"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?

[Autodidact]

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

[TheJackelantern]

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.

Perhaps I can help out by outlining both in a single statement:

Reality is all there is, and that which happens in and of reality is naturalistic, natural, and the every essence of naturalism. Thus, there is no such thing as supernatural, or unnatural. Anything other wise is a false perception.

[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.

Perhaps I can help out by outlining both in a single statement:

Reality is all there is, and that which happens in and of reality is naturalistic, natural, and the every essence of naturalism. Thus, there is no such thing as supernatural, or unnatural. Anything other wise is a false perception.

nope.

Philosophical naturalism makes truth claims about nonexistence of the supernatural. Methodological naturalism does not.

[pax]

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

[TheJackelantern]

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.

Perhaps I can help out by outlining both in a single statement:

Reality is all there is, and that which happens in and of reality is naturalistic, natural, and the every essence of naturalism. Thus, there is no such thing as supernatural, or unnatural. Anything other wise is a false perception.

nope.

Philosophical naturalism makes truth claims about nonexistence of the supernatural. Methodological naturalism does not.

I know it can..But how can it not male claims that are true? To have a naturalistic view of reality is still a philosophical position even if supported by methodological naturalism.. Philosophical naturalism doesn't need include falsehoods, or supernatural claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism ... losophy%29

Abstract:

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe

I do believe most stick to this when considering naturalism in philosophical terms. And we can rule out which is claimed to exist outside reality, or the nature of reality as that would be a self-refutation to say something exists outside the realm of reality, and reality's governing rules. This philosophically follows the concept of reason and natural law:

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1]

It's philosophically sound..

[Autodidact]

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

pax: You dragged the thread off topic. It's rather hypocritical of you to criticize Goat for responding to you. I'm really starting to wonder about your honesty.

Are you don't with the subject of evolution? Are you the same person who said that if I discussed it, you would too?

The impression I get is that you know you have no argument against it, so are bringing up any unrelated subject you can in an effort to disguise that. Is that correct?

[TheJackelantern]

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.

Could you get more off the thread topic if you tried? Hello, evolution? Got anything to say about it? How about "Darwinism?"

I think he realizes that he's lost that argument, or really isn't in a position to discuss it. To be honest, the debate was already won. And it's mostly because we all know that science is well past Darwin as we have discovered many driving forces of evolution to which was not known then. Even the tagging of neo-Darmwinism according to Creationists has long since been past up by modern understanding of evolution as we find out that many of Lamarck's work does apply to evolutionary theory, and that epigenetics does have a role as a mechanism in evolution. And that was one of the Creationists favorites as a tool to which we come to find out is a tool in evolution. It doesn't get much worse than that for them...

So it's an honest position for him to take a deist approach and suggest that it's plausible that the big bang was intelligently induced. I can give him that, but I wouldn't consider it a GOD, or even beyond future human capability. If he believes in a plausible entity, then there isn't much we can say about it other than we still require empirical evidence and substantiation before we could ever conclude said entity even exists... We know the Pantheist GOD exists empirically, so I would expect as much verification for his claims of a deity. I would even think it kewl if it did exist provided it's not like the narcissistic psychopath depicted in the bible..

pax: You dragged the thread off topic. It's rather hypocritical of you to criticize Goat for responding to you. I'm really starting to wonder about your honesty.

I agree a bit here.. The subject is being shifted and needs to get back on track..

[scourge99]

Philosophical naturalism makes truth claims about nonexistence of the supernatural. Methodological naturalism does not.

I know it can..But how can it not male claims that are true?

Because they cannot prove them in any meaningful sense of the word. Its analogous to the difference between disbelief in gods and certainty that there are no gods.

To have a naturalistic view of reality is still a philosophical position even if supported by methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is NOT a worldview. It is an assumption of methodology when performing science. It is merely a tool and makes no truth claim.

Theists or atheists can be methodological naturalists.

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe

I do believe most stick to this when considering naturalism in philosophical terms. And we can rule out which is claimed to exist outside reality, or the nature of reality as that would be a self-refutation to say something exists outside the realm of reality, and reality's governing rules. This philosophically follows the concept of reason and natural law:

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1]

It's philosophically sound..

There is a difference between:
1) I have never experienced, observed, or developed a test for the supernatural therefore i act, behave, or perform experiments as though it doesn't exist.
2) I have never experienced, observed, or developed a test for the supernatural therefore it does not exist.

Its analogous to the difference between disbelief in gods and certainty that there are no gods.

[Shermana]

The scientific method either works or it doesn't. If it works, ToE is correct.

Are you seriously serious? This has to be one of the absolutely worst Logical Syllogisms I've ever seen, this is an ILLOGICAL syllogism, my logic professor would have tossed you out of class for that one, and he was an Atheist!

Do you think it works?

Not all the time, obviously not.

Unless you want to explain to the world's Biologists that they're doing it wrong?

Not only do you not understand how a logical syllogism works, you pull the same appeal to authority that I've been accused of for posting this. Let's see if we have a hat trick going here:

Might be kind of tough, so I hope you're up for a challenge.

Might be kind of tough to understand that there are times the Scientific method doesn't always produce truthful results, it's as if you think every single scientific theory has always been true.

Ape-things didn't turn into men. Men, and women, are apes. We are a species of ape, regardless of whether ToE is correct or not.

Am I reading this correctly or is Autodidact saying that she believes that "Ape-things didn't turn into men" and that men and women are classified as a "species of ape"? Really? Can you please link that says we are in fact a "Species of ape"? Thanks. Are we a species of fish too?

[Shermana]

I highly disagree, you're comparing interpretations of evidence on a "micro-adaptation" scale to electronic gadgetry, radically different concepts. It's not anywhere close to being "Good enough for ape-things to men".

So, apparently, you understand science better than scientists, and you understand Biology better than Biologists. You've examined the extensive, immense, overwhelming evidence for ToE, the evidence that overcame the most informed and passionate resistance in the history of science, and decided, independently, that it's not good enough for you, because you know better.

I assume this took years of study to undermine such ample and consistent evidence.

Shall we review that evidence together, and you can show us all exactly how it is inadequate?

Wow, I would like to see anyone who accused me of appeal to authority to give Autodidact the same thing. I will DEFINITELY be quoting this post if I am EVER accused of appeal to authority or popularity or anything like that ever again. Bookmarked!

It's almost as if you think you can just ignore all the arguments and just go for a quick sharp turn into appeal to authority land as if nothing anyone says about the actual subject matter matters. This here is a golden post. A truly golden post. You're aware that no one has to have any authority to debate facts and concepts here, right?

Not a bad follow up to a post in which you say that because Computers exist, therefore the ToE must be true. I mean, that has to be the (il)logical syllogism of the year. Does anyone here have the Chutzpath to agree with Autodidact, that Applied Technology proves that a Inferential-theory are necessarily always connected?

Hey, let's make a new rule for this forum: No questioning what ANY scientist says unless you have a PH.D. No need to discuss the facts or anything. You can say the Sky is blue, but unless you have a PH.D, you're not allowed. This has to be, by far, the best post of the thread, the ultimate display of sheer hypocrisy and utter disregard for the actual debate process, it's as if you think there's no need for a debate board whatsoever, and that only people within the professional field can even dare to discuss this. It's as if you are tired of discussing the facts and evidence, and just want to go for a quick easy victory, dodging around the very basis of what the whole thread is about, this is great. I love this post. Thank you Autodidact! You have single handedly provided me with more ammo than you realize.