Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster

Greetings.Since you were looking for contact information for credible scientists on this list, I thought I would save you the effort and help you find me.I am a scientist/inventor/businessman/teacher who is prominently published (e.g. the covers of Science and Naturwissenschaften), daily practices the scientific method, teaches math and science to extremely bright young people (at a school for gifted students), and runs a business.Regardless of my credentials, one should carefully consider the statement above the list of names which endorses it before marginalizing those on the list. Who knows, one might agree with the statement:"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."Certainly, the 2nd sentence should pose no issue. Any open-minded, intellectually honest scientist would agree. The first statement is simply a scientific opinion/question held by many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould ('Mr. Evolution' according the AAAS. I discussed this point with him over lunch a few years ago, and we agreed).Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotion to any particular 'ism' is not science. Paradigms change...As Einstein put it, "Any scientist who believes his own theory ceases to be a scientist."Happy to contribute!Dr. Douglas G. Frank, President
Precision Analytical Instruments, Inc.
Blue Ash, OH
ToolsForAnalysis.com

My PhD was in surface-electrochemistry. Big words...just think of it as what happens at the liquid/solid interface, such as self-assembly, cell-walls, neurotransmitter (redox) function....For example, as a graduate student and post-doc I performed work (funded by NSF and NIH) modeling neurotransmitter function in model systems (modified electrode surfaces) and with live rats (electrodes in brains...). I co-authored about 60 publications, mostly in chemistry journals, about 15 dealing with biological systems.As a businessman, I have been awarded grants as primary investigator on DOD bio-remediation projects (see SBIR reports).I am currently scientific and technical consultant for a large corporation on some human and animal physiology-based projects. I am not at liberty to discuss these in public.So yes, I currently teach science and work as a professional scientist, in fields related to evolutionary science; that is if chemistry, biology, brain function, and physiology qualify.

I agree that this is not the place to debate the sufficiency question. I only mentioned it as it pertained to the validity of the Discovery Statement.Believe me, I considered the statement carefully before I agreed to have my name added to the list. Since the statement seemed to withstand careful logical and scientific scrutiny, I was willing to endorse it.And although I agree with your implication that pure Darwinism is no longer the dominant paradigm, I question the methodology of evaluating the veracity of a particular statement by its perceived intended use.

- Cogito ergo sum! Check my website...toolsforanalysis.com...it's me!- I see your point. I used the word 'practice' because the of the perjorative 'non-practicing' scientist. In my opinion, the scientific method is the most reliable process humans have yet derived for getting to the bottom of things, so I use the process on a daily basis (I do a lot of inventing, and the scientific method is great for trouble-shooting complicated phenomena and devices).- I am neither an 'ID-er' nor a 'creationist,' and neither was SJG. Yet both of us acknowledged that our current understanding of our origins is woefully lacking, requiring humility and open-mindedness rather than devotion to any particular theory. Ideally, individual scientists should resists the temptation to be any sort of "-ist." Follow the data...In my opinion, one of Gould's finest books is 'Full House.' He called it his "prodigal child." I continue to use it in some of my science classes.In my opinion, Gould's willingness to take on the current sacred cow of Darwinism (replaced it with 'punctuated equilibrium') was necessary in order to advance the scientific discussion.

Thanks for the guidance. I am new to this forum, and am still learning the ropes.I am aware how some folks mis-use the list. This does not invalidate the need for it. In particular, I am interested in the list's effect upon Discovery Institute itself. If one plans to make scientific claims, and then plans to get scientists to endorse those claims...and continue to endorse those claims, one will first very carefully examine those claims.Kind of like peer-review, eh? (wide grin)

Truly, it is I! Want my mother's maiden name?Let me be clear. I can observe evolution in a test tube. Natural selection is abundantly apparent. Darwin was a smart guy...and a great scientist. He even proposed additional experimental test to evaluate his hypotheses (which all failed, by the way...leading to several subsequent shifts in our evolutionary paradigms...)But there are many more factors...some of which we are only just now gaining glimpses of. For example, recently an article appeared in Science describing yet another previously unknown mechanism by which nature efficiently filters mutations and preserves genetic integrity by passing messenger RNA during mitosis.I say, we need to chill. We are making scientific progress, for sure, but we are still basically clueless. The more we learn, the more we know how little we know.As a friend and colleague of mine from Lawrence Livermore once told me, "Remember, Doug, we're only just down from out of the trees."

What I 'feel' has nothing to do with science. Yet, I am human, and I do have feelings. I am most comfortable keeping an open mind, and approaching such questions with humility. I prefer honest discussions steeped in logic and intellectual integrity.In many ways, the scientific community has brought this upon itself, by allowing secularist movements to use it as a vehicle. Analogous to the creationists absconding with Behe's book...Behe is not a creationist, and clearly states so in his book.DI is increasingly emphasizing that it does not support the teaching of ID in science classes...one of the principal reasons it withdrew its support for the case in Pennsyvania. DI certainly opposes the teaching of dogmatic 'fact.' Both good positions, I'd say.Maybe to some, endorsing the list indicates support for ID. But that is not what the list says...One of my pet peaves is the poor state of science teaching in this country. Science should be taught as a process, not as a set of facts.I believe the public debate of this issue will improve the situation, which is why have engaged the discussion.Thank you all for welcoming me ... actually, I am surprised how quickly y'all responded.

I re-read these, and realized I inadvertently left out something here, regarding the role of 'faith' in my decision.Actually, a childhood among fundamentalist Christians drove me AWAY from creationism. As soon as church members recognized my precocity and leanings toward science I was buried in supposed 'scientific literature' from the likes of ICR.The circular reasoning and weak arguments contained in this liturature was so obvious that even as an adolescent I had already concluded that to live a life of faith one had to suspend one's intellect.Good thing Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, et al. weren't born in my community...Now that I am 'grown up' (only 44) I understand that just because there are stupid Christians does not mean that Christianity is stupid.Just because some scientists behave poorly does not mean the scientific method is poor.Just because ALL of the experiments that Darwin proposed to test his hypotheses failed does not mean that Darwins ideas are not profound and useful.I suspect that people who want simple answers seldom find the truth.

Just because an hypothetical model 'can' account for some experimental observation does not mean that it does.The burden of scientific proof is not the ability to come up with an ex-post-facto explanation. Instead scientific knowledge becomes accepted as more and more probably correct as it survives years of intense experimental scrutiny.For example, I have read Science magazine cover-to-cover for over twenty years now...and 'stability' is not the word I would use to describe the current evolutionary paradigm. And I believe the pace of change will only intensify over the next 20 years.

Great point, which is also my point; i.e. Here is a new and surprising result/proposed mechanism which directly affects descent of genetic information. It is controversial exactly because it is a surprising result. The fact that such results/mechanisms could be credibly proposed and prominently published demonstrates my point.You are likely correct regarding the exact reference; I was working from memory last night and do not recall the exact details. My point was not the validity of the proposed mechansim, but the fact that such proposals can even be credibly made is an indication of our level of understanding and the current state of the paradigm.

Your claim that 'evolution has withstood that scrutiny for 100 years' depends upon your definition of 'evolution.'If you mean 'as a scientific working model that has improved over the last 100 years and is free to be modified in light of new data' then I agree.Simply pick up any textbook older than 20 years, and the differences between the current paradigm and the older one(s) are readily apparent. 'Evolution' paradigms have undergone major shifts throughout the last 100 years in light of new data.Thus, my point that science should be taught as a process, not a static collection of facts. Those who teach it dogmatically do the scientific enterprise a disservice.

Since my position is also that taken by many prominent scientists, (including Einstein and Feynmann), I suppose you would defrock them as well?(Ideas and Opinions - Einstein, The Meaning of it All - Feynmann)I have observed that marginalization is often a symptom of a weak argument.

Actually, I have also read numerous comic books on the subject.

Let me try this again...please forgive my clumsiness...you said:

quote:

---

So, you only read Science to get your information about Evolutionary science?

---

to which I reply:

quote:

---

Actually, I've also read several comic books on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Mostly, I am interested in your thoughts on message 112 in this thread.

---

Mostly agreement here.

quote:

---

Yet why is the DI (and you) singling out the ToE for criticism?

---

I did not single out ToE. I joined the discussion of an important topic and endorsed a statement that seemed correct.

quote:

---

Then why not talk about the teaching of ALL science instead of mentioning ONLY the Biological Theory of Evolution?

---

Preach it, brother. Where do I sign up?