Darwinism irrefutable in the world of science?

[FallingSkyward]

I have often heard in these hallowed forum halls such statements as "Every credible scientist subscribes to Darwinism," and I had myself begun to believe it. So it's interesting to come across an article such as this one:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Silas]

What about - the credibility of online National Enquirer, the World Net Daily?

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

Well, well, I guess you don't get more prestigious than a medical university in Mexico.

I also love the way that they promote 600 signatories as if that's a huge dent in the total number of evolution believing scientists worldwide. 600 "dissenters", most of whose credentials are not available for us to check but you wanna bet that more than a few of those "doctorates" are in religion, not science, still means that what PBS said was true - ie, that "The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true." Every scientist in the world, minus 600 is still pretty much every scientist in the world.

 

[Ophiolite]

With apologies Silas, I know of no credible scientist who subscribes to Darwinism any more than I know of any credible scientist who subscribes to Newtonian mechanics. Both were crude approximations of what we now think are more accurate descriptions of reality. That is the nature of science: yesterday's act of genius is today's commonplace and tomorrow's quaint memory.

 

[spidergoat]

Quite so, Ophiolite. Darwin, for instance, didn't know about genes. Modern evolutionary theories are more properly called neo-Darwinism.

 

[Silas]

With apologies Silas, I know of no credible scientist who subscribes to Darwinism any more than I know of any credible scientist who subscribes to Newtonian mechanics. Both were crude approximations of what we now think are more accurate descriptions of reality. That is the nature of science: yesterday's act of genius is today's commonplace and tomorrow's quaint memory.

Well apologies to you, Ophiolite my friend, but this nitpicking is giving WorldNetDaily the credibility it doesn't deserve. Its 600 signatories don't "disbelieve Darwinism" in the sense that you are implying - they disbelieve all evolutionary biology. Furthermore, both Dawkins and Gould consistently promoted the essential Darwin mechanism, however much it might have been modified by later science, and whatever you may have thought of either of them personally, they are both "credible scientists".

Also, your Newtonian analogy is a poor one, in my view. The vast majority of work which involves forces and motion actually use Newton's easy equations in preference to Einstein's hard and mostly unnecessarily precise ones. Whether you're firing a shuttle into orbit or building a bridge, it's to Newton that one continues to turn.

 

[KennyJC]

Its 600 signatories don't "disbelieve Darwinism" in the sense that you are implying - they disbelieve all evolutionary biology.

Any idea what evidence they have to refute evolution or come up with an alternate theory?

 

[Lawdog]

No way, the number of scientists that believe in Evolution is rapidly declining. People are beginning to see through the ruse.

 

[wsionynw]

No way, the number of scientists that believe in Evolution is rapidly declining.

What evidence do you have for this claim? A few American Bible fanatics that think humans and dinosaurs lived happily side by side? Open your eyes, you offend my intellect. Evolution science is growing, Intelligent Design and Creationism have already been laughed out of debate, and even defeated in US court. What are you and your God fearing friends going to do about the worldwide scientific community and modern education?

 

[KennyJC]

No way, the number of scientists that believe in Evolution is rapidly declining. People are beginning to see through the ruse.

With them being scientists and all, they would have to state evidence that supports an alternate theory, or evidence that refutes evolution.

Care to answer my previous post in this thread? Anyone? I noticed a fair bit of tumbleweed after I asked it, and your post did nothing to answer it.

 

[Lawdog]

its heresay, just like what you are thinking about those who believe in evolution. But Evolution is so irrational that I would think it unlikely that serious scientists who base so much on reason should subscribe to it. so I agree with this susposed trend.

 

[wsionynw]

its heresay, just like what you are thinking about those who believe in evolution. But Evolution is so irrational that I would think it unlikely that serious scientists who base so much on reason should subscribe to it. so I agree with this susposed trend.

Are you insane? Evolution is an accepted scientific truth, based on evidence! How is it heresay? Have you even attempted to learn about it at all???

 

[KennyJC]

its heresay, just like what you are thinking about those who believe in evolution. But Evolution is so irrational that I would think it unlikely that serious scientists who base so much on reason should subscribe to it. so I agree with this susposed trend.

You mean irrational in the same way this crazy thing called gravity pulls the Earth around the sun? Or electromagnetism holds atoms together? Considering that micro-evolution is observable in a laboratory. As well as small-scale speciation... As well as evidence from the fossil record to support large scale evolution. As well as everything known about geology, genetics and biology... What is there to be irrational about, where is the hearsay? For those who are anti-evolution, they must first find evidence against it for it not to be hearsay.

Can you not accept speciation? This appears to be what eats the cheese for theists.

 

[usp8riot]

To me, Darwinism is equitable to deductive logic. If you put a species in a new environment to which it isn't accustomed but can just barely survive, it's obvious that the best breeds of that species which are capable of adapting are going to survive and the favored genes for that environment will survive and keep deducing themselves until you have a more pure species that is more tuned to that environment. Is there an alternative to what is changing the genes of animals to let them adapt?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well apologies to you, Ophiolite my friend, but this nitpicking is giving WorldNetDaily the credibility it doesn't deserve.

Nitpicking is an accurate description. However, I should rather nitpick about the distinctions between Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis with an intelligent, informed protagonist, than refute the insipid nonsense perpetrated by the willfully ignorant Lawdog and his ilk.

Its 600 signatories don't "disbelieve Darwinism" in the sense that you are implying - they disbelieve all evolutionary biology.

It makes one wonder how they gained the education to be able to sign their names. I do not deny that the mindless, superstitious, anti-intellectual, dogmatic position adopted by creationists is dangerous to society, and indeed to the very survival of humanity. I suspect that one approach that must be adopted to overcome this plethora of mental pus, is to honestly and openly examine in detail the very evolution of evolutionary theory. Those on the fence, who have open minds, will be more persuaded of the truth of evolution by such frank discussions, than by dogmatic assertions as to its truth.

Furthermore, both Dawkins and Gould consistently promoted the essential Darwin mechanism, however much it might have been modified by later science, and whatever you may have thought of either of them personally, they are both "credible scientists".

I think you are referencing my oft repeated distaste for Dawkins style. In regard to Gould I take a wholly different view. Gould was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. His understanding of and contribution to evolutionary theory were remarkable. It could be argued this contribution was the greatest since Darwin himself.
And Gould is very clear that while the foundation of evolution established by Darwin remains solid, the structure built upon that foundation, and the embellishments of that structure, are quite beyond and different from Darwin's view. I recommend you read or re-read the openings chapter of his monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. [Incidentally, I am at pains to think of more important work published in science in the last fifty years. It makes the words tour de force wholly inadequate.]

Also, your Newtonian analogy is a poor one, in my view. The vast majority of work which involves forces and motion actually use Newton's easy equations in preference to Einstein's hard and mostly unnecessarily precise ones. Whether you're firing a shuttle into orbit or building a bridge, it's to Newton that one continues to turn.

I stand by my analogy. When people talk about evolution, in general, they still prattle on about natural selection. Genetic drift, hybridisation, epigenetics and the like are ignored. The natural selection card can be played to describe, in a general way, many of the results of evolution we observe. The devil is in the detail, and that detail, to be properly explained requires the modern synthesis, or neo-Darwinism.
We can launch the shuttle using Newton - sure. But if we want to determine where it using a GPS system, we had better take Einstein into account.

 

[Gordon]

Nitpicking is an accurate description. However, I should rather nitpick about the distinctions between Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis with an intelligent, informed protagonist, than refute the insipid nonsense perpetrated by the willfully ignorant Lawdog and his ilk.

It makes one wonder how they gained the education to be able to sign their names. I do not deny that the mindless, superstitious, anti-intellectual, dogmatic position adopted by creationists is dangerous to society, and indeed to the very survival of humanity. I suspect that one approach that must be adopted to overcome this plethora of mental pus, is to honestly and openly examine in detail the very evolution of evolutionary theory. Those on the fence, who have open minds, will be more persuaded of the truth of evolution by such frank discussions, than by dogmatic assertions as to its truth. I think you are referencing my oft repeated distaste for Dawkins style. In regard to Gould I take a wholly different view. Gould was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. His understanding of and contribution to evolutionary theory were remarkable. It could be argued this contribution was the greatest since Darwin himself.
And Gould is very clear that while the foundation of evolution established by Darwin remains solid, the structure built upon that foundation, and the embellishments of that structure, are quite beyond and different from Darwin's view. I recommend you read or re-read the openings chapter of his monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. [Incidentally, I am at pains to think of more important work published in science in the last fifty years. It makes the words tour de force wholly inadequate.]I stand by my analogy. When people talk about evolution, in general, they still prattle on about natural selection. Genetic drift, hybridisation, epigenetics and the like are ignored. The natural selection card can be played to describe, in a general way, many of the results of evolution we observe. The devil is in the detail, and that detail, to be properly explained requires the modern synthesis, or neo-Darwinism.
We can launch the shuttle using Newton - sure. But if we want to determine where it using a GPS system, we had better take Einstein into account.

So on the basis of 600 people whose qualifications are not known, writing what everyone has admitted they do not know in detail, you can come to the decision that they are all uneducated idiots. Certainly some good objective logical scientific analysis there! - Certainly not blind irrational unscientific prejudice!



regards,

Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

I have often heard in these hallowed forum halls such statements as "Every credible scientist subscribes to Darwinism," and I had myself begun to believe it. So it's interesting to come across an article such as this one:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

What is actually very interesting is that if you ask many of the scientists exactly what they undertstand and believe in Darwinism and neo- Darwinism, you get many different answers. It is not one universally accepted theory. This does not stop protagonists on one side marketing their view as absolute proven truth. Witness the dinosaurs to birds controversy (which is a very big split in opinion) but which was proclaimed as absolute truth in the BBC Attenborough series on both dinosaurs and birds.

In fact most scientists in fields away from biology and biochemistry give it little thought (and of course it is not even a pre-requisite belief to do work in those fields). Remember that the base work on genetics (still acknowledged as sound) was done before Darwin.


regards,


Gordon.

 

[baumgarten]

To quote Carl Sagan, "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." An evolutionary theory is just a behavioral model of an already observed phenomenon.

(Why is this in Religion?)

 

[spidergoat]

its heresay, just like what you are thinking about those who believe in evolution. But Evolution is so irrational that I would think it unlikely that serious scientists who base so much on reason should subscribe to it. so I agree with this susposed trend.

Evolution is supremely rational, it just doesn't fit in with your worldview. It is often the case that what science reveals contradicts common sense. You are very wrong, by the way. In fact, Darwinism is more widely respected today than it has even been.

 

[superluminal]

its heresay, just like what you are thinking about those who believe in evolution. But Evolution is so irrational that I would think it unlikely that serious scientists who base so much on reason should subscribe to it. so I agree with this susposed trend.

Now you see lawdude. This is the kind of response that makes me think you want to be pummeled by unkind attacks. Do you? You clearly know ZERO about modern evolutionary theory and the immense amount of things it explains, and is supported by, in biology, genetics, geology, molecular physiology, animal behavior, etc. It is supported by convergent lines of evidence from all of the areas and more.

Statements like yours show how ill informed you are and how laughable your position is. Is it fun being the town fool? Wake up and read a book. There's more than one you know. Or do you?

 

[Ophiolite]

So on the basis of 600 people whose qualifications are not known, writing what everyone has admitted they do not know in detail, you can come to the decision that they are all uneducated idiots. Certainly some good objective logical scientific analysis there! - Certainly not blind irrational unscientific prejudice!

Gordon, your response is such utter bilge on so many levels it deserves to be either ignored or systematically deconstructed. I have decided on the latter.

First, the total, absolute incorrectness of your premises

Gordons First False Premise: The qualifications of the six hundred are known. All you have to do is follow the link: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Strike one!

Gordon's Second False Premise:I have not admitted to not knowing in detail what they have subscribed to, yet you claim "everyone has admitted" this.
Strike Two!

Gordon's Third False Premise:I did not call the signatories uneducated idiots. I expressed surprise that anyone with a proper education could be a signatory. That is quite a different matter. It is entirely possible for intelligent, educated people to use neither of those attributes.
Strike Three!

Now let us examine what is being signed. It is a simple declaration:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Out of context this declaration is all but meaningless. Consider:

We are skeptical of claims
All scientists should be skeptical of all claims. It is part of the scientific methodology.

for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.Random mutation and natural selection are not the only factors at work in evolution. The Modern Sysnthesis is not so poor as to rely on these alone, therefore not to express skepticism about the ability of these two alone to generate the diversity of life would be to take a singularily outdated stance.

So the first sentence, as written and out of any other context, is one that no bona fide scientist should have any problem signing.

In context, it is another matter. The declaration is the product of the Discovery Centre, the prime promoter of Intelligent Design. The Discovery Centre wholly rejects Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and distinguishes (needlessly and irrelevantly) between micro-evolution and macro evolution.

In that context, this delcaration becomes a statement not of natural scientific objectivity (skepticism) and of current knowledge of the processes of evolution (more than mutation and natural selection), but a casting aside of the former and a rejection of the latter.

Therefore, for an individual to sign such a declaration definitively calls into question the quality and extent of their education, and casts a dark shadow on the question of their intellect. Such a conclusion is validated by a thorough consideration of the pertinent circumstances, as outlined above. It is not, as you have implied blind, irrational, unscientific prejudice, but the exact reverse. You may apologise at any time.