Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster

quote:

---

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.

---

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

Yet, it can't be. No scientist would commit the elementary, grevious errors you displayed in your post. Or in this one: And it's from this basis of ignorance that you claim support of anti-Darwinian positions?Your self-claimed "credentials" are evaporating, whatever your name is. I pity the poor bastard whose identity you're ripping off, and it's very clever of you to copy down some long words from an engineering handbook, but you're not folling anyone. The fact that you simply can't think scientifically shatters the facade.

And evolution has withstood that scrutiny for 100 years; it's the best-supported theory in science. Moreover it's been responsible for a mountain of successful research, confirmed predictions, and useful explanations; the hallmark of successful theory, as I'm sure you must know. If you are who you say you are, of course. Ah yes, the "apes don't read philosophy!" defense.Of course, as Jamie Lee Curtis reminds us, apes do read philosophy; they just don't understand it.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is true for almost every branch of science, not just Biology, and not just the ToE.Yet why is the DI (and you) singling out the ToE for criticism?

quote:

---

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.

---

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

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.

---

Mostly, I am interested in your thoughts on message 112 in this thread.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-18-2005 09:37 AM

Hi DouglasNice to hear from you!"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."Do you agree that one could make a similar statement about every other field in science? the theory of gravitation, quantum mechanics etc?Would you also agree that modern evolutionary theory is much more than "random mutation" and "natural selection"?Do you feel there is any reason for claiming that an unknown intelligent agent must be responsible for at least part of life?The Discovery institute uses the list to prove that scientists are skeptical of Darwin. Would you intepret that statement as saying that the scientists are skeptical of the claims made by Charles Darwin, or as saying that they are sceptical of current evolutionary theory?Why does the statement say "Darwinian theory", and why does it only mention mutations and natural selection, and not other mechanisms of gentic change?Since you have studied the statement intendly - why did you think it unnecessary to mention other mechanisms of genetic changes, and why did you think it relevant to sign a statement pertaining to a theory set forth about 150 years ago, and not the current version of evolutionary theory?/Sren

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?

Doug,I don't believe you've been officially welcomed here to EvC, so "WELCOME."This message is not just to you, but to your debate partners here.Please take this discussion to this thread The DI loses oneThis thread had a very specific focus concerning the DI list and is not a debate thread.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

quote:

---

Hi Douglas
Nice to hear from you!

---

Thanks for the welcome. And thanks for the good questions.

quote:

---

Do you agree that one could make a similar statement about every other field in science? the theory of gravitation, quantum mechanics etc?

---

Of course. I might tone down the rhetoric a bit first, though, emphasizing a 'healthy scientific skepticism', e.g. quoting Einstein, "Any scientist who believes his own theory ceases to be a scientist."

quote:

---

Would you also agree that modern evolutionary theory is much more than "random mutation" and "natural selection"?

---

Of course, which is why I raised the issue of insufficiency in my earlier post.

quote:

---

Do you feel there is any reason for claiming that an unknown intelligent agent must be responsible for at least part of life?

---

'Must' is a strong word! I would hesitate to answer in the affirmative to almost any statement containing it. I think the best way to answer this is to say that so far, no scientific observations have forced me to conclude the necessity of an intelligent agent, and so far, there appear to be plausible natural explanations for most of what we have observed. However, even Dawkins (a 'Darwinian Fundamentalist' per SJ Gould) admits that so many systems exhibit characteristics of intelligent design that we have to keep reminding ourselves that they came about by natural causes (eh hem, I detect some bias here...). What objective test could we apply to such observations? Now, there's the real question! And we should not be afraid to ask it! What if we were planted here by aliens? How would we know, or how could we rule this out?For that matter, how do we know if anything is designed? How do you prove that a particular mound of dirt was built by a Native American, and not by some natural process?

quote:

---

The Discovery institute uses the list to prove that scientists are skeptical of Darwin. Would you intepret that statement as saying that the scientists are skeptical of the claims made by Charles Darwin, or as saying that they are sceptical of current evolutionary theory?

---

I think DI uses the list to add credibility to their claim that real scientists support a healthy skepticism regarding science and oppose dogmatic teaching of facts, as often occurs in science classrooms today. Because of this poor practice, I believe they will (and should) win this part of the argument.
Since DI publicly states that they do not support the teaching of ID in public school science classes (and neither do I), and since they are are at least partially correct in their assessment of the poor state of science education, I am hopeful that their efforts will result in some needed reform.

quote:

---

Why does the statement say "Darwinian theory", and why does it only mention mutations and natural selection, and not other mechanisms of gentic change?

---

Good question...since I did not write it, I can only guess at their reasons. Perhaps one reason is that often these two are the only two mechanisms taught, thus implying sufficiency. Perhaps they are making a distilled statement (a straw man?), knowing that it would be far more difficult to win and gain support for a more complex argument.
My gut is that they would not find a large audience except that some folks have used dogmatic science as a weapon against the religious community, and when you kick the beehive, it is likely you will be stung.

quote:

---

Since you have studied the statement intendly - why did you think it unnecessary to mention other mechanisms of genetic changes, and why did you think it relevant to sign a statement pertaining to a theory set forth about 150 years ago, and not the current version of evolutionary theory?

---

I considered the veracity of the statement itself, as it was presented. If someone wishes to write a more complicated statement (for or against), I might endorse it as well. It is sad that the public is so illiterate when it comes to scientific questions that such a statement is even thought necessary.It has been a pleasure for me to respond to your questions, even if am not myself...
Dr. Douglas G. Frank, in the flesh.

If you really think that is the reason for the publication of the statement and the list it is my opinion you have been fooled and are supporting political manipulation.In my high school science classes there was a tendancy to the bare presentation of facts without proper context. In my daughters there was a much, much better presentation of the process and reasoning allowing for real analysis. Here in Canada, at least, there has been significant improvement.Of course, it is entirely possible that science education in the US is not as good. If I remember correctly international studies hint that this is true.If you have a concern (and I think it is valid to have one) about the state of science education in your country then signing that statment was not a good way to allow for any improvment. mmm No, maybe I should take that back. It is just vaguely possible that, at great cost in court and class time, that a backlash against this kind of political manipulation will result in improvments. However, I don't think it is the best way to go about it.Again, perhaps you should track the media and get an idea of how that statement is being used. It is NOT the shortcomings of Darwins ideas that are being discussed when it is used. It is a suggestion that there are serious flaws in the current theory.Even your comment on Gould and punctuated equilibrium shows a lack of your understanding. Even Darwin didn't suggest totally steady rates of change. Certainly Gould isn't proposing anything different from differing rates of change. This kind of misuse of both the statement and of current theory is not likely going to help improve science education. It will more likely waste a lot of time and effort conteracting the deliberatly misleading use of that statement.