THEMAYAN wrote:
I think that these people are just as qualified to offer their opinion as you, I or anyone else who is willing to do the research. In their case they already have an understanding of the basic principles of how science works including theorems, hypothesis, principles and laws etc.
Still missing the point. No one is saying they cannot give their opinion. Science not a matter of opinion but evidence.
No, I believe you are missing the point. It is because a lack of evidence that these opinions are based on. I also included evolutionary biologist who are just as critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis. In fact the lack of evidence has caused other scientist like Dean Kenyon, Charles Thaxton, Michael Denton, Phillip Skell and many others to renounce this axiom. Even the late great Anthony Anthony Flew not only renounced the theory, but even renounced atheism once he came to better understand that physics and chemistry alone could not account for the type of integrated complexity and especially the digital encoded information within the genome which also requires another extremely sophisticated transcription process to to read the code forwards and reveres at the same time and these examples are just to name a few.
Quote:
Darwin himself was not a formally trained scientist. He had more knowledge of the priest hood than biology.
Right, and his lack of training didn't stop him expressing his opinion to the scientific community, he backed it up with evidence.
This is an example of what I meant by qualifications. Yes Darwin did some great work. He was able to demonstrate how finch beaks could vary from Island to Island through natural selection. He showed many example of other animals able to vary in size and so forth. What he was not able to do was to demonstrate how we got finches and so on in the first place. These are based on assertions, assumptions and a limited understanding of how genetics much less epigenetic actually work. His theory of Pangenesis is now considered a discredited hypothesis. In fact classical Darwinism failed to meet even the standards of 1930s science and this is why the neo Darwinian synthesis was developed. It seemed like a plausible theory back then but based on 21 century data it is no longer adequate and is out dated. Hence this why many are trying to reformulate and extend the synthesis. I discussed this in my previous thread so please look at it before you ask anymore questions about it.
Quote:
Furthermore, biologist use mathematical statistics, computer scientist and program writers all the time, and these people have to understand the subject well enough to accomplish these task. Biologist are also now using the aid of design theorist to better help them understand the physical, chemical structures and emergent systems that make up the newer fields of systems biology and bioinformatics.
And yet with these 800+ experts, the Discovery Institute are reduced to collecting their signitures instead of their research.
Again, the men I cited before also did there research and found the theory inadequate, and in fact there are many peer review articles that demonstrate a body of research supporting ID, and it is not uncommon for scientist to write articles that make correlation's from the previous research of others. No one owns science. Furthermore the NCSE which is a leading critic of ID put out the Steve list and Eugenie Scott is the brain child of the Clergy Letter Project according to Michael Zimmerman who adopted the project.
Quote:
If what they say is the truth then it shouldn't matter who or what they are.
Correct. Now would it matter how many of them there are. We reject what they/you are saying because they/you are not convincing us it is the truth.
I already answered the first question in other thread.
I'm not sure what you mean by the truth. Are you implying that it is untrue that they are not critical of neo Darwinism? What ever you mean. Let me put it this way. If you believe something to be untrue you have every right to reject it, but this is about science and not your persnel sensibilities.
Quote:
Let me ask you, would you accept the word of a naturalist preacher who was going to tell you how live evolved on this planet?
Depends on how convining he is. I am ready to change my mind if he shows me solid evidence.
You and I are in agreement on the second sentence but I reject the first sentence. "Solid evidence" that support the theory yes. Unfortunately much of what was once referred to as solid evidence is now known to be not so solid.
Quote:
The Altenberg summit is an example of of 16 non religious men who represent a global community of hundreds of others and especially in the field of evolutionary development biologist/(evo devo for short) who are also critical of the the neo Darwinian synthesis better known as the modern theory of Evolution.
From my understanding they are arguing the detail of evolution, not whether evolution is true.
Fair enough, but I have been researching the extended synthesis for four years now and have read much of the work of Massimo Pigliucci, Stuart Newman. Richard Lewontin and others who were there and I and others have a different take on it just being "details"
I also hate to repeat myself. Please read my previous threads. I stated many times that they were all evolutionist. Again if you have questions on points made then please read the threads carefully.
Quote:
If you want to use (the who's qualified) approach, then you have to consider that most biologist in general are not evolutionary biologist.
Evo Devo is a specialized and particular field of biology dealing with the subject of evolution, and it is these same evo devos that are the most critical of the neo Darwinian synthesis. So you kind of shoot yourself in the foot by using these (whose more qualified standards) discrimination standards.
Are you saying those who attented Altenbery summit are evolutionary biologists don't accept evolution? They do.
It's Altenberg and I have repeatedly answered this question.
Quote:
This is not true, and in fact common ancestry is one of the assumptions that they want to relax and I can provide the keynoted taken at the meeting.
What does relaxing an assumption even mean? Lets see it.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... art-i.html
NOTES FROM ALTENBERG AND THESE ARE JUST A FEW.
"Assumptions include: heredity by transmission through the germ line; heredity from recombination and mutation; heritable variation has small effects; unit of selection is the gene (added in the 1970s); phenotypic innovations are a result of cumulative gene mutations; targets of selection are individuals; evolution is a matter of descent with modification from a common ancestor"
They left out gradualism, the role of natural selection and self organization models which the NSCE and a few others reject because based on the words of Eugenie Scott director of the NSCE....."People might confuse self organization with intelligent design" but Stewart Newman includes them in his interviews.
Quote:
Why would you assume that every biologist on the dissent list is a religious fundamentalist? What proof do you have that they are and what does it matter what someones personel faith is? Why shouldn't the same standard apply to atheist? According to this logic the only neutral parties would be agnostics, and even then one can accuse them of being ambiguous and blame it on their agnosticism. If this sound silly to you then you know how I feel.
It doesn't really matter who they are, what matter is the research and a list of names doesn't count.
Not sure why you quoted someone else's argument if its not your argument also, and I already responded to this point
List is entitled. A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. How much more clear can that get?
How about "a scientific dissent from evolution, a theory in crisis" or "a scientific support for creationism" That's what it is being used as.
Some people use the theory of evolution to support atheism. So by those same standards should we call it the theory of evolution verifying God doesn't exist because some people use it for that reason? These are called straw man arguments.
Quote:
Again the list was not an endorsement of ID and was never labeled as such.
Hence the charge of deception.
Deception by who? Again are you saying that these men and women are lying when they say they are critical of neo Darwinism and enough so to jeopardize there careers and be harassed by people just for putting their names on a public list? Please tell me anyone who is a member of the DI who said the list is proof or evidence that all these signatories support ID. Now maybe in a sense they are supporting ID by signing a list list put out by the DI, but so what. People have the right to do what ever they want. The fact remains that the title is called A Scientific Dissent From Darwin. If the list implies a theory in crisis, then again so what. It is not being deceptive. The theory has been in crisis for decades. J. Gould another honest evolutionist proclaimed neo Darwinism dead thirty years ago.
