"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?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]Let me put it to you simply, Shermana. The position of the average pro-evolutionist is as follows:

"It doesn't matter that there's no evidence in the fossils showing that one type of animal evolved into something entirely different from what it started out as. True, Charles Darwin predicted we would find evidence of a squirrel turning into a bat and evidence of a whale turning into a bear. And it's true that Darwin and present-day evolutionists in the scientific community believe that every animal that has ever existed evolved from a single organism.

"Yeah, we're aware that as hard as the paleontologists have looked, they haven't found one single fossil linking one type/species of animal to an entirely different species. But so what! We've got the numbers on our side. More of us believe the bat came from a squirrel and the bear came from a whale than do the Creationists who reject the belief. Never mind that the fossils of every single creature that evolved into a completely different creature can't be found. Every last one must have dissolved into the earth or something. Yeah, that's it! That's what must have happened. Every single fossil showing this occurrence dissolved away--mysteriously.

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: If so many of us believe it, then it stands to reason that it MUST have happened. Who cares about facts when so many of us are willing to believe what hasn't been proven? Grant you, it's an act of blind faith, but there, you have it. Since majority wins, we get the 1st PRIZE TROPHY for having the most people on our side--even if we're dead wrong."[/font]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if any of this bore the slightest resemblance to reality? And yet, oddly, no one has yet to post anything remotely resembling this here at DC&R.

I too find it much easier to win arguments if I make up the other side's position. However, my integrity prevents me from doing so.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT:

Well, get ready to start laughing at yourself, because everything I said in that pretended conversation quoted herein is accurate. If you don't believe me, check the responses I gave directly above to your two pals, TheBlackPhilosophy and TheJackelantern.[/font]

[TheJackelantern]

Protesting will do you no good. What I posted is not layman but is the scientific definition of "organic evolution" aka "common decent". I got that definition from several websites. And that definition is not abiogenesis (the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter without God). The definition I'm giving here involves what takes place AFTER the first organism has already come to life.

Incorrect, what you posted is entirely laymen..

(the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter without God)

No need for magic or imaginary beings here..

The definition I'm giving here involves what takes place AFTER the first organism has already come to life.

Actually you have not provided the definition of evolution.. You tried to express tenets of evolution to which you did nothing to disprove or provide evidence against.. And worst of all, you keep ignoring what people have posted here.. I've already killed this discussion in another thread... Your ignorance of biochemistry and evolutionary theory is apparent to say the least.

[Bust Nak]

Well, get ready to start laughing at yourself, because everything I said in that pretended conversation quoted herein is accurate. If you don't believe me, check the responses I gave directly above to your two pals, TheBlackPhilosophy and TheJackelantern

Well I don't believe you, I checked the responses above and still got nothing like your quote. If they were accurate then link to them.

[Janx]

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.

"It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong."

It jives just fine. What else is a petition but an appeal to numbers.

• During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
  
  Yet 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 that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.
  
  The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.
  
  The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about.php

The "evidence" is never presented. The claim is never disputed. All we are given is a list of names with a vague opinion without a reason to back it up. Why should the number of names on this list matter?

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?

Yes, if that argument comes with zero evidence to justify the beliefs of those scientists. An appeal to authority can justify a reason to pursue a case but it does not make the case.

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

I did, I backed up Goat's link to which you responded:

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

This is just silly. The wiki answer almost all of your questions which just happen to be regarding the beliefs and personal integrity of the individual on that petition.

What else do you want here?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

Well, get ready to start laughing at yourself, because everything I said in that pretended conversation quoted herein is accurate.
...

I must agree with Miss Alter2Ego here.

Remember, she's playing pretend.

[Autodidact]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if any of this bore the slightest resemblance to reality? And yet, oddly, no one has yet to post anything remotely resembling this here at DC&R.

I too find it much easier to win arguments if I make up the other side's position. However, my integrity prevents me from doing so.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT:

Well, get ready to start laughing at yourself, because everything I said in that pretended conversation quoted herein is accurate. If you don't believe me, check the responses I gave directly above to your two pals, TheBlackPhilosophy and TheJackelantern.[/font]

Nope. No one here has ever said that we would find evidence of a squirrel turning into a bat and evidence of a whale turning into a bear, except you. Wouldn't that be funny, though, a squirrel turning into a bat! Who would believe such a thing?! You must think the universities are full of idiots.

[Autodidact]

Alter: Are you not willing to learn the quote function, or not able? Because your continued failure to do so violates our customs and courtesy here at DC & R.

[THEMAYAN]

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument that macro evolutionist have used for many years has been that all scientist in all fields prove that evolution occurred therefore confirming the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis, yet when a group of hundreds of scientist sign a list entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", all of a sudden the story changes, and now only biologist are somehow qualified to speak on the issue. What is even more interesting is that the list has many biologist on there.

The list was not meant as a spitting contest. The list was put forth to show that it wasn't just religious fundamentalist that were critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis as if all Christians just decided to park their brains at the church door. Again it was to demonstrate that there is a growing minority of scholars including some from major universities and from National Academy's here and abroad, including the late Phillip Skell from the American National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge only one person has asked to have his name removed, and per his request it was.

I include the members of the Altenberg 16 summit who are all evolutionist themselves but at least some of them are honest enough to admit that the theory that has been taught as a fact and an adequate explanation for the last 80 years is indeed inadequate, limited and needs to be reformulated and extended. Stewart Newman who was one of the main members blames some of his own evolutionary colleagues and admits that the public has been told to believe things that are simply untrue. In fact MIT published a report on the Extended Synthesis confirming that these particular evo devos I'm speaking of are calling for a relaxing of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. I think this is very telling.

[Haven]

TheMayan: welcome to the forum! Awesome to have you here!

Now on to your points:

1) There is no such thing as "macroevolution." There is only evolution, which is defined as 'the change in allele frequencies in a population over time.' This change is slow and gradual, but over time it can add up to large changes.

Let's use this example: I could walk to my neighbor's apartment across the hall. This is "micro-walking." I could continue past my neighbor's place and walk all the way to Miami Beach, a distance of almost 2,000 miles. At what point does my "micro-walking" become "macro-walking?" When I cross the street? When I leave my city? When I cross the Mason-Dixon line? In fact, there is no distinction between "micro-walking" and "macro-walking," there is only walking, and my short steps eventually add up to great distances.

It is the same way in evolution -- short steps eventually add up to big changes. I am the direct descendent of a fish, but that doesn't mean a fish can give birth to a human being. Instead, over millions of years, a population of fish gradually evolved into humans through many intermediate stages due to evolutionary pressures.

2) It does not matter how many scientists disagree with evolution (all for religious reasons), the evidence for evolution speaks for itself. Every scientist in the world could oppose evolution, and evolution would still be the best explanation of the evidence.

Peace and Reason,

Haven

[Shermana]

It never ceases to amaze me that the argument that macro evolutionist have used for many years has been that all scientist in all fields prove that evolution occurred therefore confirming the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis, yet when a group of hundreds of scientist sign a list entitled "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", all of a sudden the story changes, and now only biologist are somehow qualified to speak on the issue. What is even more interesting is that the list has many biologist on there.

The list was not meant as a spitting contest. The list was put forth to show that it wasn't just religious fundamentalist that were critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis as if all Christians just decided to park their brains at the church door. Again it was to demonstrate that there is a growing minority of scholars including some from major universities and from National Academy's here and abroad, including the late Phillip Skell from the American National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge only one person has asked to have his name removed, and per his request it was.

I include the members of the Altenberg 16 summit who are all evolutionist themselves but at least some of them are honest enough to admit that the theory that has been taught as a fact and an adequate explanation for the last 80 years is indeed inadequate, limited and needs to be reformulated and extended. Stewart Newman who was one of the main members blames some of his own evolutionary colleagues and admits that the public has been told to believe things that are simply untrue. In fact MIT published a report on the Extended Synthesis confirming that these particular evo devos I'm speaking of are calling for a relaxing of many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis. I think this is very telling.

Hey there, welcome to the forum Mayan and thank you for your honest input. At least someone here recognizes the actual intent of what's going on with this...

I appreciate you mentioning that so far only one person has asked to have their name removed, you'd think by some of the responses that it was quite a few. It seems that the criticism of the list is basically exactly what the OP is trying to expose...It's also interesting that the list is called an "Appeal to popularity" (although the definition seems to imply majority or concensus), but the most common argument for Macro-evolution is that "All scientists accept it". And also, the arguments that "only a few biologists are on it" is apparently NOT a form of appeal to popularity or something? I think the hypocrisy of the critics of the list speaks for itself. As if the Biologists who oppose it don't get their opinions counted because they are in the minority? As if their views are only guided by ideology while the other's arent?