"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?

[TheJackelantern]

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

kinda like yours? or this articles premises to which really ignore the fact that we are well beyond Darwin in modern evolutionary theory and biology? I don't see any substance give.. Just baseless dogma "/ And I am curious, have you bothered to read the question asked in the poll?

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.

The question is a trick question because natural selection and mutation are not the only driving factors to which account for the diversity of life.. I already pointed this out to you once before.. And it's funny because many of you don't seem to understand what project Steve is in response to this:

NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

Worse yet, those who signed the poll in question didn't know what the poll was for or what it would be used for.. The context of the question is miss leading as it only asks if scientists believe mutation and natural selection are all that which accounts for the diversity of life. Such dishonesty renders the entire premise of the poll utterly meaningless considering it's not. It amazes me at the total lack of honest discourse we get from theists here on this forum.. It's disgusting to say the least :/

So no, you have nothing of the sort of go on.. And worse yet, it's an appeal to numbers and authority without baring any substance to establish it's claims.

[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.

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

The article makes perfectly valid points because this list has no substance. It's a blatant appeal to popularity. IF the scientists on that list made an argument on why the theory of evolution is flawed then there would be weight behind their inclusion. Otherwise this is politics not science and because of this it's perfectly acceptable to question the validity of the survey itself and the names on it.

There are no scientific claims here to debunk. It's an appeal to popularity - and a poor one at that as Goat's link illustrates.

Cheers

[Alter2Ego]

I think you would need a lot more scientists expressing doubt and a lot more evidence that Darwinism is wrong to be taken seriously by the majority of scientists. I mean, 67%! of the population of the world don't believe in Christianity but do Christians actually even consider the possibility that they might be wrong and that others are honest and might have some good arguments?

And that's exactly what I'm discussing, are you saying that raw numbers of who believes what is all that numbers?

(PS Of those 67% who aren't Christian, I'd say most of them are not Atheist if you want get into numbers).

As for whether Christians actually even consider the possibility that they may be wrong, do you think Atheists and Secularists consider such a possibility? I mean, I think MOST so-called "Christians" wouldn't even accept that most of their Theological doctrines were wrong if Jesus himself told them, but I also think many Atheists wouldn't accept that the majority concensus of scientists were wrong even if they admitted it.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- SHERMANA:

Next Artie and the other pro-evolutionists on this forum will be arguing that since the majority of white people were convinced for centuries that blacks and other people of color were sub-species, that equates to "people of color are indeed sub-species."

There's no such thing as safety in numbers when errors are involved. At this point, Artie and his pals are all grasping at straws now that they realize that insiders from within the scientific community are saying what you and I have been saying all along: that macro-evolution is a myth.


I presented quotations from pro-evolution scientists who were forced to admit that the fossil record does not show what Charles Darwin predicted. These were people who really wanted to find evidence to support this myth. Therefore, what they admitted to is all the more crushing to the macro-evolution myth. Ernst Mayr continued to believe in macro-evolution until his death"while admitting there was nothing in the fossils to prove that one species evolved into something entirely different.

None of the pro-evolutionists on this forum could rebut the quotations that I produced from various paleontologists. So they reverted to the usual ploy: attack my credibility. When it wasn't that, they were accusing me of "quote mining," as if somehow that was going to make what I quoted incorrect. Below are two quotes from the staunch pro-evolutionist, Ernst Mayr.


ERNST MAYR quote #1
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).


ERNST MAYR quote #2
"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)[/font]

[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.

The article makes perfectly valid points because this list has no substance. It's a blatant appeal to popularity. IF the scientists on that list made an argument on why the theory of evolution is flawed then there would be weight behind their inclusion. Otherwise this is politics not science and because of this it's perfectly acceptable to question the validity of the survey itself and the names on it.

There are no scientific claims here to debunk. It's an appeal to popularity - and a poor one at that as Goat's link illustrates.

Cheers

Like I said earlier, the appeal to popularity is when people say that there's no one who doesn't accept the Theory of evolution among the professional circuit. And if this is the extreme minority position, I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as "appeal to popularity". See the actual questions on the OP. Appeal to numbers and popularity almost is a guaranteed occurence whenever someone argues against the TOE, you will often see arguments like "Everyone in the scientific community accepts the TOE", but if a list is provided that shows that not everyone does, it's somehow now appeal to numbers and popularity? I don't see how an extreme minority position can be labeled such.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

[TheJackelantern]

Next Artie and the other pro-evolutionists on this forum will be arguing that since the majority of white people were convinced for centuries that blacks and other people of color were sub-species, that equates to "people of color are indeed sub-species."

Technically you could argue that. And subspecies doesn't mean being a secondary citizen ect. Your argument seems entirely rested on trying to play a game of dogma and emotional appeal. Are you here to preach ignorance or debate the subject?

There's no such thing as safety in numbers when errors are involved. At this point, Artie and his pals are all grasping at straws now that they realize that insiders from within the scientific community are saying what you and I have been saying all along: that macro-evolution is a myth.

We don't play the fish school game like you are.. We go by the evidence.., and claiming macro-evolution is wrong because you can toss those words together won't make it so.. You simply show your dishonesty here and that you're not even worth a discussion since you seem to have no knowledge of the subject.

[Autodidact]

The article makes perfectly valid points because this list has no substance. It's a blatant appeal to popularity. IF the scientists on that list made an argument on why the theory of evolution is flawed then there would be weight behind their inclusion. Otherwise this is politics not science and because of this it's perfectly acceptable to question the validity of the survey itself and the names on it.

There are no scientific claims here to debunk. It's an appeal to popularity - and a poor one at that as Goat's link illustrates.

Cheers

Like I said earlier, the appeal to popularity is when people say that there's no one who doesn't accept the Theory of evolution among the professional circuit.

Please cite anyone here who has ever said this. What we do say, which is what matters, is that the overwhelming consensus of BIOLOGISTS accept ToE.

And if this is the extreme minority position, I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as "appeal to popularity"

. Because it's dishonest. It's a blatant attempt to pad the numbers to disguise what is in fact an extreme, extreme minority position among Biologists, and make it look like a respectable, mainstream position. It isn't. It's a kook position.

See the actual questions on the OP. Appeal to numbers and popularity almost is a guaranteed occurence whenever someone argues against the TOE, you will often see arguments like "Everyone in the scientific community accepts the TOE", but if a list is provided that shows that not everyone does, it's somehow now appeal to numbers and popularity? I don't see how an extreme minority position can be labeled such.

Biologists. The point is that almost every Biologist does accept ToE.

If it were not, you would by now have provided me those names of 100 Biologists who are not creationists, and who reject it. Not question it, reject it. This is a list of various random people in various fields who merely question it. How bogus.

[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.

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

The article makes perfectly valid points because this list has no substance. It's a blatant appeal to popularity. IF the scientists on that list made an argument on why the theory of evolution is flawed then there would be weight behind their inclusion. Otherwise this is politics not science and because of this it's perfectly acceptable to question the validity of the survey itself and the names on it.

There are no scientific claims here to debunk. It's an appeal to popularity - and a poor one at that as Goat's link illustrates.

Cheers

Like I said earlier, the appeal to popularity is when people say that there's no one who doesn't accept the Theory of evolution among the professional circuit. And if this is the extreme minority position, I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted as "appeal to popularity". See the actual questions on the OP. Appeal to numbers and popularity almost is a guaranteed occurence whenever someone argues against the TOE, you will often see arguments like "Everyone in the scientific community accepts the TOE", but if a list is provided that shows that not everyone does, it's somehow now appeal to numbers and popularity? I don't see how an extreme minority position can be labeled such.

The wikipedia Article basically shows that the accusations are just one big "Nuh uh", you should see the talk page, I've never seen so much dissent on a talk page even on actual evolution articles.

Of course it's an appeal to popularity.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

This is what petitions and surveys do. They attempt to sway opinion and cause change by weight of numbers. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, if a petition works, it does so due to weight of numbers. This works fine for politics but we are discussing science here.

[Shermana]

And then there's the issue of the word "Many". If there's a hundred thousand people who say something, and a hundred who are against it, are the hundred "many"?

Look at the next part:

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy

Also called: Appeal to majority, argument by concensus, concensus fallacy...hmmm, that doesn't jive with what you're saying.

Likewise, would you consider any argument in which one says that "Almost all scientists believe in TOE" to be an appeal to popularity or numbers?




Perhaps you'd like to try answering the questions on the OP which directly address this?

[Autodidact]

And then there's the issue of the word "Many". If there's a hundred thousand people who say something, and a hundred who are against it, are the hundred "many"?

Look at the next part:

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy

Also called: Appeal to majority, argument by concensus, concensus fallacy...hmmm, that doesn't jive with what you're saying.

Likewise, would you consider any argument in which one says that "Almost all scientists believe in TOE" to be an appeal to popularity or numbers?

No, so it's a failed appeal to a fallacious argument.

[Autodidact]

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?

No, but they're not all scientists.

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

Some of them, no doubt.

Are they all being dishonest?

No, though some of them may be. Some of them also may have been fooled by the deceptive phrasing of the statement, not having realized how DI would twist it and make it appear to be something it's not.

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Probably some of the non-scientists on the list is.

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

Not a scientific one, no.

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?

No.

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

No.

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

No.

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

No. First, they're correct. One should always be skeptical, and one should encourage vigorous inquiry. Notice that none of them said, "ToE" is wrong. Second, the most important factor is not consensus, but the evidence upon which that consensus is based.

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

Well, it's not really a dissent, is it? So it's not even fair to conclude that they dissent. Some of them may, and many of them may not.

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?

Definitely not.

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?

Sure. Heck, round-earthism isn't a 100% agreed on fact, but it's still correct.