The world's scientists support evolution

This is big.

Hey, we've got an international coalition too! We have a computer technician in Texas, a law professor in California, a dentist in Burkina Faso, a philosopher in England...well, we thought we had him...we act like we still have him...a hydrologist in Djibouti, several demolitions experts in Afghanistan, a Palestinian veterenarian, a really excellent Tapas chef in Portugal, a metallurgist in Rwanda...

For some occasions, a realy excellent Tapas chef is worth more than all the science academies in the world.

This is not one of those occasions.

their list of "dissenting scientists" has now exceeded 600 individuals

What's a Tapas?

A Tapas is a mythical creature created by the FSM. A Tapas Chef butchers these animals to prepare various exotic treats.

Tapas are great. Spanish "finger food" of sorts. (Like dim sum, you eat a bunch of different small dishes, though of course the food itself is much different.)

But be careful when you ask someone to go to a tapas bar, that they don't think you're asking them to the topless bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapas

Oh, Stephen beat me to it. I had that exact misunderstanding once -- was told "I didn't realize you objected so strongly to tapas!"

Haha. Oops.

Can one get Tapas in a Topless Bar? What about the reverse?

Lou FCD: you find a tapas bar with topless people, you let me know, OK?

Cobra Lily on Wilshire is a great place:
http://losangeles.citysearch.com/profile/35698066/beverly_hills_ca/cobra_lily.html

Corkscrew:

I'm workin' the Google now. If I find one in London, we'll meet up with Dean and Kyu when I drop in this summer.

:)

And if I may hijack Tara's thread for just one more comment, I'd like to put in a shameless plug for Science, Just Science, a Brit outfit that shares the goals of PT and could really use some moral support from the PT crowd, even if it's just to drop in and say "attaboy". Lots of PT regulars and Dr. Tara fans over there. (Sorry Doc, I won't interrupt no more.)

I'm workin' the Google now. If I find one in London, we'll meet up with Dean and Kyu when I drop in this summer.

Google delivers

Comment #108547 Posted by Lou FCD on June 26, 2006 03:50 PM (e) | kill Can one get Tapas in a Topless Bar?

Speaking of supporting Evolution though, I posted this in the religious rant thread, but it goes here better:

There's a great article over at Stanford Medicine Magazine on Evolution and the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax. Seems well laid out, well supported and argued. The comments are pretty sad, though. Even our old friend Larry Farfarman spouted his usual claptrap.

(sigh)

Anyways, check it out, it's a good read.

Oh, and Hat tip goes to Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for the link on that.

It seems kind of futile to complain that science (which plays by rules of evidence, replication, peer review, and research into the unknown), has failed to keep up its side in the PR battle against a position that consists of *nothing but* PR. The DI, however profoundly dishonest or inconsistent, needs only to follow the rules of PR: Identify which lies people are most eager to hear, and produce them. Evidence and inference need not apply.

This strategy is probably not best opposed by competing PR campaigns telling people things they do NOT want to hear. That's a blueprint for failure. The only workable scientific strategy lies in improving public science education. An educated public is inoculated against DI propaganda.

And of course the DI is painfully aware of this. They aren't spending their funding preaching in churches, but rather backing creationist candidates for state school boards. They know their enemy isn't pro-science PR, their enemy is knowledge. They work tirelessly and creatively to stifle it.

The only workable scientific strategy lies in improving public science education.

Republican congressional hopeful John Jacob believes the devil is impeding his efforts to unseat five-term Representative Chris Cannon.

Just one teensy little gripe:
Creationism "includes" a belief in a young Earth and direct special creation of all life? While I'm glad that sort of language didn't make it into the actual text of the signed statement, I'm a bit disappointed that it's been used in the article. It gives the DI et al more of that "We're not Creationism because ID doesn't mean YEC" bologna.

600 individuals versus the national science academies of 67 countries. How seriously pathetic.

— Tara C. Smith

Just one teensy little gripe: Creationism "includes" a belief in a young Earth and direct special creation of all life? While I'm glad that sort of language didn't make it into the actual text of the signed statement, I'm a bit disappointed that it's been used in the article. It gives the DI et al more of that "We're not Creationism because ID doesn't mean YEC" bologna.

— Wheels

It would have been better if stated "Creationism includes a variety of different beliefs about the age of the earth and the origin of life, some which say that we've only been around for six to ten thousand years."
As for not expecting ID to weigh in on the Age of the Earth, well in some respects that's only fair since biological ID is supposed to deal with life only and "cosmological" ID is basically just the anthropic principle, neither of which have much to do with dating the planet. Insisting that IDists make statements on billions versus thousands is rather like saying that Evolution is the theory that the Universe started with a Big Bang, etc.
I definitely think that exposing the YEC among the ID promoters is a legitimate pursuit, but only as a means of further disrobing the movement as theology in disguise. Otherwise the passer-by may see an act of hypocracy where "Evolutionists" insist that Big Bang isn't important to Evolution, but then demand that IDists make a claim about the Old or the Young Earth.

Frank J wrote in Comment #108671

"600 individuals, of which fewer than 200 are biologists, and if a brief random survey is representative, the great majority of them will admit to being seriously misled into signing such an ambiguous "dissent". About all that remains are some familiar names who have previously devoted their careers to peddling pseudoscience, and a handful of their closest cheerleaders. You probably can count the YECs on one hand."

I would class myself as a widely-read layman. I consider myself fully committed to the cause of science, evolution, RM+NS, common descent etc.

Now, I have always been a little bit worried about ID's 600 dissenting scientists. Not because they might have a case, but because despite such overwhelming evidence, despite their training and knowledge, they persist in their opinions. To me such a position is indefensible and I want to know more about them. For a start, how many of them are academics in the life sciences? I think the opinions of anybody else - physicists, engineers at al - can be viewed as carrying just as much weight as a layman and can therefore be ignored. We should at least treat such folk as a separate group to the biologists. So how many are left? Frank J thinks fewer than than 200. I'd like to see a breakdown of the 200 into their disciplines and their specialties, and their standing in the scientific community. I'd like to know more about their real qualifications. I'd like to see what their reasons are for rejecting mainstream science. I'd like to see just how many of them now feel they are misrepresented, and how many would like to recant. And I'd especially like to know what their position is on Christianity. Can we use such informed knowledge to weed out the those with a motive - cranks, fundamentalist Christians, the disaffected, the bogus? Once we pare the group down an irreducible core, can look at those who are left and determine what their reasonings, not motives, are? Just what is the scientific value of what remains? What can we learn from such an exercise? If, for an example, the bulk of the core comprises physicians, can we start to ask why that should be? (Assuming, that is, that medicine counts as a 'life science' - is it?)

I feel that unless such as exercise is carried out, and maintained thereafter, we are meekly handing over to the IDists a vacant and fertile area in which another of their lies can proliferate.

Alan Bird: Since medicine attempts to change (or prevent) the world rather than understand it, medicine is a technology (or a technic, if one means medical practice rather than medical knowledge production).

(if) you find a tapas bar with topless people, you let me know, OK? - 03:52 PM

Cobra Lily on Wilshire is a great place: - 04:01 PM

Speaking of supporting Evolution though, I posted this in the religious rant thread, but it goes here better: There's a great article over at Stanford Medicine Magazine on Evolution and the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax. Seems well laid out, well supported and argued. The comments are pretty sad, though. Even our old friend Larry Farfarman spouted his usual claptrap. (sigh) Anyways, check it out, it's a good read. Oh, and Hat tip goes to Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for the link on that.

Here's the problem with evolution and science in general:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575

Here is the solution to that problem:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

The evolution of life is one thing. The origin of life is quite another. What's the latest in research going on in that area? Also, to the Rev Dr: didn't Cleopatra teach herself Egyptian? I thought I had read somewhere that she had.

Here is the solution to that problem: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

Frank J wrote in Comment #108671 "600 individuals, of which fewer than 200 are biologists, and if a brief random survey is representative, the great majority of them will admit to being seriously misled into signing such an ambiguous "dissent". About all that remains are some familiar names who have previously devoted their careers to peddling pseudoscience, and a handful of their closest cheerleaders. You probably can count the YECs on one hand." I would class myself as a widely-read layman. I consider myself fully committed to the cause of science, evolution, RM+NS, common descent etc. Now, I have always been a little bit worried about ID's 600 dissenting scientists. Not because they might have a case, but because despite such overwhelming evidence, despite their training and knowledge, they persist in their opinions. To me such a position is indefensible and I want to know more about them.

— Alan Bird, in comment #108683 on June 27, 2006 06:58 AM

Ahem :)

— Tara Smith

Lou, you are really on a roll today.

Now I find myself wishing I'd tried to work "aliens, liquor, and a large farm animal" into my apology to Lenny's Pizza Guy (on another PT thread, for the hopelessly confused)...

It wouldn't have been an accurate apology, of course, but it would have been funny.

Thanks Steviepinhead,

I aim to please. If I can get a chuckle out of one person I figure it's been a good day. I love to read the science (there's so much really cool stuff to learn about), but I figure I should leave the 'splainin to the plethora of folks here who really know what they're talking about. Which leaves much of this stuff less than interactive for me. So I do what I can. Besides, if we take ourselves too seriously, someone else might.

Of course there's my lying, pandering, Dearest Dr. ClouserBot to deride about her blatent dishonesty, but anyone could really do that. She's a poopiehead.

The evolution of life is one thing. The origin of life is quite another. What's the latest in research going on in that area?

Also, to the Rev Dr: didn't Cleopatra teach herself Egyptian? I thought I had read somewhere that she had.

Hang on a bit, Squire. The actual statement for which the DI has however-many signatures is as follows, and I quote: 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.

As for not expecting ID to weigh in on the Age of the Earth, well in some respects that's only fair since biological ID is supposed to deal with life only and "cosmological" ID is basically just the anthropic principle, neither of which have much to do with dating the planet.

— Wheels

Why shouldn't any real scientist "(be) skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life"? Besides the Big Two, NS and RM, there's also founder effect and genetic drift, to name only the first two relevant processes which come to mind. As for the "Careful examination" clause, be good enough to show me any scientist who doesn't think that the evidence for scientific theories---all scientific theories---should be carefully examined.

— Cubist

Now I find myself wishing I'd tried to work "aliens, liquor, and a large farm animal" into my apology to Lenny's Pizza Guy (on another PT thread, for the hopelessly confused)...

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The evolution of life is one thing. The origin of life is quite another. What's the latest in research going on in that area?

— Rob Rumfelt

Hang on a bit, Squire. The actual statement for which the DI has however-many signatures is as follows, and I quote: 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.

— Lenny Flank

Indeed, *I* would have no problem signing that statement. In fact, I *would*, if they let me. I think most of us here would. Maybe we should ask DI about it.

We are skeptical. Careful examination of evidence should be encouraged.

The world's leading scientists yesterday urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism

Ah, now that's better! I wonder how many people could be induced to sign that one.

— Andrew McClure

Give the people what they want (evidence) and the debate will be over.

— Mats

There's a NY Times piece about sciecne standards here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/education/28education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

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 (...)

Exactly. And that's probably why 5 of the 6 that were alerted admitted that they were misled. When they signed it they didn't think that the scammers calculated that the target audience (nonscientists) would see "skeptical" and think "incredulous," and also misinterpret any incredulity about mechanistic details as a problem for common descent, and often even about the antiquity of life (i.e. validating their childhood origins allegory). But most of the signers, thinking like scientists, never made that absurd, but common extrapolation.

If the IDers were really honest, they'd simply ask all their "scientists supporters" to sign an unambiguous statement that said "Darwinism is wrong and design theory is the best approach".

But, of course, IDers are not honest. And besides, no one but the nutters would sign it. (shrug)

No it won't. The evidence is there.

Unfortunately it is mostly misrepresented by snake oil salesmen and the sensationalist media before it reaches the public.

But even if there were no evidence, what is the alternative?

They have duped the public into accepting a double standard for evidence: Multiple lines of independent evidence for evolution is never enough to support it, but a few choice mined quotes, conflation of evolution with abiogenesis, and other standard feel-good sound bites are enough to "vindicate" comfortable childhood origins allegories.

If the IDers were really honest, they'd simply ask all their "scientists supporters" to sign an unambiguous statement that said "Darwinism is wrong and design theory is the best approach".

I've heard that claim once or twice, but never with a reference. Do we have one?

— RBH

Evolution, as well as the pseudosciences of OEC and YEC, are all perfectly willing to state the age of the earth and universe, if only to say that they agree (the first 2) or disagree (YEC) with other disciplines, so it is only fair to demand the same for ID.

— Frank J

But even granting ID the excuse not to comment on the ages of earth/universe, anything that claims to be an alternative to evolution needs to addresss the age of life, and the timing of events, especially the Cambrian that it is so fond of.

All I recall is that it was a PT regular, about a year ago, who wrote about contacting 6 signers at random.

Getting back to the subject, it should perhaps be pointed out that spider silk didn't originally evolve for making webs. The group of arthropods from whcih spiders may (or may not have) evolved, the trigonotarbids, didn't have any spinnerets and presumably didn't have any silk. One of the earliest known spiders, Attercopus, at 380 million years, did. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of spiders is that they have spinnerets. Some of the most primitive of the existing spiders are the mygalomorphs, the group that includes the tarantulas. Some living species of tarantula-like spiders still have segmented apparent in their abdomens, and they are probably very similar to the most primitive of spiders. This group goes back to 300 million years in the fossil record. And although they have spinnerets and produce silk, they don't make webs. Their silk is used largely to make eggsacs, and to line the burrows that they live in. A few species of trapdoor spiders use silklen lines to make a radiating pattern with their burrow at the center, which alerts them to passing prey. It seems likely that prey-catching webs were a (much) later modification of that strategy. There are also arboreal species of tarantula, which live in silken shelters that they spin high up in trees. They too, however, don't make webs. It seems a good likelihood that they adapted to an arboreal lifestyle in order to avoid monsoon rains which flooded their terrestrial burrows, and it seems likely that the modern orb-weaving spiders began with a similar lifestyle.

Perhaps, PZ, you could explain to everyone what you find objectionable about my spider post? Other than the simple fact that I'm the one who wrote it?

It's the simple fact that you wrote it. Just consider yourself banned from any of my comment threads. I'm not going to try and parse your comments, I'm not going to discriminate, I'm not going to delete it based on whether I agree with it or not -- when I see the name "Lenny Flank", it's gone. Simple rules are best.

How does one search past PT posts?

Why should ideas that are NOT about the age of the Earth be pressured into making statements about the age of the Earth?

The statement is clear cut in addressing it's intended purpose

Why should ideas that are NOT about the age of the Earth be pressured into making statements about the age of the Earth? That's like asking people what kind of yeast to use for brewing a stout guiness just because those people are movie stars.

Getting back to the subject, it should perhaps be pointed out that spider silk didn't originally evolve for making webs. The group of arthropods from whcih spiders may (or may not have) evolved, the trigonotarbids, didn't have any spinnerets and presumably didn't have any silk. One of the earliest known spiders, Attercopus, at 380 million years, did. Of course, one of the defining characteristics of spiders is that they have spinnerets. Some of the most primitive of the existing spiders are the mygalomorphs, the group that includes the tarantulas. Some living species of tarantula-like spiders still have segmented apparent in their abdomens, and they are probably very similar to the most primitive of spiders. This group goes back to 300 million years in the fossil record. And although they have spinnerets and produce silk, they don't make webs. Their silk is used largely to make eggsacs, and to line the burrows that they live in. A few species of trapdoor spiders use silklen lines to make a radiating pattern with their burrow at the center, which alerts them to passing prey. It seems likely that prey-catching webs were a (much) later modification of that strategy. There are also arboreal species of tarantula, which live in silken shelters that they spin high up in trees. They too, however, don't make webs. It seems a good likelihood that they adapted to an arboreal lifestyle in order to avoid monsoon rains which flooded their terrestrial burrows, and it seems likely that the modern orb-weaving spiders began with a similar lifestyle.

— Lenny

(The spider conversation, that is. To keep from further hijacking Tara's thread.)

To Andrew McClure: Thanks so much for that link. Very interesting! And thank you, Rev Dr, for enlightening me yet again.

The statement is clear cut in addressing it's intended purpose

No, it's intended purpose is to let the rubes think that scads and scads of scientists think evolution is wrong and support ID.

Nothing in the dissent list shows support or approval (directly or indirectly) of any competing scientific theory of biological origins.

Nothing in the dissent list shows support or approval (directly or indirectly) of any competing scientific theory of biological origins.

of any competing scientific theory of biological origins.

Re "and since the "overwhelming majority of scientists accept Darwinism", we shouldn't even be questioning it,"

There is a big different between (1) asking questions or (2) claiming that there's evidence that the experts have it all wrong.

Henry

Bad analogy. The age of the earth is impossible to ignore in questions of life's origins and development. It's more like asking whether the product the star is asking you to buy is a movie or a still photo.

There is no "competing scientific theory of biological origins."

But if you mean a hypothesis that does not include common descent, or proposes a radically younger or older life, then I'd bet that more than 95% of the signers, including most of those who won't admit to being misled, do not think such a hypothesis is promising in the least. Do you?

Nothing in the dissent list shows support or approval (directly or indirectly) of any competing scientific theory of biological origins.

But every single use of the list by the Discovery Institute's Ministry of Propaganda, does.

There is no "competing scientific theory of biological origins."

You are free to believe that, but that was not the point of my comment.

Nothing in the dissent list shows support or approval (directly or indirectly) of any competing scientific theory of biological origins.

But every single use of the list by the Discovery Institute's Ministry of Propaganda, does.

You said "but", as in "yes, Mats, that's true, BUT..". So I gather that you agree that nothing in the list shows support for any competing theory?

I predict that the creationist spin on this will be: "More than 27 % of the world´s academies of science do not support the teaching of evolution".

You said "but", as in "yes, Mats, that's true, BUT..". So I gather that you agree that nothing in the list shows support for any competing theory?

— Mats

I repeat once again, NOTHING in the dissent list shows approval of ANY competing theory.

— Mats

The problem appears to be, at least to me anyway, that the few truly concreted over minds of a few radical religious conservatives on the list are not in the least skeptical.

The actual meaning communicated by them, is one of cynicism.

Cynicism in the form of "we know better, for your own good...you understand, without assigning any value to the TOE other than their personal opinion" co-commensurate with their rise through the political fog to genuine cultural heroes for the 'cause'.

Allah Akbar

Goebbels would have been proud.

As I noted before, the statement serves its intended purpose ---- to mislead people into thinking there are scads and scads of scientists who think evolution is wrong and support ID.

As indeed is illustrated by the uses that the DI's ministry of Propaganda puts it to.

And I am still waiting for you to list some of those "competing theories of biological origins".

Oh, and I'd also like to know why DI doesn't simply ask all its "scientific doubters" to just sing an clear unambiguous statement that "evolution is wrong and design theory is right".

The statement itself doesn't show support for any alternative theory,

and it doesn't even show skepticism toward neo-Darwinism.

You see, neo-Darwinism isn't "Random mutation and natural selection ALONE",

But, it's worded so that it can be interpreted as criticism of the ToE just as well as it can be interpreted as a mainstream scientific point of view.

And the intended purpose is not "only to show that there are scientists who are skeptical of the Darwinian mechanism", but it is to use the tool called "false dichotomy" to fool the public that there is a growing support for creationism.

Mats, while you're waiting around for Lenny to hand you your head, you might note that the past tense of "mislead" is "misled."

No need to thank me--I'm a selfless advocate of better grammar and spelling.

Not to mention my also being a very casual poet (that is to say, "head" and "led" rhyme, in case you weren't clear on that either).

Mats wrote: I repeat once again, NOTHING in the dissent list shows approval of ANY competing theory.

Where do I say that I disagree?

As others have noted, though, the DI is not very interested in correcting those who infer otherwise.

To make it clear that the statement itself does not endorse what the average reader

I also add that nearly all signers probably know very well that (1) there is no competing theory,

(2) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history,

(3) that species are related by common descent,

and (4) a general evolutionary mechanism is responsible for species change.

Again I ask: Does that describe you too?, and if not, what is your alternate opinion on points (2) and (3), if any?

Mats: I'm pretty sure Neo-Darwinism also gives prominence to the role of SEXUAL selection (Darwin's language and usage of the term "natural selection" meant ecological selection and sexual selection was regarded as a separate process, even though ss is a natural process), and genetic drift and gene flow. Neo-Darwinism recognizes that it's not just "random mutation + natural selection" at work, that's an oversimplification.
As to the DI using the "Dissent" list in an attempt to mislead the public, that's pretty clear from their language regarding the list. Their intended purpose is clearly to give the impression that 600 scientists have either rejected "Darwinism" or imply that they favor the use of "alternatives," like ID. It's not a simple case of other people reading that purpose onto them, it's a concerted PR campaign like almost everything else about ID. The folks who can actually parse the signed statement and see that it does not really conflict with the acceptance of Evolution or "Darwinism" as the best and probably correct answer is not the segment of the population to which the statement is whored.

You mean, the mainstream scientific point of view is skeptical of natural selection and random variation as the sole mechanisms behind biological life forms? Do mainstream scientists endorse a careful examination of the Neo-Darwinian claims, as said in the dissent list?

If people have problems understanding basic English, then it's their problem, not the DI's problems.

— Mats

The average reader, armed with rudimentary knowledge of the English language, would see that those 600 scientists are skeptical of the Darwinian mechanism, and that they endorse more discussion about Neo-Darwinism. Nothing more, nothing less. The only ones who see Creationist ghosts in that dissent list are Darwinian Fundamentalists.

— Mats

The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren't terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument. Below are three articles to get started: Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion The Survival of the Fakest

The issue is what the dissent list says.

— Mats

I repeat it again, you can sign that dissent list without endorsing ID.

— Mats, responding to Lenny Flank

Pretty funny that Mats went on his "rudimentary English" jag right after I pointed out that he'd made a rudimentary error in English grammar.

Apparently some are born deficient in the alleles that predispose for the dectection of irony.

Apparently some are born deficient in the alleles that predispose for the dectection of irony.

— Steviepinhead

They don't get from the dissent list that those scientists support ID. That is you reading into it.

As to the DI using the "Dissent" list in an attempt to mislead the public, that's pretty clear from their language regarding the list.

Their intended purpose is clearly to give the impression that 600 scientists have either rejected "Darwinism" or imply that they favor the use of "alternatives

The folks who can actually parse the signed statement and see that it does not really conflict with the acceptance of Evolution or "Darwinism" as the best and probably correct answer is not the segment of the population to which the statement is whored.

Science is skeptical of natural selection. And quantum mechanics. And string theory.

The problem is that ID purposely conflates a healthy skepticism of the status quo with support for a long-discredited distraction.

I would say that the problem isn't so much people understanding or not understanding basic English, it's a matter of people of people falling for the DI's intentionally deceptive phrasing.

Uh... or maybe people just looked at the press releases the DI released about these, which are titled like "Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution". Or maybe they looked at the website where the statement is hosted, which is named "dissentfromdarwin.com" and, immediately after the statement, has the words The arguments that ultimately unravel the Darwinian synthesis aren't terribly difficult to grasp. Anyone who remembers the rudiments of logic they learned in freshman composition can follow the essentials of the argument. Below are three articles to get started: Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion The Survival of the Fakest

A perfect logician, viewing the statement text in perfect isolation, would conclude that the statement does not constitute rejection of mainstream science.

This may in fact have been exactly what happened to some of the people who signed the statement.

Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all

Anyone who isn't studiously ignoring all information about this signature campaign other than just the statement being signed (in other words, pretty much anyone with a web browser)

... would be wholly unable to reasonably see this entire mess as anything other than an "Intelligent Design" publicity campaign to present the appearance not of healthy scientific skepticism, but "dissent" from mainstream biology.

Nothing in the link you provided show any sign of misleading, nor does it show any endorsement of another theory.

Yes, but it does shows skepticism towards Darwinism, something that many Darwinists claim it doesn't exist among scientists.

— mats

What is the "false dichotomy" you are alluding too?

— Mats

Mats wrote But only Darwinism is supposed to be exempt from "critical analysis", as shown by the reaction many Darwin-Only lobbies when such critical analysis was proposed in many places.

"The strength of intelligent design is as an apologetic - that God is the creator, but not a scientific explanation." - Kitzmer v. Dover

ID screams that we must analyze evolution with a critical eye, but have to ignore the gaping holes in their competing theory, creation.

— stevaroni

But only Darwinism is supposed to be exempt from "critical analysis", as shown by the reaction many Darwin-Only lobbies when such critical analysis was proposed in many places.

— Mats

Thanks for agreeing with me that the list alone shows no support of any competing theory.

— Mats

Dembski's explanatory filter? Pffft. Dembski has never tried it. Why might that be?

Anton,

Since ~1999, the DI, if not its groupies, does not want ID itself taught. Some DI fellows have even admitted that ID is not sufficiently developed to be taught. But there's a method to their madness. A few strawman attacks on "Darwinism" disguised as "critical analysis" is enough to get most students to infer not only that a particular designer has been caught red-handed, but that said designer created species (or undefined "kinds") independently. Many will also infer that life is merely 1000s of years old. While students do have an obligation to think for themselves - and many will conclude that the "critical analysis" is bogus - the DI's approach exploits common misconceptions, and would mislead most students. Same with the "dissent" statement. That's what makes the DI's actions irresponsible.

Also, as Wheels noted, IDers have has no obligation to specifically address the age of life or how species are related. But one would expect them to want to be clear whatever their consensus position - or internal disagreements. That would certainly help their pretense at being scientific - at least willing to state and test hypotheses, and debate internally, if not having a thriving research program. But they can't do that because it would disrupt the big tent.

So, even without reference to a designer, if the dissent statement explicitly stated what most people - not just "Darwinian fundamentalists" as Mats claims - infer from it, the list would be even shorter than yours. Behe and Dembski, if fact, would not sign it.

Since ~1999, the DI, if not its groupies, does not want ID itself taught. Some DI fellows have even admitted that ID is not sufficiently developed to be taught.

— Frank J

So, even without reference to a designer, if the dissent statement explicitly stated what most people - not just "Darwinian fundamentalists" as Mats claims - infer from it, the list would be even shorter than yours. Behe and Dembski, if fact, would not sign it.

Dembski's explanatory filter? Pffft. Dembski has never tried it. Why might that be?

Interestingly, the flux capacitor has a much better chance of enabling time travel than Dembski's explanatory filter does of detecting design.

Behe testified in support of teaching it at Dover, however, and Dembski was scheduled to appear until it turned out a mathematician would be ready to critique him. Dembski also blogs approvingly of various attempts to inject ID into school curriculums. They only seem to argue against this after their legal smackdowns.

— Anton Mates

I love it! Then the designer turns out to be designed. Why it's designers all the way down...

I love it! Then the designer turns out to be designed. Why it's designers all the way down...

Such as a turtle?

The turtle can't happen naturally, it is too complex.
Just think, what good would it be to have a shell on the right side of the body but not the left side as well? Obviously this Darwinist Gradualist Materialist idea is nonsense.

A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy or a tool used to win debates, depending on your point of view. It is explained here. Creationists regularly use false dichotomy as a tool and try to convince the public that any argument against the ToE is an argument for their particular brand of creationism.

You will find, if you examine the arguments used by creationists, that they are usually arguments against "Darwinism", not arguments for anything else.

Sometimes the dichotomy is spelled out, as in "creation or evolution", but mostly it is just implied.

Mats wrote But only Darwinism is supposed to be exempt from "critical analysis", as shown by the reaction many Darwin-Only lobbies when such critical analysis was proposed in many places.

Not true. Evolution is a big boy and can take care of itself.

It's been holding its own through a century and a half of critical - actually brutal - but honest, analysis.

And that's fine, because evolution can withstand examination

The problem is, of course, that like many things, "critical analysis" can be used for good, or it can be used for mischief.

ID screams that we must analyze evolution with a critical eye, but have to ignore the gaping holes in their competing theory, creation.

Teacher: "well, that's interesting, but this is science class, so let's compare these theories by using evidence. Evolution has fossils, morphology, and DNA, what does creation have?"

Teacher: "That's a start. But since the Roman Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Anglicans and the Jews, in fact, about 70 percent of the people who use and study that book, officially maintain it implies no such thing and evolution exists, we'll have to take it off the table as evidence.

But to be fair, I'll throw out the peppered moth from the evolution side.

Teach: "...of thermo dynamics? A law which describes molecules in a hot fluid? Nice try, but that's like arguing the speed of light with traffic laws.

Johnny: "I have the irreducibly complex human eye..." Teach: "... which has been shown to be both reducible and useful enough to have evolved independently several times.

Johnny: "I have intelligent design, as evidenced by the perfection of the human body" Teach: "You mean the lower back, the knee, the prostate, appendix, too-small birth canal, broken vitamin C gene, detaching retinas? Which one of these perfect examples are you talking about. But while we're on that, class, look how evolution adapts what it has, even if it's not perfect."

I could go on and on. But the problem is that nobody is ever going to put up creation on the blackboard and revel it for the unsupported farce that it is because that's going to be seen as an insult to parents religion

I'd actually love to teach the criticisms of both "theories" but that would require a level playing field. That seems fair enough, right? There's nothing more American that fairness; what have you got against that?

Oh, yeah, I forgot, on a level field you always loose

Since arguments against Darwinism is evidence FOR special creation, I see no reason in providing scientific evidence against Darwinism.

If that was so, Militant Darwinists would not prevent any attempt to have the theory critically analyzed

If the religion is naturalism, then yes, creation will in deed make that religion (naturalism) look silly.

Oh, I would love if both Creation and Evolution were present by its proponents in class, and both provided their evidence. I am 100% sure that Darwinism would loose hands down, since it's so amazingly out of touch with the facts.

So the 2ND Law thermodynamics is not problem for unguided evolution?

Oh please, Lenny, don't tempt him! If he mentions entropy or disorder I'll groan VERY loudly. Couldn't we just say that this link will answer all of his questions?

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

Well, yes, but Mats really also ought to read "Into the Cool". ...and you will find it interesting as well.

Oh please, Lenny, don't tempt him!

Evolution has stood up to critical analysis.

You're missing an important point. Scientists have considered the claims of Dembski and Behe and others. Those claims have been found to be lacking.

Nobody has censored Dembski or Behe or anyone else

It is the pseudoscience that is pushed by the originators (not necessarily the signers) of this petition that does not withstand critical analysis.

There are some links at the right-hand side of the page that give details. I recommend that you start with TalkOrigins.

Fossils, morphology and DNA. Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence, but different approach to it. The problem is not with the evidence but with the interpretation.

— Mats

Fence sitters like Ken Miller are looked down by both communities.

— Mats

"Yet, ID scientists, unlike Darwinists, are more than open to have their theory under scientific scrutiny."

MATS, scientific scrutiny occurs in the laboratory. Where exactly are the ID sientists conducting the experiments to confirm the testable hypotheses generated by their theory?

"Perhaps you should start reading the newspapers. Heck, just a few months ago, in a little town called "Dover", the darwin-doubters had the chance of a lifetime. They had the opportunity to present all the evidence or data that they wanted to, by all the scientific expewrts they could find. They also had the chance to cross-examine all the darwinists, point out any flaws in their arguments, and present any refuting they wanted to. They, uh, lost anyway"

"In fact, the darwin-doubters have lost every single court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one. Without exception."

Oh, I would love if both Creation and Evolution were present by its proponents in class, and both provided their evidence. I am 100% sure that Darwinism would loose hands down, since it's so amazingly out of touch with the facts.

Kitzmiller v Dover. Selman v Cobb County. Freiler v Topangihoa. Peloza v New Capistrano. Segraves v California. Edwards v Aguillard. Maclean v Arkansas. Daniel v Waters. Epperson v Arkansas. (shrug)

Fossils, morphology and DNA. Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence, but different approach to it. The problem is not with the evidence but with the interpretation.

Unfortunately (classic) creationists themselves have all sorts of different interpretations - many conflicting timelines,many different conclusions about which species are biologically related and which are not, which fossils are the human "kind" and which are the ape "kind", etc.

Realizing that such a cacophony of confusions and contradictions means that there simply is no creation (or design) theory, along came the "don't ask, don't tell" ID strategy. And since you are playing that game rather nicely (evading my questions and using such flowery language as "Militant Darwinists"), you are adding even more evidence that the ID scam is nothing but a pathetic cover-up.

"In his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, the Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup has this to say on the subject:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary-"adaptation," "selection pressure," "natural selection," etc.-thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth, Croom Helm, New York, 1987, p. 422

"Because their theories were considered religious, not because they lacked evidence."

Uh, Mats, where IS this evidence of this non-religious observable scientifically testable all powerful extra-universal creator? Oh, sorry, forgot -

"I see no reason in providing scientific evidence against Darwinism."

Mats wrote: Fence sitters like Ken Miller are looked down by both communities.

Miller is not a "fence sitter" by any definition, and not "looked down" by hardly any "evolutionists".

He is a devout Christian who defends good science and exposes anti-evolution pseudoscience without taking the bait and criticizing religion.

IDers occasionally admit that Miller is a greater adversary than, say Dawkins.

Thanks, Mats, for establishing so clearly that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist apologetics, (2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it's not, and (3) Judge Jones was perfectly correct to rule that it is.

In case you haven't noticed, it's illegal to teach fundamentalist apologetics in public school science classrooms. Sorry if you don't like that.

Perhaps you'd be happier in a country that didn't have separation of church and state? May I suggest Iran?

Re "The tactic "God wouldn't do it like this, THEREFORE it evolved" is very common among Darwinists."

That's a response to the use of that argument against science.

Re "Besides, Staffan, things either "made themselves" or Someone else made them (Law of Excluded Middle)."

Nope, "excluded middle" applies only between a statement and its negation. Since made by natural processes is neither "made themselves" nor "made by somebody else", "excluded middle" does not apply here.

Re "Since arguments against Darwinism is evidence FOR special creation,"

That's assuming no other alternatives. (It's also assuming that creation would be "special" if it occurred, which is an unwarrented assumption.)

Re "I am sure that, if you try hard enough, you can find resources where evidence for Creationism is given.

Then why don't Creationists ever get around to doing that?

Re "Oh, and don't bother posting that unguided evolution is in agreement with belief in the Creator God."

The two aren't inconsistent with each other, except to one who thinks a God couldn't use natural processes, which contradicts the traditional beliefs about God.

Re "and that is why critical analysis of evolution is discouraged."

Critical analysis is done by RESEARCHERS, every time the concept is used in their work, not by schoolkids who are just beginning to learn the basic concepts. Want critical analysis? Do the research and publish the results.

Re "Darwinists are TOTALLY against the scientific (not religious) scrutiny of their theory."

Scientists are always scrutinizing theory, every time they do any research that uses it. Finding a major hole in a major theory is one of the biggest successes a scientist can have in a career - they're not going to forgo that to prop up a theory if they have evidence that would overturn it.

Re "is a clear testimony that in the Darwinian mind, there are only two options: creation or unguided evolution."

What exactly is a "Darwinian mind", and where does it exist except in the minds of people who dislike the concept of evolution? And could somebody perhaps explain why "creation" would even necessarily require guidance of the process?

Henry

Thanks, Mats, for establishing so clearly that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist apologetics..

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Okay, mats, I'll admit I'm confused. Are you a creationist, or an intelligent design creationist? Do you believe the designer is the Christian god? Sorry, can't teach that in science class. (shrug) Can't teach Buddhism in science class either. Do you believe intelligent design is science? Then do some science . Establish a solid theory (and quoting chapter and verse isn't a solid theory, neither is "That sure looks complicated", neither is "That's a really big number!"), make predictions, test the predictions, open your analyses to peer review in the scientific community instead of lobbying politicians. Don't tell us, show us!

Or stop whining and go away.

I repeat once again, NOTHING in the dissent list shows approval of ANY competing theory.

— Mats

Since arguments against Darwinism is evidence FOR special creation...

— Mats

"A Nature editorial concludes that the effort to demonstrate that "God's hand shap[ed] the course of evolution" (i.e., theistic evolution) "is bad news for researchers.... it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason" and must be actively opposed (Nature, 2005, p. 1053)."

— Mats

Scientists tend to tune out when they hear the words 'intelligent design'. The concept, which endeavours to show God's hand shaping the course of evolution, is being promoted in parts of Europe and, more significantly, has recently become popular among Christian fundamentalists who want religion taught in US secondary schools. ... This is bad news for researchers. Unlike 'creation science', which uses the Bible as its guide, intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature. This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason.

Mats wrote; Id is not taught in public schools, so where do you want us to have a critical eye upon it?

But even so, ID scientists are NOT afraid to have their theory under analysis. Secondly, no ID scientist ever said to "ignore the holes in their theory".

Teacher: "well, that's interesting, but this is science class, so let's compare these theories by using evidence. Evolution has fossils, morphology, and DNA, what does creation have?" Fossils, morphology and DNA. Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence, but different approach to it. The problem is not with the evidence but with the interpretation.

Thanks once again for showing the two models approach (creation or evolution). So much for the myth that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

So the 2ND Law thermodynamics is not problem for unguided evolution?

"You mean the lower back, the knee, the prostate, appendix, too-small birth canal, broken vitamin C gene, detaching retinas? Which one of these perfect examples are you talking about

Thanks once again for showing how Darwinists use the "bad design" mindset as evidence AGAINST Creation, NOT evidence for evolution.

Design is so obvious that the only way for you to avoid the logical conclusion (that it was created) is to DENY CONSTANTLY that it was not design.

Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999 Søren Løvtrup , Darwinism: The Refutation of A Myth ... 1987, Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower ..., 1970,

Seems to me that Evolutionists are the ones who have "all sorts of different interpretations - many conflicting timelines, many different conclusions" about the evidence.

However, Darwinists are TOTALLY against the scientific (not religious) scrutiny of their theory. hmmmmmmmm..

(psst...) (conspiratorial whisper) Um, actually, if you leaf through the UD site, you'll find that the ID community itself no longer advises ID supporters to use the 2nd law argument because it's been so widely discredited it makes people who use it look waaaaay uninformed. And that's a premier ID source talking. Just though you ought to know.

Mats,

Soren Lovtrup was not an evolution denier. He's a saltationist. He opposed the idea that organisms evolved gradually over time by means of the slow accumulation of simple mutations and the selection of the more fit outcomes. This does not make him a creationist.

To use his quote in the way you did is intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, back on track... Yup. A healthy debate rages. But that's only because evolution is continuously challenged, reviewed, refined. Even --- dare I say it --- critically analyzed all the time. And guess what, the more we look at it, the more solid it seems. We may argue about the shape of the tree or the arrangement of this branch or that, but that's a far cry from the claim that science thinks that there was no tree.

— Stevaroni