views on evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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."
signed by:

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.

Wow, that's like .01% of the people working in the field!
 
"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."
signed by: <snip>

A typical example of leopold’s cherry-picked anti-evolution “evidence”. :rolleyes:

This is from a statement called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute (a non-profit public policy think tank that advocates intelligent design). It is one of many disingenuous and dishonest efforts by the Discovery Institute to manufacture scientific controversy and promote an imagined dissent in the evolutionary biology field.

An account of this woeful effort can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
 
Wow, that's like .01% of the people working in the field!

Oh no, it’s much worse than that. It’s a common strategy of the creationist to swamp the reader with a long list of references, names, figures, factoids etc. in the hope that the reader won’t delve any deeper than a casual glance at the list. But I did a quick check down that list of scientists. Here’s the breakdown:

Biologists (of one type or another): 39
Chemists (of one type or another): 19
Physicists: 8
Astrophysicists/Astronomers: 2
Mathematicians/Computer Scientists: 10
Medical doctors: 6
Engineers: 6
Environmental scientists: 3
Psychologists: 2
Geologists: 1
Unknown: 7

Biologists: 39
Non-biologists: 64
 
Oh no, it’s much worse than that. It’s a common strategy of the creationist to swamp the reader with a long list of references, names, figures, factoids etc. in the hope that the reader won’t delve any deeper than a casual glance at the list. But I did a quick check down that list of scientists. Here’s the breakdown:

Biologists (of one type or another): 39
Chemists (of one type or another): 19
Physicists: 8
Astrophysicists/Astronomers: 2
Mathematicians/Computer Scientists: 10
Medical doctors: 6
Engineers: 6
Environmental scientists: 3
Psychologists: 2
Geologists: 1
Unknown: 7

Biologists: 39
Non-biologists: 64
The figures don't add up very well!
 
A typical example of leopold’s cherry-picked anti-evolution “evidence”. :rolleyes:

This is from a statement called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute (a non-profit public policy think tank that advocates intelligent design).
this time you are wrong hercules.
it was the entire webpage, i "cherry picked" nothing.
yes, we all know how reliable wiki is, right?

i noticed you failed to address the post i made from "a storhouse of knowledge".

i also noticed to failed to explain why my post from science daily was moved here.

and could you explain why almost 75% of HS biology instructors outright dismiss evolution or had no comment because they were concerned about their academic future?
 
i also noticed to failed to explain why my post from science daily was moved here.

Because this is a thread dedicated to evolution deniers.

and could you explain why almost 75% of HS biology instructors outright dismiss evolution or had no comment because they were concerned about their academic future?

Same reason I'd have no comment if someone asked me if I supported the flat earth society. I'd just laugh.
 
this time you are wrong hercules.
it was the entire webpage, i "cherry picked" nothing.

You cherry-pick everything. You desperately scour the internet for anything that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary science whilst ignoring everything that people here offer you in counterpoint. You quote mine and resort to conspiracy theories when you’ve got nothing else. You’re the epitome of the disingenuous cherry-picker.


yes, we all know how reliable wiki is, right?

Fine, have a go at addressing the references that are offered on that page, then. :rolleyes:


i noticed you failed to address the post i made from "a storhouse of knowledge".

Hilarious! And also quite sad. :( So let me get this right: you question my usage of wikipedia then in the very next sentence you ask me why I haven’t addressed your usage of a wiki (a Bible-centric one at that) in support of your evolution denialism.


i also noticed to failed to explain why my post from science daily was moved here.

Because you are engaged in a dismal effort to deny evolution by desperately cherry-picking any source of information that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. That’s why.


and could you explain why almost 75% of HS biology instructors outright dismiss evolution or had no comment because they were concerned about their academic future?

What’s your point? Are you trying to use this as some sort of evidence against the validity of evolutionary theory? What is this popular science journalism piece saying, according to you?

Did you somehow miss the message that the majority of teachers who do not implement National Research Council recommendations on the teaching of evolution are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives? Did you miss that this majority take this position so as to avoid controversy, not because they explicitly believe the theory of evolution to be wrong?

I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve offered evidence that doesn’t say what you think it says. It means you either don’t read your evidence or you can’t understand what’s written. Either way the prudent advice is to stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Last edited:
You cherry-pick everything. You desperately scour the internet for anything that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary science whilst ignoring everything that people here offer you in counterpoint. You quote mine and resort to conspiracy theories when you’ve got nothing else. You’re the epitome of the disingenuous cherry-picker.




Fine, have a go at addressing the references that are offered on that page, then. :rolleyes:




Hilarious! And also quite sad. :( So let me get this right: you question my usage of wikipedia then in the very next sentence you ask me why I haven’t addressed your usage of a wiki (a Bible-centric one at that) in support of your evolution denialism.




Because you are engaged in a dismal effort to deny evolution by desperately cherry-picking any source of information that appears to support your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. That’s why.




What’s your point? Are you trying to use this as some sort of evidence against the validity of evolutionary theory? What is this popular science journalism piece saying, according to you?

Did you somehow miss the message that the majority of teachers who do not implement National Research Council recommendations on the teaching of evolution are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives? Did you miss that this majority take this position so as to avoid controversy, not because they explicitly believe the theory of evolution to be wrong?

I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve offered evidence that doesn’t say what you think it says. It means you either don’t read your evidence or you can’t understand what’s written. Either way the prudent advice is to stop embarrassing yourself.
this entire post of yours is nothing short of vilification hercules.
my posts and references stand on their own, the authors are there for all to see.
 
Biologists (of one type or another): 39
Chemists (of one type or another): 19
Physicists: 8
Astrophysicists/Astronomers: 2
Mathematicians/Computer Scientists: 10
Medical doctors: 6
Engineers: 6
Environmental scientists: 3
Psychologists: 2
Geologists: 1
Unknown: 7

Biologists: 39
Non-biologists: 64
i don't understand what you mean to say here.
because you aren't a biologist you are unqualified to make an assessment as to the validity of the evidence?
is that what you mean to imply?
 
and could you explain why almost 75% of HS biology instructors outright dismiss evolution or had no comment because they were concerned about their academic future?

HS biology instructors where? Is this across the US, or just in a few flyover states?

These people obviously aren't qualified to teach biology if they dismiss evolution. If they do support evolution and are afraid to say so then their school boards and employers are at fault.

Evolution is a fact. Only somebody who is ignorant or willfully blind will deny this.
 
@leopold --

my posts and references stand on their own

I'm pretty sure that, on this subject, your posts and about 99% of the sources you reference are viewed as "laughable", at best. What's next, a link to a Kent Hovind or Ken Ham quote?
 
Did you miss that this majority take this position so as to avoid controversy, not because they explicitly believe the theory of evolution to be wrong?
that's exactly my point hercules.
if evolution was indeed such a dyed in the wool, set in stone, fact, what would be so "controversial" about it?
or maybe the "controversy" surrounds their career, the piece doesn't really elaborate.
Either way the prudent advice is to stop embarrassing yourself.
i'm not the type of person that will say i seen something when i didn't.
honestly i don't care which side is right.
and equally honestly i haven't seen any evidence for either side.
so, where does that leave us?
could it be that maybe, just maybe, there might be a third option?
we will never know by doggedly pursuing the status quo will we.
 
Willfully blind then. Ok.
you can't see something that isn't there james.
the lab results, i haven't seen any.
where are they?
post them.

no, i'm not "willfully" blind, just a stickler for the "hard evidence".

do yourself a favor james, prosecute evolution like it was on trial for murder.
what would it take for you to convict someone of murder james and apply that same reasoning to evolution.

then show us the evidence you used.
 
@leopold --

hmmm . . .
well i personally haven't seen any "facts" concerning how we got here and the diversity of life.

Well then you've either never picked up a biology text book in your life, are choosing to remain willfully ignorant to preserve a pet belief, or lack a functioning brain. Which is it?
 
that's exactly my point hercules.
if evolution was indeed such a dyed in the wool, set in stone, fact, what would be so "controversial" about it?

What's controversial is that the school boards in some states. usually elected non-scientists from the general population, have often been stacked with creationists who have tried to stop the teaching of science and to persecute those who teach it. What these people want is their religion taught as science.

Like I said, there's no scientific controversy about evolution. There's just a conflict between some scientists and some religious nuts who want to pretend that religion is science.

i'm not the type of person that will say i seen something when i didn't.
honestly i don't care which side is right.

For somebody who doesn't care, you seem to spend an awful lot of time trawling answersingenesis.

I think you're only interested in looking at stuff that backs up your existing religious views - just like most creationists. Willfully blind, in other words.

and equally honestly i haven't seen any evidence for either side.

What? After all that reading you've done, you really don't have an opinon either way?

I think you're an ingenuous liar on this topic. If you're fooling anybody, it can only be yourself.

you can't see something that isn't there james.
the lab results, i haven't seen any.
where are they?
post them.

Take some time out from answersingenesis and go over to talkorgins.org. There's plenty of lab results there for you to peruse, nicely collected in one place for your reading enjoyment.

do yourself a favor james, prosecute evolution like it was on trial for murder.

Evolution is a beautiful theory. Without evolution, the rest of biology makes no sense at all. If you can show me an alternative scientific theory that explains all the things evolution explains and more, then I might change my mind.

I've looked into creationism, by the way. It's not even science. And ID is just a thinly-disguised version of creationism.
 
What's controversial is that the school boards in some states. usually elected non-scientists from the general population, have often been stacked with creationists who have tried to stop the teaching of science and to persecute those who teach it. What these people want is their religion taught as science.
maybe.
the piece doesn't elaborate so this is your opinion.
For somebody who doesn't care, you seem to spend an awful lot of time trawling answersingenesis.
and you seem to have dropped one too many luudes.
I think you're only interested in looking at stuff that backs up your existing religious views - just like most creationists. Willfully blind, in other words.
bite me james.
i have no idea why you resort to such pitiful horseshit like this.
have my ideas though.
won't work.
Take some time out from answersingenesis and go over to talkorgins.org. There's plenty of lab results there for you to peruse, nicely collected in one place for your reading enjoyment.
it isn't up to me to provide your evidence.
 
maybe.
the piece doesn't elaborate so this is your opinion.

This is an easily-verified fact. Maybe you ought to read more than one "piece".

and you seem to have dropped one too many luudes.

No. I'm going by the evidence again. You repeatedly lift and cite articles from answersingenesis. Ergo, you rely on that site for most of your creationist propaganda information.

bite me james.
i have no idea why you resort to such pitiful horseshit like this.

Why do you keep coming back for more? Every time you're shown up, you slink away, only to reappear with the same tired assertions a few weeks or months later. One of us is shoveling the shit, and I don't think it's me.

have my ideas though.

Really? Do tell. I guess you think I'm part of the global scientific conspiracy that wants to quash your religion.

Won't work.

Not until you pull your head out of the sand.

it isn't up to me to provide your evidence.

I didn't ask you to. You wanted evidence, remember. I pointed you to some. I can't make you look at it.
 
Personally, I can see how the data shows the gradual change of life over billions of years. But I also believe that the random mechanism being taught is only a stepping stone to a better model. The current model is not a final law of science, like many suggest. The current theory cannot predict the future with any accuracy, due to its assumptions. This does not fully meet the requirements of a science theory in physics or chemistry, never mind a law of science.

To put this in perspective, if I had developed a theory for the creation of stars but I could not predict anything about a forming star, that would not be instituted as a law of science. It would need to go back to the drawing board. Evolution, as is, is based on 20/20 hindsight, which is not adequate to make this type of future predictions, anymore than an armchair quarterback can play in the game in real time and make future decisions. This lack requires dogma for smoke screen.

The creationists suggest a model based on an ordering principle, while scientific evolution makes uses of a disorder principle so they can excuse themselves from having to make future predictions. This is too convenient. Part two is political pull to remove all competition so this is all there is. The ID people assume order, and tries to use mechanisms supported by science. The intelligent aspect of ID means no excuses like the current model, rather you need to use your intelligence. In my case, I make use of free energy, which amounts to the same thing as natural selection, but admittedly lacks the mystical appeal of natural choice. The idea was reason not emotional appeal like we do now.

What I have found is the guardians of scientific evolution, tend to ignore common sense to defend the dogma. Most ID people see that. For example, changes on the DNA are assumed random, even though parts of the DNA are more likely to mutate that other parts. The random assumption does not even make sense in the context of the entire DNA, yet the supporters are either not rational enough to see this, or are simply using a political tactic to discredit reason and common sense in favor of their veil of emotions. Conceding one things makes the system so insecure that you have to assume there are more problems. Reasonable people are jumping ship because evolution is wide open for change. The behavior of the evolutionists, in terms of intolerance, has shown many people how irrational the supporters can be implicit of defending dogma theory like it is a type of religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top