http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

[Stephen note: CL emailed me and asked that I delete the body of the article; the formatting didn't work out correctly. I have done so.]

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Answers

Let's try that again.

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."

100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism

Monday, September 24, 2001 Contact: Mark Edwards 206.292.0401 x107 / medwards@discovery.org

SEATTLE -- In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")

"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the debate," said Chapman, a former Director of the US Census Bureau. "The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional and political line in America." The national sample of 1,202 adults was conducted by Zogby International from August 25-29. The margin of error is +/-3.0%.

Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week also opened a special website (www.reviewevolution.org) to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.

Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am 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."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U. • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. • Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Add to the above list, this list of scientists through history (previously posted on another thread) who believed in Creation as narrated in the book of Genesis, and we quickly come to see that the claims of some that "there are no credible scientists who challenge the theory of evolution" becomes so much fluff. There are now, and have been, hundreds of credible scientists who deny evolution. Some of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced are included in this group. Leonardo da Vinci
Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz
Johathan Edwards
Carolus Linneaus
William Herschel
John Dalton
Humphrey Davy
Michael Faraday
Samuel F. B. Morse
Charles Babbage
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin
Joseph Lister
William Mitchell Ramsay
James Clerk Maxwell
George Washington Carver
Arthur Wilder-Smith

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

The list of scientists, reformatted.

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia

Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.

Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member

Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.

Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.

Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.

Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois

Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College

Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.

Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK

Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville

David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico

James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida

Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan

Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.

Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder

Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College

William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:

George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida

Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.

James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah

Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington

Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen

Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis

Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member

Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho

Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho

David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.

Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.

Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia

Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M

Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)

Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School

Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories

Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences

William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens

Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia

Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.

Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College

Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin

Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.

Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College

Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College

William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.

Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia

Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine

Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.

Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.

Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.

Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor

John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico

Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin

Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia

Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.

David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author

Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland

John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.

James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm

John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa

Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.

Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City

Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington

Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute

Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.

Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.

Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior

James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.

Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm

Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas

Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.

Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School

William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City

Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico

Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.

Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago

Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology

Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College

Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.

David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.

Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)

Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute

Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington

Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.

Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan

Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College

Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley

Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina

Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.

James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center

Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha

Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.

David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.

Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.

Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley

James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.

Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U.

Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College

Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U.

Richard Sternberg: Postdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute

James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U.

Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

CL,

There are a few names missing that surprise me. Jonathan Wells at UCal-Berkeley is there, but Paul Chien, chairman of Biology at U of San Francisco, isn't. I know that Chien has been outspoken in his criticism of biological evolution in general.

Thanks for posting this. I've been too busy to get involved in the other threads (speaking from experience, it takes a lot of work to cobble together links, quotes, etc.) that you've started here, but I DID want to address the contention -- oft made by amateur evolutionists in online fora -- that "no scientist in the field of biology at a respected university" questions the premise behind evolutionary theory.

You've done it for me. I knew about Jon Wells, Paul Chien and several others. That statement is simply false.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

I loved the special and how they tried (in the last part) to try and make creation scientists look like religious freaks.....that attempt backfired horribly. PBS probably doesn't even know it, but they helped to advance the Gospel. heh. God uses anyone and anything to HIS ends!

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

I have no problem with scientists being skeptical. After all, it's a scientist's JOB to be skeptical.

But nowhere in this post can I find even the slightest hint of any competing explanation for the complexity of life, much less any suggestion of how such a competing explanation might be supported or discarded based on evidence or investigation.

This makes me question the motivation behind this press release. After all, we KNOW that Einstein's theory of relativity and our current best theory of quantum mechanics cannot *both* be correct, since they contradict one another. Yet we don't have "100 scientists" banding together to express skepticism about quantum mechanics. Why not?

So I ask Chicken Little, or Stephen Poole, or true believer -- can any of you suggest ANY alternative explanation for the complexity of life *along with test capable of proving it WRONG to your satisfaction*? I'll be honest -- I believe none of these skeptical scientists dare suggest any alternative, because either it CAN NOT be found wrong by investigation (which makes it magic and not science), or else it CAN be found wrong, in which case it must compete with Darwin's theory *on the evidence*, and Darwin's theory is the best we have based on actual evidence.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

CL:

I don't take part in these discussions, but I did read your list. Now, I don't work in this area but I have been invited to a number of international conferences in the area [relates to what I do (co-evolution of microbes and plants), but I won't go into that].

One hundred scientists; mostly non-biologists. To be honest, I haven't heard of most of them. Surely, they haven't been at any of the conferences that I have attended. Hell, I run the graduate program in my area; we have more than 100 faculty members; this is biology on one campus. If you add up all of the non-regular faculty it goes much higher. One hundred, mostly unknown people, doesn't mean much.

My observation is that if these people are agruing about Darwin: well they are stuck in the 19th Century. They really haven't kept up with the field. Personally, I don't believe that you have to be at a major research university or institute to be credible. You do have to provide data and alternative explanations. Sorry to repeat you Flint.

End of my participation.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

100 unknowns out of 1,000,000 working Scientists? NOT VERY MANY. A "5 times nominated Nobel"? PUHLEESE. Find me a Nobel Winner in Biology or Biochemistry who would debate the merits of the current theory of Evolution.
As for the "Historical Scientists", BULL. HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ALSO "BELIEVED" IN "THE ETHER" (the mysterious something that transported waves). At least until Michaelson-Morley was properly interpreted. There are DARWINISTS today who also believe in Biblical Creation and as the PBS program pointed out, some of them have no problem calling themselves "orthodox Christians and orthodox Darwinists".

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Flint -

"...nowhere in this post can I find even the slightest hint of any competing explanation for the complexity of life."

Here's one -- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good....And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good....And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Genesis 1:11,12,21,24-27.

He made all the vegetable and animal life "after his kind", "after their kind." There is not one, repeat *not one*, fossil that shows one species turning into another. One never has been found. Evolutionists simply assume they exist. But they've never been found. (Newsflash: they never will be found, because they don't exist.)

"...can any of you suggest ANY alternative explanation for the complexity of life *along with test capable of proving it WRONG to your satisfaction*?"

No. And neither can you. Evolution goes on faith, every bit as much as does Creationism. Nobody living was around when these events took place, so nobody living can *prove* it one way or the other. They can't be "tested". It all boils down to what you choose to believe. Evolution is not a "fact" you can prove, like you can prove the law of gravity by dropping a brick. Come up with all the semantical games you can muster, and you still can't get around that inexorable reality.

Z -

"One hundred scientists; mostly non-biologists." If you'll look at the list, the vast majority come from biology, chemistry, and/or physics backgrounds. Evolutionary theory isn't only about biology. It also supposes that the earth, planets, and stars all came about by some random cosmic accident as well; before there were any living organisms. This branch of the equation leaves biology completely out, since there wasn't any life yet (according to the theory); that's where things like chemistry, physics, geology, etc. come into play. These non-biologists' presence on the list enhances its veracity, rather than lessening it, as you seem to imply.

"I haven't heard of most of them." You point being...? Have they heard of you? If they haven't, does that make your work any less important, your professional opinion any less valid? Could it be that their 'fame' is limited by the fact that the evolutionist scientific establishment has shown a marked tendency to suppress the work of those who disagree?

"My observation is that if these people are agruing about Darwin: well they are stuck in the 19th Century. They really haven't kept up with the field." That's a straw man, and you know it. Darwin is still hotly debated by evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike. Certainly there have been modifications to the original theory; "neo-Darwinism", etc. Anybody who's done even the most preliminary reading about the subject knows that. Certainly men with Ph. D.'s in these fields realize that modifications have been made. Point being that those who challenge evolution believe that the modifications are false, since the foundation upon which they were laid is likewise false.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Sorry CL:

My PhD is in structural chemistry; but my work is in molecular biology. Evolution is about biology. You can make up any rules that you want and have them supported by people who are unknown; and, indeed, call them important scientists. Certainly, I will ignore you.

I limit my contact with anti-intellectural theocrats. I do take great pleasure in making them look like fools in public. But I have little time for it.

I have found that the better course is to be in a decision making position. I get to decide whether anyone pays any attention to anti-intellecuals.

Works for me.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Usher -

"There are DARWINISTS today who also believe in Biblical Creation" Not possible. A diametrically opposed contradiction in terms. Can't believe in both. People might believe in a bastardized version of Biblical creation, and call it Biblical; that don't make it so. Calling a cowpie a perfume pit doesn't make it smell any better.

"as the PBS program pointed out, some of them have no problem calling themselves 'orthodox Christians and orthodox Darwinists'."

Again, talk is cheap. People can call themselves anything.

BTW, a good portion of the historical scientists lived after the outdated beliefs you reference were in vogue.

What this boils down to, is that you refuse to admit any validity in any viewpoint that denies evolutionary theory; while you demand that those of us who deny evolution see the validity in your viewpoint.

There's a word for that type of thinking: HYPOCRISY.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

As for Usher's story on the universal genetic code, see

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Taxonomy/wprintgc?mode=c

which is a page full of documented deviations from that supposed universal genetic code, at the site of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), Bethesda, MD.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

By-the-by CL:

I am not really being rude to you. I have dealt with anti-intellectual, theocrats in this area for decades. Now if Flint wants to try logic; okay by me. I have found that people who start with the answer [unfounded] and progress to the question, cannot be reached with logic. Most, like you, make up things as they go along. You get your science from web sites.

I will satisfy myself with making fools of your type in public, until you come up with real data. Once again, no hard feelings.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Quite all right, Z. You don't have nearly the power that you imagine. You're free to think whatever you want, label me however you wish.

If I get knowledge from web sites: good. That's a prime function of the web, is it not? Would you prefer that I go to the library and look up the same information? Would that suit you better? I would think that a scientific person such as yourself would rejoice to see the web being used for one of the purposes for which it was founded. Guess not, huh.

No hard feelings, absolutely. I'm laughing too much for that.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Z:

I'm not trying to "reach" CL by logic or any other means. Those who pride themselves on being ineducable couldn't even reach themselves. So the logic is simply to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the nonsense CL claims to take on faith. The facts are to demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationist doctrine. And ultimately, the psychology is intended to spotlight the character of those whose insecurities lead them to prefer idiocy to doubt. For CL, any answer that's absolute is sufficient for that very reason, regardless of how stupid or contrary to all observation it happens to be.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

I hope you fellers are getting a buzz off this conversation you're having. It's really quite entertaining.

Somebody a good bit smarter than either of you wrote this:

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Applies pretty directly to the present discussion, methinks. I'll take God's wisdom over man's also-ran substitute, 24/7/365. Of course you think that's ignorant. Until you accept the fact that there's a Power in this universe above and beyond human understanding, and quit trusting solely in your own human intellect as being above all else, there's no way you could think differently.

I just hope you figure all that out before time's up.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Little, your "deviations" don't mean what you think they do. But then you would have to know what a Codon is to know that wouldn't you?

Do you even know what an amino acid is? They were isolated decades ago. Some of them have a special name because they have vital functions. Bet you don't even know the names for them.

As such, you can't proceed because all you are doing is what people with more skill (but the same bias) like Gary North do: cut and paste things they think are favorable and try to drown out the opposition.

Its sort of what the true believers in "cold fusion" still try to do and at the same time they bring up the same charges the "creation" muppets try, "Standard Science is prejudiced", "we are discriminated against because we are a minority" and similar nonsense.

Its cult like behavior but then people like you are comfortable because "you know what you know" don't you?

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Charlie:

Time to give it a break, I think. When CL is reduced to quoting his magic book and "arguing" that actual thought is an error all by itself, the discussion is basically over. He could not have shouted "uncle" any louder.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

The following is pure contradiction.

If I get knowledge from web sites: good. That's a prime function of the web, is it not? Would you prefer that I go to the library and look up the same information? Would that suit you better? I would think that a scientific person such as yourself would rejoice to see the web being used for one of the purposes for which it was founded. Guess not, huh.

For the 100th plus time, "data is not fact, fact is not knowledge and even knowledge is not necessarily "wisdom".

Data ala: Little and others is merely "noise". When they get enough believers together to sing the same song, it is still noise even though they think it is harmony.

It is the same type of "connect the dots, read between the lines, filter out the spin" logic is ok if it backs up the belief. We saw that in Y2k when no matter what stories were de-bunked or facts presented, the zombies merely went back to the web for "knowledge". Little will never understand that without being able to do the Science and understand what one is doing, the ability to judge what one is reading about Science is always severely limited. Its like reading articles on China or Hong Kong in English based on translations by the assorted fringe groups and accepting them as "fact".

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

An evolutionist isn't perforce godless. A little theocratic flexibility permits evolution as God's tool. To be made in God's likeness takes a little time. What's the problem?

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Carlos:

Sounds good superficially, but it hide a certain deviousness. Saying evolution is the process some god invented to eventually create us, is like saying gravity is some god's way of pushing objects toward the greatest nearby mass. Or (once again, sigh) like saying indetectable fairies make the flowers bloom.

These proposals, when you really think about them, add nothing relevant, violate Occam's razor, and might trick some people into thinking they'd found the whole answer and (thankfully!) didn't need to search for anything further, which is hard work and might even prove your proposals wrong!

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Flint,

Finding a falsifiable theory for intelligent design is the easiest thing in the world to do. We already use the methodology on a daily basis in other branches of science.

I see a dead body. I have to decide whether that body was killed by someone (ie, murder) or by some act of nature. I apply the scientific method to this and come to a conclusion, and if I do it right, my results are admissible as evidence in a court of law -- BECAUSE they are scientifically-derived.

Or, I can apply Occam's Razor as the anti-religious want to do: "he's already dead (ie, "it already happened"), and the fact that it's unlikely that someone could spontaneously grow holes in their chest that leak blood is irrelevant. The statistics bore me; we don't know enough yet to speculate in this case. Maybe micrometorites made those punctures. Who can say?"

You already know that you'd be laughed out of any forum in which you proposed such nonsense.

Likewise, there is good evidence that this universe was designed for life. Further, there is NO *scientific* (<-read carefully! We've had this discussion before!) evidence that it isn't. If we apply the scientific method rigourously and without bias to what we know of the universe, there is STRONG evidence for a designer.

Evidence is more than enough for a hypothesis. From the hypothesis stage, we begin to formulate a falsifiable theory.

Nor does this have to be the least bit religious. Yes, religious people will instantly claim that the Designer is God. You and Eugenie Scott need to get over that; it's going to happen.[g] No way around it.

But most cosmologists are willing to look at the possibility from a completely-scientific, religion-neutral aspect. Many cosmologists reject any form of creationism and accept the premises of panspermia, for example.

If the panspermists are right and we are constantly being bombarded with new genetic material from space (as Chandra Wickramasinghe claims here), the understanding of this mechanism would revolutionize our study of medicine (especially epidemiology). Refusing to pursue that line of research solely because it might appear "religious" is just plain bad science.

Worse, it's pure bias, and nothing but. You see, whether Chicken Little and I agree in all particulars (and we do not, as you well know) isn't the issue here. Whether all of these scientists agree (and they do not) isn't the issue, either.

The REAL issue, when you cut through the smoke, is that there are some people in science -- mostly in biology (and paleontology, to be specific, judging from the surveys that I've seen) who reflexively, knee-jerk-style, reject ANY concept of a designer solely because they don't want to encourage religion in any way.

That's fine. This is a free society; they can believe as they wish. But as I alluded to on that other thread, it does get tiresome when they themselves engage in the same bias, censorship and predjudice of which they regularly accuse Believers. :)

(Tiresome, and to me, to be honest, more than a little humorous. Life's a gas sometimes.[g])

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Time to give it a break, I think.

It's going on the 14th year [I think] that my son and his best friend have been debating evolution vs. creation. I suspect I'll be dead before they finish, if they EVER do finish.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Likewise, there is good evidence that this universe was designed for life. Further, there is NO *scientific* (<-read carefully! We've had this discussion before!) evidence that it isn't. If we apply the scientific method rigourously and without bias to what we know of the universe, there is STRONG evidence for a designer.
This is 100% INCORRECT. If you remove man from the Earth, would there still be any need for a designer? Would you still dare make the statement that the universe is designed for life? It is the unique "eqo trip" for man to assume that he exists in some sort of Pyramidal Arrangement on top of the other Creatures. And to complete the picture, Man needs this "designer". In a similar manner, the desire to make "order" out of chaos leads Man to certain political structures and then surround them with a collection of Mantras that they are the "Chosen" structures.

If there is "Evidence" for anything it is that everything that Man does can be reduced to the elemental "Food, shelter and propagation of the species" and little different than the same drives that all other forms of life have.

But it is Man's need to order the chaos that leads to the need to "Create" the Designer just as much as any Designer might have created the universe.

That eliminates "evidence" which is replaced by "desire" for the Designer and that desire is as we know "universal" from those who chose a Triune Godhead to those who worshipped Cats and The Sun.

There is strong HOPE for a designer. There is a strong "wanting" for a designer but no evidence. It is "man's" need to answer the questions "where did we come from and where are we going" that drives these hopes and wants.

Dogs, cats, lobsters, ants and other forms of moving DNA do not have these hopes and wants.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

And for the millionth time, there is NO WAY SCIETIFICALLY to prove or disprove THERE IS A SUPREME BEING. You are in the area of FAITH not SCEINCE. And the most disgusting habit of the Creationists, Designers and others who mess with Evolution and other Scientific things is that while Science can't enter their Domain, they think nothing of both entering Science (usually badly) and worse, calling Science a "religion". "SCIENCE" IS A METHOD. There is a Methodology called "the Scientific Method" and the limits of where Science can go are fairly well defined. It is for certain Science can not go into the areas of "Faith and Belief". Any attempts to do so leads to a logical contradiction for want of any experiment that can be set up to rigorously prove either side. Since there can be no experimentation, there can be no testing of the Hypothesis and therefore WE ARE NOT IN THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE ........WHEN WE DISCUSS MATTERS OF "GOD" AND "DESIGNERS" AND UNIVERSES OR REASONS FOR BEING.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

CL said:

Somebody a good bit smarter than either of you wrote this:

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Give me evidence who wrote it and that this person was smarter than me. Facts, please.

I don't buy any of your other arguments. But put them together. I will submit them, under your name, to the J. of Evol. Biol. I can do that.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Stephen:

The "strong evidence" for a designer is *precisely* the "strong evidence" that only indetectable fairies enable the flowers to bloom. This is nothing more than an artificial, non-disproveable, unnecessary layer of ego-salve. YOU may be satisfied with magical, supernatural "causes" to appease your petty insecurities. But please, *please* don't confuse this with logic, evidence, or science. Stephen, unnecessary and nonsensical proposals DO NOT become "scientific" solely on the grounds that they cannot be disproved in principle. You should know better.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

Z,
I think were some of his evidence emassed, it would be better suited for submission to the J.I.R. (The Journal of Irreproduceable Results) but I am not certain they deal in submissions from non-qualified people. (Note that qualification is not a function of degrees held or scientific awards won but rather the ability to string together something most worthy of submission.)

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

And for the millionth time, there is NO WAY SCIETIFICALLY to prove or disprove THERE IS A SUPREME BEING. You are in the area of FAITH not SCEINCE.

You can't prove God exists to other people -- that's true. But either God has or hasn't answered your prayers in the past. I've personally experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, and I KNOW for myself that God exists.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

I KNOW for myself that God exists And that is where it should stop at your own doorstep. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow citizens to "do their own thing" without the police power of the state favoring any one Creed.

But it is a very good business to extend, "Go ye therefore to all the Nations..".

When Great Britain did that, they ended up as the most hated country on Earth. They were not the first nor the last only the most obnoxious about it. The blood shed in the name of Jesus and Allah by fanatics on both sides from the Crusades through Yugoslavia can't be totalled. And now we must add the Pentagon and the WTC to the list.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

CPR,

Like Flint, I think it's time for a rest, because I end up repeating myself. Endlessly. How many times do I have to say that I *fully* agree that religion must be kept out of both science and government?

But if there's evidence of design (or planning or purpose) to nature, that MUST be considered. It *CAN* be done in a completely religion-neutral manner (the weak form of panspermia, for example, would address any number of questions, and it *IS* testable). To fail to consider the possibility is bad science, IMNHO.

You obviously disagree. That's fine.

Flint,

What I just said to CPR. Plus,

The "strong evidence" for a designer is *precisely* the "strong evidence" that only indetectable fairies enable the flowers to bloom.

If they were "indetectable," well, there would be no evidence, would there? :)

We've had this discussion before, too. No need to repeat that one, either.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2001

The flowers do bloom because of an invisible effect. It can be shown that more flowers open due to a chemical reaction that is a combination of light and heat. The trigger for one mechanism is a photo-voltaic reaction caused by a photon in daylight.

That can easily be noted in Morning Glories.

Now if you have a machine that is capable of locating and measuring the photon(s) that do this sort of work, then the work of the invisible fairy Photons can only be shown as "before and after" (or not quite "cause and effect"). We also know that one of the triggers for humans to wake up and get their brains in gear also takes place with the ascent of the Sun. Travellers with jet lag are now advised to re-adjust their body's clock by turning on bright lights when they wake up in their new surroundings. Purportedly this is far healthier than ingestion of caffeine laced beverages. That came from research on the Circadean Effects on Cells (the so-called "cell cycle clocks").

-- Anonymous, October 01, 2001