Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bloodroot · 04-21-2003, 07:41 PM

I am going to respond to an editorial written about this article in the Greenville News in my state of South Carolina. As with the scientists listed in the article, I have a feeling that the author is also referring to a "list" of scientists that are skeptical of evolution that I have seen posted somewhere on the web. I want to use this "list" to fuel my retort. Does anybody know where this "list" exists? Thank you.

Grumpy · 04-21-2003, 07:53 PM

Don't know which list you're referring to. But I can think of another retort (which I just posted in PD a moment ago): How many of those 100 scientists skeptical of evolution are named Steve? Because NCSE has 300 Steves who agree -- evolution is the unifying principle of biological sciences.

Doubting Didymus · 04-21-2003, 08:03 PM

The discovery institute is the home of that bogglingly minute list of scientists, many of whom claim that the question they answered mislead them into answering in a way that they ordinarily would not have done.

Here is the article. (pdf). I'm actually quite uplifted that they managed so few names. 100 scientists at a stretch? Excuse me while I wipe an utterly miniscule statistical figure from the underside of my shoe.

Dr.GH · 04-21-2003, 08:57 PM

There is much more to object to in the linked article than the pitiful lists of "Creation Scientists." ((Stephen W. Hawking was number 300 on the NCSE list.))

Quote:

"There is no need to be so openminded that your brains fall out." Annon.

RBH · 04-21-2003, 09:54 PM

DD wrote

Quote:

The discovery institute is the home of that bogglingly minute list of scientists, many of whom claim that the question they answered mislead them into answering in a way that they ordinarily would not have done.

Can that be documented, DD?

RBH

Doubting Didymus · 04-21-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RBH
Can that be documented, DD?

Not by me. Heresay on my part, I'm afraid. I generally ignore the activities of creationist organisations. There are more pleasant things to do with my time, like scratching my eyes out.

I vaguely recall a thread about this not so long ago, possibly one of the progect steve threads, where I heard about that. I'll have a quick search.

The gist of it is this: the question is worded in such a way that many biologists would agree with it if they did not know the purpose for which the answers would be used for. Allow me to demonstrate:

This is the first scentence:
WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.

There are various stripes of evolutionist that do not like the emphasis that is placed on natural selection. "pan adaptationist" theories are frequently decried as far too simplistic. There is a VERY large body of evolutionists that is opposed to what they call 'ultradarwinism', which emphasises selection as the sole or the primary driving force behing evolution. Such scientists may read this question as relating to that (rather famous) debate, while not for a moment questioning the real issue: common descent by natural processes.

The second scentence is this:
CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

I would hope that this applies to all scientists, without exception. Careful examination of the evidence for ALL major theories should be encouraged.

If I didn't know that this was actually an "are you anti-evolution" question, I may well have put my name to it.

S2Focus · 04-21-2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RBH
DD wroteCan that be documented, DD?

RBH

Check out this NCSE article

Principia · 04-21-2003, 10:29 PM

Quote:

DD: The discovery institute is the home of that bogglingly minute list of scientists, many of whom claim that the question they answered mislead them into answering in a way that they ordinarily would not have done.

I think what you might have had in mind was this fiasco, in which the IDiots quote-mined research articles that supposedly criticized evolution, though, as it turned out, most of the authors themselves claimed to have been taken out of context.

NCSE did a fairly good job of debunking that piece of shit:

Quote:

[...]The only point of similarity of the publications in the Questions of Pattern section appears to be that there are passages in them that, if taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented, seem to express doubt about phylogeny in general. But for the Discovery Institute to insinuate that scientific debates about how to determine which organisms are related to which are debates about whether organisms are related is misleading. As Peter J. Lockhart (coauthor of [13]) carefully explains, in responding to the Discovery Institute's summary of his work:
I don't think it is a good representation of our work � our work does not present 'a classic challenge to evolutionary analysis'. In our paper we point out that technically it is a hard problem to reconstruct the phylogeny of corbiculate bees regardless of whether you use morphological or molecular data (the reason for this concerns the pattern of radiation � four different lineages diverged in a short period of time a long time ago � given this pattern it is not surprising that different data types might suggest different phylogenies). In our article we do not say that interpretation of the molecular data is right and that interpretation of the morphological data is wrong (or vice versa). Instead we make some suggestions which we believe will help resolve why the different data types suggest different conclusions � we suggest that the bee morphologists relook at the interpretation of some of their data and we also encourage the molecular biologists to determine some additional data which would help test their hypotheses � we suggest that if these things are done then there should be a resolution to the controversy over which phylogeny is correct. We do not doubt that there is a phylogeny � in contrast, the statement by the Discovery Institute suggests that the bee controversy is evidence for absence of phylogeny. No scientist involved in the corbiculate bee debate has ever suggested this to my knowledge.
Kenneth Weiss's article "We hold these truths to be self-evident" [21] is the odd article out in the section on Questions of Pattern. Weiss was not discussing phylogeny; the Discovery Institute apparently included it just in order to quote him as saying, "It is healthy to be skeptical even of truths we hold to be self- evident, and to ask: suppose it isn't true � what would follow? Do we need a theory of evolutionary biology?" Weiss told NCSE that "This is misrepresenting the fuller context. For example, the last question that is quoted was followed by my asking what would be the minimal essential elements of such a theory that biologists would insist on." And although the Discovery Institute parenthetically added, "Please note that in his footnotes, Weiss is highly skeptical of creationism, and endorses what he calls 'the fact' of evolution," Weiss responded, "The Discovery Institute does not give an honest sense of the clarity that I put in that disclaimer: 'Given the spate of recent anti-evolutionary books, I feel compelled to make the statement here that nothing in this column in any way questions the fact of evolution, nor in any way supports creationist accounts (one cannot call them "explanations") for the diversity of life.'"
[...]

But even if you this is not what you had in mind, I think DI's pattern of dishonest misrepresentation is clear.

RufusAtticus · 04-21-2003, 11:23 PM

100 Scientists! HAHA

In my department alone, I managed to collect signatures of 19 scientists who were against the delution of biology education by creationist/idist propaganda. These were faculty members of the University of Georgia Genetics Department. Not the chemists, MDs, and engineers that the DI mostly touts.

Doubting Didymus · 04-21-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
100 Scientists! HAHA

In my department alone, I managed to collect signatures of 19 scientists who were against the delution of biology education by creationist/idist propaganda. These were faculty members of the University of Georgia Genetics Department. Not the chemists, MDs, and engineers that the DI mostly touts.

Exactly. I'm surprised and heartened that they got so few. I'd have thought that with a little effort they'd get at least 1000 crackpot engineers and loony podiatrists.

04-21-2003, 07:41 PM	#1
Bloodroot Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: upstate SC Posts: 20	List of Scientists who are Skeptical of Evilution I am going to respond to an editorial written about this article in the Greenville News in my state of South Carolina. As with the scientists listed in the article, I have a feeling that the author is also referring to a "list" of scientists that are skeptical of evolution that I have seen posted somewhere on the web. I want to use this "list" to fuel my retort. Does anybody know where this "list" exists? Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2003, 07:53 PM	#2
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Don't know which list you're referring to. But I can think of another retort (which I just posted in PD a moment ago): How many of those 100 scientists skeptical of evolution are named Steve? Because NCSE has 300 Steves who agree -- evolution is the unifying principle of biological sciences.

04-21-2003, 08:03 PM	#3
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	The discovery institute is the home of that bogglingly minute list of scientists, many of whom claim that the question they answered mislead them into answering in a way that they ordinarily would not have done. Here is the article. (pdf). I'm actually quite uplifted that they managed so few names. 100 scientists at a stretch? Excuse me while I wipe an utterly miniscule statistical figure from the underside of my shoe.

04-21-2003, 11:23 PM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	100 Scientists! HAHA In my department alone, I managed to collect signatures of 19 scientists who were against the delution of biology education by creationist/idist propaganda. These were faculty members of the University of Georgia Genetics Department. Not the chemists, MDs, and engineers that the DI mostly touts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.