Search This Blog

Monday, February 27, 2006

Darwin is Dead - Scientific Signatories

"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."

The list of 514 signatories includes 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Read the story at IDtheFuture. Go to The Center for Science and Culture to download the 13 page (so far) pdf document with the names of the scientists, their titles and degrees.

David Berlinski, a signer of the statement and a mathematician and philosopher with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, said: "Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless and the object of superstitious awe." From Physorg.com

Institute for Creation Research has lists of associated creation scientists here.

Here is a similar list from Answers in Genesis.

The next time someone tells you that there are hundreds of scientists who don't believe in Darwinism, you will know they are telling the truth.

18 comments:

cranky old fart said...

Shall I repeat?

Where are those peer reviewed papers supporting the young earth Noah thing.

A list of scientists agreeing that science should continue doing science is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Noah's ark and a 6k world, now is it?

radar said...

I posted sites where such papers are available for your perusal, have you checked them out?

JMJanssen said...

Much of what is posted on this site has already been refuted numerous times. This latest post for example is old news. Perhaps you have heard of Project Steve?

Leave the science to the scientists and the philosophy to the philosophers please.

highboy said...

If we had some real scientists I'd be happy too, but so far all I've heard is that I'm a biological accident whose origins lie in a primortal soup. Evolution has been refuted as many times as Creation has so what is your point? Project Steve?

radar said...

"Much of what is posted on this site has already been refuted numerous times."

Blanket statement, but totally unsupported. Boo.

"Perhaps you have heard of Project Steve?"

Yep a list of scientists named steve who support evolution. How does the existence of the list disprove any of my arguments, pray tell????

augurwell said...

Dear Radar,

Adaptation indicates the hand of God.

So, the further north you go the more white rabbits there are.

Your position leads me to understand that you do not. You must be blind not to acknowledge what your senses perceive.


I will leave you with the oldest story from the bible and some other legend.
The oldest unadulterated (as far as we know) story in the bible concerns a tribe that is coming out of the deep desert and encountering a new civilisation for the first time. The advice is not to fear these other interoperations of God. Your forefathers feared no other gods, nor should you.

"The Lord loves good judgement." I refine my judgement all the time.

Again, I point out that intelligent design and evolution are both evident in this world.

AND we are created in their image both women and men, as children of God some of us have grown up more than others.

Camels Going Without Water.
&
Bedouin legend below




While a camel can support thirst better than any beast of burden in the world, it has a very definite limit of endurance. Almost any camel can go three or four days without a drink, especially if it has had the opportunity to fill itself before starting.


Yet a camel which has been living in a fertile country, and has become "green." Four days of thirst is its limit. On the fifth day, it will kneel down on the sand, and never get up again. It is useless to beat the animal or to prod him with the goad. Removing the load will make no difference. The creature will not try to get up. When a camel has once made up its mind to die, it will do so, even though water may be only an hour's journey away. If the wells are not reached by the end of fifth day, most of the camels which are not desert-bred and desert-trained will succumb. For long trans-Saharan marches, therefore, camels from the northern parts of Algeria and Morocco are useless.

Usually, a camel which can endure five days can endure six, and the Bedouin Arabs have a tradition that if a camel dies on the sixth day it is a sign that an afreet has been sitting on the top of the load. A well-trained desert camel should always be able to reach the evening of the seventh day, without water.

This is the breaking point. On the morning of the eighth day, fully a third of the camels of a caravan will not even try to rise, and, at intervals, all day long, those which have started will drop to their knees, abandoning hope. A camel which, without food or water, has carried its load or its master until the evening of the ninth day, according to Bedouin tradition (though not of the Koran) has won for itself a human soul and will go to Paradise. Should the evening of the tenth day be reached and the camel still be able to travel, it is regarded as having been touched by the miraculous hand of Allah and may never be ridden again, save by a marabout in a Holy War.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is a legend, beloved by the Bedouins, which tells how the Angel Gabriel was saved by a camel.

"In the days of ignorance," the legend runs, "before the Koran was revealed to Prophet, the Angel Gabriel came down to earth. As the Koran had yet been revealed, the earth was still in the hands of the demons who eat the evil thoughts of man for their food.

"When these demons saw the Angel Gabriel, they determined to capture of the hosts of the sky, to rob him of his thoughts, as one robs a caravan, and send him back to Heaven empty. Had they succeeded in catching the Angle, they might have done this, for was it not in the days of Ignorance?

"Now the Angel Gabriel had been given special powers by Allah, and, had he wished it, he could have blasted these demons by a Word of Might. But as his mission on earth was a secret one, escape seemed to him the best way to carry out the wishes of Allah.

"The Angel Gabriel summoned his mehari. This racing-camel was whiter than milk, faster than the fastest gazelle, its eyes could see a blade of cram-cram grass fully ten miles away, and it could smell an unpierced well of water at two days' march distance. The angel leaped upon this mehari and the demons folled.

"That was a wild ride! "Every day, for exactly fourteen hours daily, the Angle Gabriel rode. He stopped, only, to give his mehari the four hours of grazing, the two hours of cud-chewing, and the four hours of sleep which the Creator-the All-Wise and the All-Powerful-has ordained for these sponge-footed racers over the desert miles.

"Yet, fast as the angle rode, the demons stayed close behind. Upon black meharis, whose breath was hotter then the simoon upon the Waste of A'i'iz, they followed him nearly. They could not advance while he rested, for never did the Angel delay a moment longer than the prescribed house of repose, and never did he rob his mehari of the rest which was its due.

"For nine days, the Angle Gabriel rode thus, and wide was the expanse of the desert that he crossed. And for nine days the demons maintained their pursuit, discouragement not yet having withered their harts. But when, upon the coming of the tenth day, the demons found that the mehari of the Angel Gabriel was still able to travel, those dark Sons of Eblis decided that the camel must have more than earthly powers, and gave up the chase. Thus by the endurance of a mehari to the tenth day, the Angel Gabriel was saved and the designs of Allah were not thwarted."





The still free pure precepts.
~

Augurwell
Cheshire by Severn
Canada

augurwell said...

PS

Why is it that you have no e-mail address that can be found easily?
I don't know if this is the case with you but I find that those who leave no addresses are a cowardly lot. (And you say you work in the internet security biz?)

The Golden Rule
Augurwell

aegisi@sympatico.ca

cranky old fart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cranky old fart said...

Radar,

Have YOU looked at the sites you gave me? The "sites where such papers (peer reviewed) are available for your perusal".

I have. People from the Institute for Creation Research presenting papers to the International Conference on Creationism or Creation Magazine is not peer reviewed scintific research. It's a circle jerk.

highboy said...

"It's a circle jerk."

In other words, experts say you're wrong and you stick your fingers in your ears screaming "La la la, I can't hear you!"

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

That's what I said? Gee, I thought I said that creationists saying to other creationists that scientists are wrong was a circle jerk.

If your "experts" have the data, the research, to back up the ol' young earth Noah thingy, you'd think they would have the stones to present it for true peer review instead of just passing it amongst themselves. No?

creeper said...

highboy,

"Evolution has been refuted"

When and where?

"If we had some real scientists I'd be happy too, but so far all I've heard is that I'm a biological accident whose origins lie in a primortal soup."

As opposed to dust? So what? It's a fascinating process, and who's to say that evolution is not the path that God chose in his wisdom to create man?

highboy said...

creeper says: who's to say that evolution is not the path that God chose in his wisdom to create man?

Not me but that fact seems to get ignored. First, you guys can stop looking to me to support young earth. I've said so many times I lost count that I'm not sold on either argument. You just can't admit your theory is full of holes, and I'll continue to tell you you're wrong.

creeper says: who's to say that evolution is not the path that God chose in his wisdom to create man?

No its not, and its scientifically impossible. (Before I go further, are we talking about the same thing? That remark was directed at cosmology and origins, not evolution.)

Although many have claimed my description of the Big Bang theory is wrong, the fact is, the Big Bang, and secular "no God" science as a whole, claims that there was nothing, and then there was an explosion and now there is something. Say what you want about the representation but that is what it boils down to. Nature created the world, but who/what created nature?

I realize some scientists believe in God and was responsible for the Big Bang, and so none of this is directed at you.


cranky says: If your "experts" have the data, the research, to back up the ol' young earth Noah thingy, you'd think they would have the stones to present it for true peer review instead of just passing it amongst themselves. No?

It was true peer review. Just because you say its not doesn't make it so, you are not the final authority on such things, or an authority at all for that matter.

creeper said...

highboy,

I was not talking about young earth or the big bang. Incidentally, why do you equate the big bang theory with atheism? Seems to me it ties in quite neatly with theism as well - "let there be light".

Why do you say that evolution is "scientifically impossible"? To be clear, when I say evolution I mean the theory of evolution, a.k.a. the modern synthesis.

creeper said...

highboy,

"Evolution has been refuted"

When and where?

radar said...

I will leave you with the oldest story from the bible and some other legend.
"The oldest unadulterated (as far as we know) story in the bible concerns a tribe that is coming out of the deep desert and encountering a new civilisation for the first time. The advice is not to fear these other interoperations of God. Your forefathers feared no other gods, nor should you."

The above is entirely untrue. Must be from some other book besides the Bible.

Augurwell, your other stories are from other sources, not the Bible. Not getting a real connection there?

Cranky, the ICR and AIG and ID scientists submit papers. Often their submissions cause a firestorm of controversy because the pro-evolution crowd cannot look at the evidence, getting all riled up about conclusions. The Darwinist peers choose not to accept much of what is written because it goes against their beliefs. Blame it on the old Darwinist guard.

Back to work!!!!!!!!!

creeper said...

"the ICR and AIG and ID scientists submit papers."

To whom?

"Often their submissions cause a firestorm of controversy because the pro-evolution crowd cannot look at the evidence, getting all riled up about conclusions."

Don't be so vague, throw us some links of these peer-reviewed articles with all this amazing evidence. I couldn't find any peer-reviewed articles over there. Do a search on peer and all you get is a bunch of whining about how they're always accused of not publishing peer-reviewed articles - but not peer-reviewed articles.

Anonymous said...

Let's look at the Answers in Genesis list, shall we.

Diploma Mills, scientists pre-Darwin, quacks, people who recanted - it has it all.

Or the Dissent from Darwin list. All they are signing is that "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."

I'll drink to that. Careful examination of the evidence for any theory should be encouraged - and I know no scientist who would disagree. In short this list is not a list of scientists rejecting evolution.

That leaves the score of biologists and about twice that of non-biologists from the ICR. I'm quite prepared to believe that they are valid - particularly when Project Steve has ten times that number of scientists - and it's only drawing from a population of about 1% of all scientists. (And even then, the "Institute of Creation Research Graduate School" shouldn't be counted and a number of other ICR people are equally dodgy).

- F