Darwinism

[_RockSlider]

One does not have to look very deep/long:

Quoting from
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/yales ... eneration/

"This long, thoughtful, and beautifully written article reflects David Gelernter’s own willingness to “study all the evidence for himself.” He cites the work of our colleagues Douglas Axe, David Berlinski, and Paul Nelson by name. He notes that two books I collected for Discovery Institute Press, Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays and Debating Darwin’s Doubt, he also found to be “essential.” Wow."

The above is from the Discovery Institute

[_Lemmie]

Another quick trip down Ceeboo's favorite rabbit hole.

Have we done ... oh what was it? ... rhinoceroses and codfish yet? It's a killer point, believe me.

I heard whales and raccoons, but that could just be the evil feminist in me picking on those species...

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Darwin himself said that natural selection wasn't the "exclusive means of modification."

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

Did these guys sleep through the last 100+ years of evolutionary theory?

[_RockSlider]

Over 1000 ‘Ph. D. Scientists’ Sign “Dissent From Darwinism” Document: Science Continues To Discredit Evolution

Ceeboo, you do realize what a tiny fraction that number is compared to the scientist across all the disciplines involved that would be opposed right?

[_RockSlider]

Ceeboo,

Given your list of over 1000 names, give me one that can answer the Phylogeny Challenge.

You have over 1000 who are suppose to agree with some given statement. Now, give us one that has proposed an actual model to replace the evolution model, and link up their peer reviews on this model.

[_RockSlider]

Ceeboo,

Given these groups:

Skeptics
Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham)
Discovery Institute (underground)
Creation Science Evangelism and Creation Today (Kent and Eric Hovind)

What is the motivation behind all of the time, money, effort each puts into their positions?

[_RockSlider]

Perhaps a little comedy is in order:

If you are not familiar with the 'Banana man'
The atheists nightmare!

He has been one-upped
The Broccoli man

[_Some Schmo]

Perhaps a little comedy is in order:

If you are not familiar with the 'Banana man'
The atheists nightmare!

He has been one-upped
The Broccoli man

I had not seen either of those, and they were hilarious.

The dude describing the "design" of the banana... it seemed like a comic's routine. Talk about Poe's Law.

[_Gunnar]

It seems the attributes you like about David might fall more along the lines of philosophical strengths verses scientific knowledge.

Concerning evolution, the issue is not so much an 'individual who' question but a 'what group' is that individual associated with question. There seems to be a very limited number of groups that the various players fall within.

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"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."

Worthlessness of your cited list

Response:
The criticisms of the general claim that many scientists reject evolution apply also to this list of scientists.

Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence is lacking. Claims for such evidence by the Discovery Institute (DI) have been repeatedly examined and dismissed by those who understand evolutionary biology.
Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 400 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 500 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution (NCSE 2003). There are only five Steves on the DI's list of 400.

The DI's list is exaggerated as an anti-evolution document (see below).

The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says,

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. (Discovery Institute 2004)

Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed, it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too. The statement signed by the scientists of "Project Steve" is more more specific:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (NCSE 2003)

Although many of the people on the Discovery Institute's list are anti-evolutionists, it is likely that most of them would disagree with fixity of "kinds" and a young earth (Evans 2001). In another list, the Discovery Institute put out a bibliography of publications that "represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism . . ., discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins." When the authors of the publications were contacted, none said that their works support "intelligent design" or challenge evolution (Branch 2002). Bob Davidson, one of the signators of the DI's list of 400, says, "the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming" and now thinks the Discovery Institute is an affront to both science and religion (Westneat 2005).

Most of the signators to the DI's list (about 80%) are not biologists; some are not even scientists. Generally speaking, mathematicians, electrical engineers, philosophers, and so forth are only marginally more qualified to comment on the validity of evolution than the average person on the street.

Project Steve

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists,[1] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.[3]. The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[4] As of March 25, 2019, Project Steve has 1,439 signatories.[4]

ETA: I should have found and read Lemmie's post on the same subject before posting this. It was much better and more comprehensive.

[_Gunnar]

I flatly reject the opinion that this Biblical worldview is entirely true totally on the basis of content.

I certainly agree with that. At least a couple of decades ago I was reluctantly dragged by the sheer weight of scientific evidence to the conclusion that the compilation of ancient writings we now know as The Bible is no more likely to be the infallible, revealed word of God than anything else that has ever been written.