Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 11-26-2002, 10:51 AM

Has anyone seen this list before?

<a href="http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php" target="_blank">http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php</a>

I've managed to exclude several dozen, by virtue of being non-specialists in the required field and/or being members of non-accredited colleges.

Has anyone else seen this list? It has the feel of being an 'internet urban legend' to me, so I doubt I'm the first one to try and deconstruct it.

Thanks.

pz · 11-26-2002, 11:09 AM

I've seen it. It's the Discovery Institute's response to the fact that PBS ran a special on evolution a year or so ago. It's not surprising. They managed to find 100 cranks who don't like evolution. Big whoop.

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12" target="_blank">The NCSE had a number of rebuttals to various DI criticisms.</a>

tgamble · 11-26-2002, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:
I've seen it. It's the Discovery Institute's response to the fact that PBS ran a special on evolution a year or so ago. It's not surprising. They managed to find 100 cranks who don't like evolution. Big whoop.

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12" target="_blank">The NCSE had a number of rebuttals to various DI criticisms.</a>

I wonder if you could find 100 historians who doubt the holocuast or 100 doctors who deny that HIV causes AIDS...

Corwin · 11-26-2002, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


I wonder if you could find 100 historians who doubt the holocuast or 100 doctors who deny that HIV causes AIDS...

I don't know about 100... I haven't looked that deeply. But there have been people insisting that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS for years... as well as the whole Holocaust Denial movement.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 11-26-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

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.

This is what they signed to.
Firstly, this says nothing about the truth of Darwinian theory. Secondly, it's advocating thorough examination of the evidence...which is something any scientist worth a damn should say.
So why the hell are they acting as if this is a big deal?

Corwin · 11-26-2002, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:

This is what they signed to.
Firstly, this says nothing about the truth of Darwinian theory. Secondly, it's advocating thorough examination of the evidence...which is something any scientist worth a damn should say.
So why the hell are they acting as if this is a big deal?

Because if it's swallowed as a sound bite they get to say 'LOOK LOOK even SCIENTISTS don't believe in Evolution so why should you??!?!?!?!?!?'

Come on. Don't you know how this game is played?

People that don't even check credentials (as in 'Doctor' Hovind's...) can hardly be expected to handle a point as fine as the one you just described.

Principia · 11-26-2002, 11:56 AM

I think Krauss explained it best in the recent NPR segment with Meyer:

Quote:

Because the number 84 percent here is interesting. Deborah Owens thinks that when questions were put to voters in Ohio or to citizens in Ohio in a poll, teach one, teach the other or teach both, 84 percent of the people said teach both. Now I suspect that that number comes from a very simple source and that is the sort of broad sense in the American public that you want to hear both sides of anything. In other words, it�s not an endorsement of one view or another.

And there was a more significant and a much more interesting poll that was carried out in September by the University of Cincinnati�s Public Opinion Laboratory. And what they did was they asked members of the public in Ohio the following question: Do you happen to know anything about the concept of intelligent design? And of the people asked, 84 percent said no, didn�t know anything about it. Only 14 percent said yes. And what that means in a sense is the 84 percent in Deborah Owens-Fink�s poll are responding to this general idea, �Oh, there�s two sides, let�s hear both sides of the issue.�

In other words, this is a rhetorical trick to appeal (specifically, I might add) to the American public. The presupposition that there is an 'another' side is what they let slide. But, you know, even in a representational system of politics, the 'hear both sides' method isn't even how things work. What we teach children trickles down from the hard work of scientists -- and the majority of IDiots have a rather poor claim to that title.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

RufusAtticus · 11-26-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


I wonder if you could find 100 historians who doubt the holocuast or 100 doctors who deny that HIV causes AIDS...

It wouldn't be hard if we play by the rules of creationists.

"historian" = anyone with some letters behind his name

"doctor" = see above.

11-26-2002, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:

I don't know about 100... I haven't looked that deeply. But there have been people insisting that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS for years... as well as the whole Holocaust Denial movement.

Not to mention all those "scientists" who say that we never went to the moon.

Doubting Didymus · 11-26-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

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.

Ha! Hey.

The funny thing is that technically, I myself would agree with this statement. Technically, I am skeptical of all claims, (in the true sense, that I reqire evidence to accept them). And who doesn't encourage careful examination of the theory?

If I was not aware of the purpose of this petition thing, I might very well have put my pen to it.

11-26-2002, 10:51 AM	#1
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	100 Scientists who Doubt Evolution Has anyone seen this list before? <a href="http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php" target="_blank">http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php</a> I've managed to exclude several dozen, by virtue of being non-specialists in the required field and/or being members of non-accredited colleges. Has anyone else seen this list? It has the feel of being an 'internet urban legend' to me, so I doubt I'm the first one to try and deconstruct it. Thanks.

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

11-26-2002, 11:09 AM	#2
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	I've seen it. It's the Discovery Institute's response to the fact that PBS ran a special on evolution a year or so ago. It's not surprising. They managed to find 100 cranks who don't like evolution. Big whoop. <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12" target="_blank">The NCSE had a number of rebuttals to various DI criticisms.</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.