Darwinism

[_Some Schmo]

I had a fun conversation with a Jehovah Witness at my door a few weeks ago. We covered all kind of subjects, one of them being evolution. I asked him why people dispute the science of evolution but not the science of gravity. He said he's seen gravity work. I told him he's seen evolution work too, unless his children are exact replicas of him.

He said, "Well then how did evolution get started?"

I said, "I don't know. How did gravity get started? Does it really matter given the way we know it works? Does not knowing how it started invalidate what we do know about it, the theory itself?"

He then changed the subject.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

Hey, hope things are well with you and yours!

Hey Rock!
Things are great in my world - I hope things are going well in your world too.

First thing, David Gelernter's expertise is in;

Computer science
Parallel computing
Judaism
Literature
Visual arts

He contradicts the large majority of scientists in specialized fields that cross prove the facts of evolution.

Biology
Paleontology
Geology
Archaeology
Anthropology
Zoology
Meteorology
Phylogeny
Genomics
etc.

Why should I put any weight on David's opinions on evolution?

You need to answer that question for yourself. For me, I place various degrees of weight in the opinions of those I believe have balance, rationality, well thought out positions, humility, and a flavor of wisdom that can be described as broad. An example -Dr. Cam is like this in my opinion. While I certainly hold different opinions than Cam (Biblical for example), I always read his posts as they are often littered with balance, rationality, well thought out opinions, humility and broad wisdom.

What's dangerous, in my opinion, is to flatly reject certain opinions/ideas/proposals directly and only due to who is giving the opinion rather than actual content found within said opinions/ideas/proposals. This is a common and unfortunate tragedy in today's world - by the way, this happens daily on this very board.

I look forward to reading David's lengthy report above searching for evidences that he might provide supporting his position against evolution. I've listened to many online videos of those making the same claims as David and debunk videos against those and every time the evolution deniers never provide any evidence against the wall of specialized sciences that prove evolution.

"evolution deniers?" LOL

The exception to this is if you are a young earth creationism that believes in literal Biblical 'kinds' that were magically poofed into existence at a singular given 24 hour day in a 6 day creation. In this case there is a 'Phylogeny Challenge' which no young earth creationism has been able to pass so far. Perhaps you or David will take up this challenge?

Not sure exactly what you mean by "magically poofed into existence at a singular given 24 hour period?"

All you have to do is identify the first kind in the tree that has no parent. Pick any species (kind) that you desire for the challenge.

In a natural/materialistic world, parents would be necessary for many living things (trees included) but with a Biblical worldview (As I certainly hold to be entirely true) "Parents" aren't needed anywhere = Adam and Eve.

Thanks for the reply!
Ceeboo

[_EAllusion]

There’s very little content to the opinion Ceeboo aside from the fact that this person is enamoured with bad anti-evolution arguments coming out of the Discovery Institute. Those arguments aren’t even made here so much as their positions are asserted. Because your piece tries to play up his credentials to make his opinion seem noteworthy, people in this thread feel compelled to point out his credentials aren’t relevant to evolutionary biology.

[_Lemmie]

What's dangerous, in my opinion, is to flatly reject certain opinions/ideas/proposals directly and only due to who is giving the opinion rather than actual content found within said opinions/ideas/proposals. This is a common and unfortunate tragedy in today's world - by the way, this happens daily on this very board.

Hmm. Although I do agree that addressing content is good. For example:

In a natural/materialistic world, parents would be necessary for many living things (trees included) but with a Biblical worldview (As I certainly hold to be entirely true) "Parents" aren't needed anywhere = Adam and Eve.

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

[Guest]

You need to answer that question for yourself. For me, I place various degrees of weight in the opinions of those I believe have balance, rationality, well thought out positions, humility, and a flavor of wisdom that can be described as broad.

Your introduction to David seems to reflect the fallacy of;
Appeal to False Authority

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

Of course, I may have wandered into the territory of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority myself but the diversity of all of the fields, with large numbers of experts in those fields, all cross verifying each other tips the scales for me towards the purely scientific knowledges of the topic verses the philosophical/theological aspects of the debate.

What's dangerous, in my opinion, is to flatly reject certain opinions/ideas/proposals directly and only due to who is giving the opinion rather than actual content found within said opinions/ideas/proposals.

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.

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

Like EAllusion suggests upthread, it is very likely that if you were to dig in deep to David's associations you will find the Discovery Institute come up (if he is one of the wiser ones) or Ken/Kent if he is a bit dimmer than what you hold him up to be.

What you are going to find is that the arguments/positions of these two groups (skeptics/YEC) do not change, they are always the same old things that have been endlessly debated over and over for 1000's of years.

"evolution deniers?" LOL

. Why do you find this funny?

Not sure exactly what you mean by "magically poofed into existence at a singular given 24 hour period?"

. The YEC'ist would believe in the literal interpretation of the creation story in the book of Genesis being 6 consecutive 24hr days. Let's take the 6th day when Adam was created 'from the dust of the earth' and Eve was created from Adam's rib. Thus we have a supernatural (magic) creation of fully developed complex life form (a man) from non-life (dirt). I assume Adam's creation was relatively very fast (poofed) It was at least faster than 24 hours.

In a natural/materialistic world, parents would be necessary for many living things (trees included) but with a Biblical worldview (As I certainly hold to be entirely true) "Parents" aren't needed anywhere = Adam and Eve.

Sorry about that the software engineer in me was referring to a hierarchal tree (a composite pattern) where any given node in the tree (a parent) can contain zero-to-many nodes (children). If all plants, animals and Adam/Eve were all created fully developed to their own 'kind' on a given day of the six days of creation, then each 'kind' would be a 'root node' of their own tree, having children under them but no other parent above them.

[_Ceeboo]

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."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

[_RockSlider]

What am I looking at here? you have given me a quote and listed a couple hundred names?

[_Ceeboo]

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

by Volubrjotr • 11 Feb 2019 • 0 Comments

Rothschild Family Tree

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that 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.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania.

Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

“Such is the power of groupthink,” he wrote. “The scientific mainstream will punish you if they can, and the media is wedded to its narrative that ‘the scientists’ are all in agreement and only ‘poets,’ ‘lawyers,’ and other ‘daft rubes’ doubt Darwinian theory. In fact, I’m currently seeking to place an awesome manuscript by a scientist at an Ivy League university with the guts to give his reasons for rejecting Darwinism. The problem is that, as yet, nobody has the guts to publish it.”

In interviews with The College Fix, some of the list’s signers explained why they were willing to go public with their skepticism.

“[Darwin’s theory] claimed to explain all major features of life and I think that’s very unlikely. Nonetheless, I think Darwinism has gotten to be kind of an orthodoxy, that is it’s accepted in the scientific community unthinkingly and it’s taught to kids unthinkingly,” said Michael Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University.

“Getting a list of scientists who point out that they don’t believe the orthodoxy can kind of open up some minds hopefully,” he said.

“It is clearly a growing trend with biology to think that Darwin missed a whole lot of biology and cannot explain a good deal of evolution,” Behe added.

Regarding how his colleagues view the list, Behe said, “Most of my peers are unaware of it, but those who are aware of it don’t like it one bit. They think that anybody who would sign such a list has to have a dishonorable motive for doing so.”


The Theory Of Evolution Is Precluded By The Second Law Of Thermodynamics. All Are Open Systems. Closed Systems Are Only A Mathematical Theory.

Taking a stand comes with a risk. Scott Minnich, an associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho, said he has many times been accused of being “anti-science.”

“I signed this list when it first came out because of this intellectual deep skepticism I have that the random unintelligent forces of nature can produce systems that outstrip our own intellectual capacity,” he told The Fix.

Minnich went on to quote the writer C.S. Lewis: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Law Giver.”

David Dewitt, chair of the Department of Biology and Chemistry at Liberty University, told The College Fix in an email interview he signed the list because “I don’t believe that Darwinism accounts for all living things. Natural selection doesn’t produce new information and can’t.”


Physical Laws Of Nature precludes macromolecule to cell transition. Molecular Insights Into the Living Process New York: Academic Press, pp. 406-407 Biochemist David Green

Dewitt said he’s not alone.

“I think more scientists are realizing the limitations to Darwinism, specifically in regard to the origin of life and the complexity of the cell. So much of how cells actually work reveal how impossible it is that life arose from mutation and natural selection. As we have learned more and more about molecular and cellular biology, more scientists doubt Darwinism although they may not admit it for fear of repercussions,” Dewitt told The Fix in an email interview.

Shun Cheung, an associate professor of computer science at Emory University, referred The College Fix to his website to outline his concerns.

“When Darwin formulated his ‘evolution theory,’ [he] did not have good microscopes and the cell was a blob to him without any structure. Darwin thought that a cell was simple and without structure. We now know that a cell is like a complex factory consisting of many different components-each with a distinct function. Each part/component is necessary in the entire operation of the cell,” Cheung writes.

[_Chap]

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.

[_Lemmie]

Regarding the OP's list of names....

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

The list continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support....

The statement is misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings such as "Darwinism", which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general,[7] and presenting a straw man fallacy with its claim that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity of life, when standard evolution theory involves other factors such as gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift and endosymbiosis.[8][9] Scientists and educators have noted that its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, were a minuscule fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scienti ... _Darwinism