In an attempt to bring a tiny bit of balance or at least controversy to the force… This was found at the following web site ( http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php) 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."… …"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. 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., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • 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: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
There should always be "careful examination". That's what learning is all about. Nobody should just accept Darwin's theories at face value; they should delve into it, learn it for themselves, pick it apart, question every single aspect of it, and come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. On the evidence. Again...on the evidence. That isn't to say, however, that ID supporters should start hooting on their chairs. This isn't support of Intelligent Design, this is a criticism of Darwin's theory...and more accurately, it is a criticism of how Darwin's theory is accepted as fact, with little to no argument. But to me, all I see is skepticism. I don't see "Here's the alternative... ", rather, I see "Hey, can we please take a look at this, instead of just accepting it as gospel?" So...let's see some careful examination, and hear some alternatives! But again, seeing as ID isn't based on anything...I don't want to hear from them until they have some evidence. Oh wait...they already said they can't prove it, because "it's supernatural!"
The "list of 'scientists' who dissent" that is occasionally presented by anti-science organizations like Discovery Institute is a complete fallacy. Its an appeal to authority and a bit of a non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow that because they can must a few (and I stress: a few) names, most of whom aren't in the field of biology, and many of whom aren't even scientists, that this implies there is any significant "dissent" against the fact of evolution. There simply isn't any real dissent by scientists against the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution is an accepted fact and one that is nearly completely supported by scientific consensus. To illustrate the complete and utter insignificance of the list of names above, image if you will what it would mean if a list could be mustered of scientists that support evolution. But let's not stop there. Let's err on the side of caution and restrict the list to only scientists with a single first name. If such a list could be created, which excluded every scientist except those that had a single first name; and if such a list easily surpassed any list created by creationist nutters in both quality and quantity -wouldn't this indicate the fallacy of the list quoted above. The list was created and it only includes scientists with the first name Steve. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp Currently the list of scientists named Steve who agree that "evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological [and geological] sciences" numbers about 807. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html According to data from the U.S. Census, approximately 1.6% of males and approximately 0.4% of females -- so approximately 1% of U.S. residents -- have first names that would qualify them to sign the statement. So it is reasonable to infer that at least 22,000 scientists would agree with the statement. ("At least" because the statement was quietly circulated to a limited number of people.) As of December 28, 2005, there were 688 signatories, corresponding to 68,800 scientists. And "irreducible complexity" was demonstrated by science to be anything but irreducibly complex. It is a notion of pseudoscience and one to which Behe has been taken to task on repeatedly. Not a single assertion Behe made about IC held.
No. I'm an Atheist and I admit the possibility of a God or many Gods exists but I do not think Gods exist. A couple questions: 1) Do you admit that the possibility exists that God does not exist? 2) Do you believe God does not exist? 3) Do you admit that the possibility exists that many Gods do exist? 4) Do you believe many Gods exist? Michael
After reading posts to this and other threads on the subject, I wonder about the overall view of those who are pro-ID & Creationism and anti-evolution. There are two aspects of evolution. The facts of evolution consisting mainly of the fossil record, with other facts relating to DNA analysis, various dating methods, and scientific techniques. It is the fossil record which is most pertinent. The fossil record shows various species, including many which are now extinct. It shows a time line for vertebrates: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. For modern horses there is a fossil record starting (I think) with a creature called an eohippus. For primates, there are various fossils including some creatures very similar to modern humans but with ape-like characteristics. While there are many gaps, the fossil record shows a progression of related species. In most instances, the older fossils indicate less complex creatures than the later ones. The second aspect of evolution is the Darwinian explanation of the facts from the fossil record: Random mutations culled by natural selection. Do those who disagree with the modern Darwin-like explanation disagree with the facts of evolution? If so, how do they explain the facts using ID or creationism? I have seen claims by creationists that all has taken place in less than 20,000 years, with dinosaurs contemporary with modern man. This view disputes scientific dating methods. There is a creationist museum being built in Kentucky which advocates this view. This view, for example, explains the Grand Canyon as being due to the flood described in the bible. What is the view of the ID’ers on the facts of the fossil record? Do they take a creationist view which disputes the dating methods? Do they believe that the ID makes up new species every once in a while?
Side question brought up by Dinosaur... is it even possible for a world-wide flood to have carved the Grand Canyon considering its pretty small compared to the rest of the world? And is it even possible for water to make specific grooves like that... wouldn't it just make a sea bed or something? Sorry for the digression.
Helloooo ... VitalOne?? A couple questions: 1) Do you admit that the possibility exists that God does not exist? 2) Do you believe God does not exist? 3) Do you admit that the possibility exists that many Gods do exist? 4) Do you believe many Gods exist? Michael
Hey, sorry for not replying, I forgot about this thread.... 1) No, its not possible, its only possible that God exists, 2) No, I don't enjoy believing in lies 3) Yes, many "gods", "angels" or "devas" really do exist 4) Yes in one way, but who they call the Father, God himself is the origin of all, reality itself, all things come from him, including the higher beings (gods, angels, etc..), so there's really only one real God, the other so-called gods are not really "God" and are just designed for ignorants to worship because they are deluded....
Vitee...do you come up with these definitions ad hoc? Or do you just jump from tale to tale, cherry picking fables that seem to answer questions? This is the first time I've ever seen any theist say that other gods exist purposefully so that delusional humans can worship them instead of your one true fatherly god.
Do you have evidence that these other gods don't exist or are you relying on "pure blind atheistic faith"?
Well, they don't really exist just for delusional humans to worship...just think of it this way say people like us travel back in time to the caveman era with our higher knowledge and technology, we'll appear as gods to the people, and they will worship us out of ignorance... No, they exist...do you think extraterrestials exist in the universe? There was a time when Kassapa (one of Buddha's disciples) was questioned by an atheist: Once everyone was seated, Prince Payasi said, "Reverend Kumara, I maintain that actions do not have consequence. I believe that there is no life after death, no world beyond our own. I think that angels and demons are things from a child’s dream." (Payasi Sutta) This is the view that most atheists have in modern times....Kassapa went on to explain: "Hmm. Well, prince" Replied Kumara, sounding rather like a doctor diagnosing a patient, "Your point of view is unique, for I’ve never encountered one who bandied about so. Hmm. I think I should put some questions about this to you. What do you think, Prince? Does the Sun and Moon exist in this world, or apart from it? Are they humans? Or are they some celestial non-human beings?" "Reverend Kumara, they exist outside of this world, and they are celestial and non human." "Well then, Prince, should you not then consider that other worlds can exist, that angels and demons are not the things of dreams, and that actions bear consequences?" (Payasi Sutta) Payasi went on the seek foolish proofs, just as modern day atheists seek proofs in foolish ways (FSM, Invisible Pink Unicorn). Kasssapa then went on to condemn atheists: "In the same exact way, Prince, just as the child used a foolish way to seek fire, you use foolish ways to seek proof of other worlds! Give up these evil views, Prince, or it will cause you great grief in the future!" (Payasi Sutta) These foolish atheists, even Buddha's disciple condemns them...when will they realize that they're trapped in a delusional world....
What a ridiculous argument. The Sun and Moon exist, therefore so do angels and demons? We know a great deal more about such celestial bodies than those in the past. Buddha never wanted us to accept holy texts dogmatically, if indeed he was even responsible for their content.
What are you talking about....Kassapa's argument was simply that other worlds exist so there are other beings on other worlds... Also, Buddha wanted us to accept holy texts dogmatically, but these hippie-types like Alan Watts and others have portrayed it differently...its a common myth just like how people believe that we only use 10% of our brain... These myths propounded by the hippie-Buddhists in the 1960s are evidently myths if you read the Buddhist scriptures...for instance Buddha says believe in him or go straight to hell: "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.13 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell" (Maha-sihanada Sutta, 21) That quote often referenced to by these hippie Buddhist atheists is often taken out of contexts...that scripture was meant to address the non-believers, those who had not already accepted Gautama Buddha as the teacher of gods and humans......these hippie Buddhists tried everything to portray Buddhism as a good, perfect, atheistic religion, and succeeded...now the West is deluded...if only you read the Buddhist scriptures...
So they exist but are mortals from the future who wield their knowledge and technology to grab an audience from a god who's actually immortal, magical and more deserving of attention? :shrug:
