Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory. The list is now located at the website, CSC - Center for Science and Culture
SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at CSC - Center for Science and Culture, reads: “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.” Moderator cut: copyright violation
Last edited by Alpha8207; 01-03-2008 at 05:39 AM..
1.) The source is THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE & CULTURE, which is the big organization pushing Intelligent Design.
2.) The article says that some scientists are questioning random mutation and natural selection as sufficient explanation for evolution. But it never elaborates on that point. If random mutation and natural selection don't adquately explain evolution, then what does in their current thinking?
1.) The source is THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE & CULTURE, which is the big organization pushing Intelligent Design.
2.) The article says that some scientists are questioning random mutation and natural selection as sufficient explanation for evolution. But it never elaborates on that point. If random mutation and natural selection don't adquately explain evolution, then what does in their current thinking?
Good point. This kind of reminds me of Project Steve...
The reason why there are debates about evolutionary topics is because the things being discussed are matters of opinion, not scientific facts. Somebody finds a part of a jaw and thinks it came from a human ancestor. A second scientist (who usually has also discovered a part of a jaw, which he claims came from a human ancestor) says the first scientist is wrong. There is more ego involved than evidence. Objectivity is distorted by the desire (perhaps even the need) to have bragging rights.
.
Look, I'm all about arguing and debating but I ask that you please don't cite something as if you wrote it. That's all I'll say on this for now unless you'd like to push the issue.
Regardless, dispute within the scientific community is what makes science so special. It shows that science doesn't settle for the first guy's opinion. It builds upon the disagreements and tests to see who is right. As I've said before, I could dig up a bone in my backyard and say "Look! Egads! This proves birds came from dinosaurs" and a scientist, at first glance, or perhaps not as educated as others in the community, may agree with me. However, it's only until extensive testing is done that a determination is made. No one digs up a jaw bone and says "We've done it!" based on their first impression. To do so would not be called science, it'd be called speculation.
There is very little (if any) argument withint the scientific community about evolution as a fact. What they are not certain about, and what is up for debate/change is the 'mechanism' of how evolution works exactly.
If evolution were true, one would expect to find fossils of just a few kinds of simple creatures in the lowest rock layers. As one goes higher in the rock layers, there should be more and more different kinds, similar to those below, but slightly more complex.
This is a common mistake that people who are unfamiliar with evolution make. Evolution is not necessarily an accumulation of complexity but rather an adaptation to the existing environment that increases the chances for survival. We have records of mass extinctions of plants and animals that were quite complex and it's a mistake to think of them as more primitive than organisms living today. Evolution involves a number of dynamic processes that are interacting and it's simplistic and inaccurate to state for example that man is the pinnacle of evolution because of the complexity of our large brains. It's very likely that insects have a much better chance of surviving far longer than human beings despite our large egos and self centered view of the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
