"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?

[Goat]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science. Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception. No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist.

Yet, religion has this bit of a problem in that it makes lots of claims that can not be shown to be true, can not be tested, and you get all sorts of people willing to kill other people due to their disagreements.



As we see over the years of historically recorded science, what one generation accepts as scientific truth is altered in the next generation. Sometimes the accepted dogmatic truth of one generation of scientists is even stood on its head by the successding generations of scientists.

A good example would be the impetus theory, which was dogmatic to the scientists who preceeded Newton, and even with Newton's proofs took a generation to be fully uprooted.[/quote]

[pax]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science. Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception. No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist.

Yet, religion has this bit of a problem in that it makes lots of claims that can not be shown to be true, can not be tested, and you get all sorts of people willing to kill other people due to their disagreements.

More people have died in the name of Karl Marx than of any religious leader.

You can look up the carnage left in the wake of Marxism, and compare it to the carnage left in the wake of religious leaders. Marx is ahead by an order of magnitude.

[Goat]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science. Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception. No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist.

Yet, religion has this bit of a problem in that it makes lots of claims that can not be shown to be true, can not be tested, and you get all sorts of people willing to kill other people due to their disagreements.

More people have died in the name of Karl Marx than of any religious leader.

You can look up the carnage left in the wake of Marxism, and compare it to the carnage left in the wake of religious leaders. Marx is ahead by an order of magnitude.

And here you conflate marxism and science.. Marxism is a ideology,.. and has nothing to do with the previous statement about the difference between Science and Religion at all.. and no, I don't think you are right at all on your statement.

[TheJackelantern]

There is one thing I will agree on with Pax.. We can not know if this Universe was induced by an intelligent source. In this context he could be right that both are true and we wouldn't know it.. This is would still make everything of natural phenomenon without needing to appeal to magic or immateriality. It still won't change that evolution can be the only means of true origin if you break everything down to the lowest possible state of existence when considering consciousness can't exist without cause.. This doesn't mean there isn't things in existence influenced by intelligent means.

I thought I would clear that up because I am perfectly open to the idea of intelligent influence if it can proven, and demonstrated. Hence, if humans can induce a big bang some time in the future, why couldn't another race or species of beings?..After all, it's just a matter of physics.. I'm open to more plausible ideas but I do not rest my beliefs on ideas that blindly assert themselves as magical fact..

So, as an example, we have created light from the vacuum to!:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-sci ... acuum.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-res ... lmost.html

Interesting eh.. Next up, will researchers create a universe through the use of mini-blackholes and a repulsive force?:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6545246

Well, maybe in 2,000 years we might be able to..Perhaps 1 million years from now..Who knows.. But the idea gives you some insight about the concept of GOD. Should we consider ourselves as GOD's if we do? Well, I don't think so. I think that concept is a matter of ego and elitism than anything else..

[scourge99]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science. Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception. No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist.

Yet, religion has this bit of a problem in that it makes lots of claims that can not be shown to be true, can not be tested, and you get all sorts of people willing to kill other people due to their disagreements.

More people have died in the name of Karl Marx than of any religious leader.

You can look up the carnage left in the wake of Marxism, and compare it to the carnage left in the wake of religious leaders. Marx is ahead by an order of magnitude.

Only because marxism related deaths occurred in an age where the population was much higher than before and because technology was advanced enough to cause more death. E.G., crusaders didn't have machine guns, poison gas, and artillery. Not to mention advances in food, transportation, and logistics that would have allowed them to stay in the field far longer and travel much further.

Also, do you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism?

[TheJackelantern]

I like this speech concerning science and religion ect.. As we all know, both can cause problems in the world if used and abused.:

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

I can't help but love these guys.. They Stand up for religion and logic and reason. A theist and an Atheist that get it.. Two men that sees science, philosophy, and even religion as a tool for progress and not for destruction should we make as so.

[Autodidact]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science.

That's right, it's philosophy. So why are you discussing it in this thread? Why did you bring it up?

Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception. No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist.

As we see over the years of historically recorded science, what one generation accepts as scientific truth is altered in the next generation. Sometimes the accepted dogmatic truth of one generation of scientists is even stood on its head by the successding generations of scientists.

A good example would be the impetus theory, which was dogmatic to the scientists who preceeded Newton, and even with Newton's proofs took a generation to be fully uprooted.

Yup. Did you have a point related to this thread?

[bernee51]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible, though a small minority believe that there are other ways of knowing.

What it says is that, at the moment there is no way of scientifically connecting with the supernatural - and, I would add that there never will be because as soon as it happens it will no longer be supernatural.

What is you view on the Evidential Reformation" (perhaps I should start a new thread if this topic is not apropos of the current one)

To quote Thomas Berry: “We'll never achieve a just and sustainably lifegiving future on the resources of the existing religious traditions, and we can’t get there without them.� 

[scourge99]

That's easy. Science is merely the discovering of facts about the natural world. Philosophy is the reasoning upon those facts to produce a theory. I don't have a problem with any fact discovered by science. My problem is with people like yourself who cloak those facts in philisophical naturalism and then proclaim philisophical naturalism to be science. It's not. Get over it.

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible, though a small minority believe that there are other ways of knowing.

What it says is that, at the moment there is no way of scientifically connecting with the supernatural - and, I would add that there never will be because as soon as it happens it will no longer be supernatural.

I disagree. I don't believe philosophical naturalism is tenable. Methodological naturalism is.

[bernee51]

Not sure what you problem here is...a definition: Philosophical naturalism is the doctrine that the observable world is all there is.

Which is an unprovable assumption, and therefore not science.

 it is however science's bailiwick , all science can spam to. It makes no claims about the supernatural, unless you consider a thought, consciousness, to be supernatural. So your point, if not moot, is not well made

Science is severely limited by sensory perception and whatever instruments men can devise to enhance that perception.

 even in the perceiving the object of perception may be changed, or perhaps created. Is Shrodingers cat dead or alive?

No one can put a thought in a bottle and conduct experiments upon it. Yet no one doubts that such a thing as a thought does indeed exist. 

fMRI anyone?

As we see over the years of historically recorded science, what one generation accepts as scientific truth is altered in the next generation. Sometimes the accepted dogmatic truth of one generation of scientists is even stood on its head by the successding generations of scientists. 

Which is exactly what science is, unlike religion where the ideas and philosophies of some of them are supposedly literally struck on stone. Some have had the sense to evolve along with community. It is they of which the likes of Berry speak.

A good example would be the impetus theory, which was dogmatic to the scientists who preceeded Newton, and even with Newton's proofs took a generation to be fully uprooted. 

Yep , science in action...fantastic,