dissent indeed, since the majority is NOT skeptical about said mechanisms.

The numbers of scientists are overwhelmingly in favor of evolution

.

And that's the point of the OP, appeal to numbers being a reason to brush off people's opinions or not.

Even more so when you include only the leading scientists in the relevant fields of Biology.

Why not include Chemistry? I don't see why exactly those with PH.D's in scientific fields wouldn't have enough understanding to make an educated opinion about the matter.

There is healthy debate in the scientific journals, by the leading biologist in the field about the mechanism of evolution.

Definitely.

None of the signatories are conspicuous contributors to those journals.

And we could tie in my Peer review thread to those journals while we're at it, but I don't see why they'd have to contribute to have their opinions count.

Of the 105 scientists listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution,

I really don't understand how much expertise a PH.D. in Organic Chemistry would not have to be able to ascertain the same facts to make an educated opinion on the matter. I also fail to see what evidence the "Specialists" have that the other science-related PH.D's wouldn't have assessed. I also fail to see why the 20 biologists' opinions in the 2001 original can have their opinions just dismissed due to raw numbers against them.

according to Skip Evans of the NCSE and Kenneth Chang, science reporter for The New York Times.

I'd say few would call the NYT or the NCSE unbiased sources these days. And I'd say their opinion here might be proof of my point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/scien ... ref=slogin

To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engines.

That's fine, as I've demonstrated in other threads, the "peer review" process seems to be less than unbiased (or consistent), and I'd like to see how many papers against the concept that they didn't let pass for one reason or another.

The numbers of scientists supporting Creationism is not growing nor is it significant. The same few names come up again and again. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.[

Whether they support Creationism is not the issue here, it's whether they support the traditional Darwinian model.

[Janx]

The minority opinion does not count when the minority is an insignificant number,

So that's an appeal to numbers, thank you.

You are the one attempting to peddle an appeal to popularity, the only problem is that we don't have it because this list isn't only dwarfed by the majority opinion of scientific community but is a blatant lie.

You wan't to debunk science, then use the appropriate process. What mater isn't how many people believe in the theory of evolution but the evidence that we are able to produce in support of it. It only takes ONE good argument to debunk it and so far, no one from your list has produced such a thing.

Cheers.

[Shermana]

It's not an appeal to popularity Janx, why don't you try actually addressing the questions in the OP and THEN say it's an appeal to authority/popularity.

[Janx]

It's not an appeal to popularity Janx, why don't you try actually addressing the questions in the OP and THEN say it's an appeal to authority/popularity.

Goat posted an article that answered pretty much all of your OP questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientif ... _Darwinism

If you can debunk this then that's fine. Otherwise the list is pretty useless to make your case.

[Bust Nak]

That may be, but I don't think that would constitute being "fraudulent" anymore than calling a pro-Darwininist fraudulent who is provenly anti-Design. The bias works both ways.

I am referring to the books they write, as compared scientific paper they published. Big on trying to convince the general pubic, not so big on biology. Also as hinted at already, trying to hide the religious aspect of intelligent design in trying to get it taught along side evolution. I think the fraudulent label is suitable.

I don't know how many of them were tricked, but I doubt that there's much real "evidence" that they're unaware of on this regard. I think this boils down to more or less what they think ABOUT the so-called "evidence".

Probably not many, I am only aware of one case as reported the bloggers from scienceblog (please don't make me find the article...)

Whether its used as "propaganda" or not, I'd say they knew what they were signing for the most part.

Sure. Creationists can be found in all walks of life.

But as I've shown, most of them seem to have relevant degrees. There are a few "mechanical engineering" and "Computer engineering" but I'd say at a quick count, it seems most of them have relevant degrees, even if its in chemistry.

Oh? I think some one already counted and found a 1/4 are biologists.

And to say that a PH.D. in Math for example doesn't understand the evidence-in-question I'd say you'd have to say the guy failed basic Biology or something.

See "crocoduck" or "how come there are still monkeys?" to see how hard it is to get rid of common misconceptions, even after all the ridicule. A PhD in Maths doesn't make one immune from it.

Well we agree that they SHOULD be skeptical of any theory. I don't know how many of them actually believe in the Bible per se, I'd guess a lot of them do, but it would be rather unprofessional if they discounted evidence for their view altogether, and I don't think too many of them would actually do that especially in the Biological fields. Even if just ONE Micro-biology PH.D. disagreed, to say that he's basing it purely on his belief in the Bible I'd think would be a stretch.

There are those who would discard the evidence for their own view. In Kurt Wise's own words: "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

As for evidence, it goes back to the old argument that had a scientist actually discoved anything against evolution, he would not be merely dissenting from darwinism, (or giving talks and writing books about it re: irreducible complexity,) but be publishing papers on it.

Well we agree on that at least. The question is...are they really wrong? Does the matter of raw numbers make them wrong?

The numbers does not make them wrong, that would be an argument ad populum. The numbers however does show that the evidence is adequate in convincing the majority. Which does count for something for the average person with regards to expert opinion.

That's a very fair contention, but the same could be said that there's filters for the anti-religious side too.

We don't need filters when the source material are already pro-evolution, l think you would be hard pressed to argue that the scientific papers aren't pro-evolution.

Well, I'd think even if there's a few there's still room to hear them out; for example, most scholars think Galatians was written by Paul, but there's a FEW scholars who disagree, and their arguments are rather compelling. And yes, it's not really a matter of popularity, but however, it may be a matter of peer-bias and a sort of "professional-pressure" to adhere to what ultimately may be an ideological position just as much as the religious viewpoint is an ideological position.

First of all, scientists are the kind of people who love to prove others wrong, the more established the position was the better, so I don't think said pressure exists. Even if there is pressure to adhere to the an ideological position, the evidence will win out.

We are in agreement mostly here too, it's more or less about the "worldview" in how one perceives the "evidence" isn't it.....

Right, same evidence, different interpretations. I agree in principle, but in practice, when the evidence all fits together like it does, evolution is the most obvious interpretation.

[Autodidact]

A few problems. First, it's not a list of scientists. It's a list of scientists, engineers, chiropractors and whatnot. Second, it's not a list of Biologists, which of course is the only sort of scientist whose opinion in the matters is worth more than mine. Third, it doesn't say anything about dissenting from or disagreeing with ToE. It says:
“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." Heck, I accept ToE completely, and I'd sign that--if the dishonest propagandists at DI wouldn't twist to look like I disagreed with it. All scientists should be skeptical of everything; that's what science is. All evidence should be carefully examined, for the same reason.

And after the most skeptical people in the world did just that as hard and long as they could, for around 100 years, they concluded that it is correct.

[Shermana]

It's not an appeal to popularity Janx, why don't you try actually addressing the questions in the OP and THEN say it's an appeal to authority/popularity.

Goat posted an article that answered pretty much all of your OP questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientif ... _Darwinism

If you can debunk this then that's fine. Otherwise the list is pretty useless to make your case.

I posted a response, look at the Talk section. The article basically is just an attack on the actual beliefs without any actual substance.