500 Scientists Express Skepticism About Evolution

[Ron Lambert]

I thought this would be interesting to those who assume that all scientists believe that evolution is true.

Quote:

---

SEATTLE, February 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

.

The statement 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."

.

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

.

See the full list here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

---

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "The statement 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."

The above is exactly what it says, and no more.

It is NOT a total rejection of evolution.

Be careful what you do with it.

[Ron Lambert]

Let's not miss or avoid the real point. At the very least it must be conceded that not all scientists are comfortable with evolution. Here is the proof. That is the point. Anyone who says that "all scientists believe in evolution" is lying, or at least misinformed.

It is interesting that the largest group of signatories were biologists. Also that many of the scientists who signed are associated with very mainstream, prestigious scientific organizations. I was especially interested to note that some of the scientists who signed were from the Smithsonian--when the Charter of the Smithsonian Institute states that among its basic purposes is to promote evolution.

It is not likely that these scientists would have signed this statement if they felt that the theory of evolution, or of natural selection, merely required some minor tinkering.

And note that this list of signatories does not include mere lab techs, they all have PhDs.

[Gregory Matthews]

Theere are two major points that can be made from that quote:

1) Some scientists are not comfortable with Darwinian evolution. Frankly, this has been developing for some time. More and more scientists are not comfortable with Darwinian evolution. But, this should not be equated with the idea that they are becomming creationists.

2) There are evolutionary scientists who are beginning to acknowledge that current evolutionary theory (NOTE: I did nto limit it to Darwinian theory.) are begining to question the ability of such theory to explain the complexity of life. Frankly this is minority group, but I welcome this beginning group. Again, this should not be equated with a belief in creationism. It is simply a beginning, small, acknowledgement of ignorance.

Frankly, Ron, I apprciate your bringing this to our attention. I think that it has value. I do not want to be seen as picking on you. But, I do not want people to think it is more than it is.

[Bravus]

The difficult word, of course, is 'evidence'. What kinds of evidence will continue to be examined, and under what assumptions? But it is indeed an interesting news story and something we should keep an eye on.

[Dr. Shane]

Why is it the PhD in the group has the most balanced prespective? [pats Bravus on the back]

Actually, given the number of PhD's in the world, I think 500 is kind of a small number. I would think there are that many with PhDs teaching science courses at the various Christian univerities in the US alone. But we can't place our faith in numbers anyway. The scientists before the flood probbally didn't think it would ever rain either.

[Bravus]

Thanx, brother Shane. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[bevin]

There are two things to notice about this statement.

Greg has already put his finger on one - it is an objection to a specific thing - random mutation. It does not cover, for instance, the transferal of DNA and RNA by viruses.

The other is the range of IRRELEVANT qualifications held by the signatories.

Quote:

---

Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

---

I have degrees in both math and computer science. Never once in those courses did we examine ANYTHING to do with the evolution of life on earth.

Physics, Medicine and Chemistry do not require anything relevant either.

In short, these are not experts in the field. The fact that ONLY five hundred signed is somewhat telling - they should have been able to get 50,000 just by concentrating on christian's with irrelevant degrees.

Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

Two valid points.

[Dr. Shane]

The Bible is clear about the issue and the Adventist church was called forth to trumpet the Three Angel's Message, part of which is to worship the Creator.

I am not a scientist. Most of what I know comes from watching creation-based programs on Christian TV and evolution-based programs on PBS. It seems science's greatest weakness is the fact they work off certain assumptions that are impossible to verify - like the rate carbon breaks down over time or the original (Eden) state of things.

I think that undoubtabley, many of the scienctists that doubt evolution are the ones that realize the greatness of God and the smallness of man. The whole issue really needs to be discussed in the realm of "philosphy of science" instead of in the realm of science alone.

[Ron Lambert]

Biology is not the only discipline relevant to evaluating the theory of evolution. Evolution theory is not biological science per se, it is a philosophy about biological science. As such, anyone with a good, disciplined intellect has a perfect right to weigh in on this subject. But other scientific and mathematical disciplines are relevant too. For example, one of the great faults of evolution theory proponents is their abysmal ignorance of the real probabilities involved. Mathematicians themselves have taken evolutionary biologists to task on this, in major national conferences, where mathematicians showed that even maximizing all factors, the probability is prohibitively high against natural selection or random mutation ever writing anough of a revision in a genome to tranform one species into another, even on the level of bacteria. Computer modeling of this has been done repeatedly, and evolutionary biologists have found themselves very much on the defensive, because even the billions of years they had been claiming allowed evolution to happen is not enough. Physics also is relevant, because of the claims about radioactivity-induced mutation, and questions about how constant and unvarying the level of radiation has been in the past history of the earth; and also how reliable are the various radiogenic age testing methods used to justify the claims evolutionary biologists depend upon that there have been billions of years for evolution to occur by random chance operation of natural processes. In actual fact, there is no scientific discipline that is not relevant in some way.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron:

I agree that there are a number of scientific disciplines that are approrpriate to discuss evolution within that discipline, but not outside of it. E.g. A mathmatition may be qualified to discuss the mathmatical probability of a specific event, but not qualified to discuss non-mathmatical aspects of the genetic code. Yet, even a mathmatitian might have his training in an area of mathmatics that did not involve evolution, and therefore not be qualified to discuss evolution.

Even so, I cannot say that all fields of science are qualified to discuss evolution. I have a friend who is highly trained, and experienced in forinsic handwriting analysis. Is he qualified to speak on evolution? Or would you say that he is not a scientist.

I could give other illustrations, some of which would be closer to science than the above.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Computer modeling of this has been done repeatedly, and evolutionary biologists have found themselves very much on the defensive, because even the billions of years they had been claiming allowed evolution to happen is not enough

---

The vast majority of the evidence for evolution comes directly from examining the geology and the biology around us. It does NOT come from showing how those things came into being.

The calculation of probabilities is sheer nonsense because noone can give you two important facts

(1) all the mechanisms that cause the changes of the DNA etc

(2) a list of all the DNA that is good v. all the DNA that is bad.

In short, the simulations try to calculate the odds of picking a winning lottery ticket without knowing what % are winning tickets and without knowing how much cheating you are allowed to do.

/Bevin

[Gerr]

He can also argue that from that standpoint of probabilities. If there is zero probability that a certain handwriting came by accident, a forensic handwriting analyst can also argue that the probability that "handwriting" in the DNA code came by random forces is essentially zero also.

Gerry

[Gerr]

To All,

There is a very interesting article in the March issue of "Christianity Today": "God by the Numbers" by Charles Edward White. The probability that life came into existence by random forces is essentially ZERO. That's a big fat ZERO!!!

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

---

There is a very interesting article in the March issue of "Christianity Today": "God by the Numbers" by Charles Edward White. The probability that life came into existence by random forces is essentially ZERO. That's a big fat ZERO!!!

---

Gerry - why do you believe this calculation is correct science?

/Bevin

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Quote:

---

There is a very interesting article in the March issue of "Christianity Today": "God by the Numbers" by Charles Edward White. The probability that life came into existence by random forces is essentially ZERO. That's a big fat ZERO!!!

---

Gerry - why do you believe this calculation is correct science?

/Bevin

---

[:"blue"]Did you read the article, Bevin? Let's say that the calculations are in error by 50%, would it make it more probable? Look at your watch, Bevin. What is the probability that somehow it came to be by random forces? [/]

Gerry

[archierieus]

Just tagging on here . . .

One of my evangelistic contacts, with whom I am studying, is a Communist--a 'card-carrying' member of the Revolutionary Brigade of the Communist party. I mentioned Ron's post to him the other day. He pulled out the latest issue of one of the party newspapers, which discounted the statement supposedly signed by 500 scientists. The article gave a different breakdown of the numbers, showing far fewer biologists, and a LOT of evangelicals, and went on to say that for many of those who signed the statment, religious beliefs are an issue--IOW, that the statement is not pure science, but religion-based. AND of course, the article mentioned the sponsor, Discovery Institute, which, from my experience, seems to engender major eye-rolls when it is mentioned to mainstream scientists.

What gives?

Dave

[archierieus]

I should also add that, while a number of mainstream scientists are expressing doubts about long-age evolution, they are turning to a different concept, espoused by a professor Kaufmann at the University of New Mexico, that is the self-organization of matter. Kaufmann asserts that organic evolution need not have required long ages, but that matter has the capability to organize itself, and that the process can occur fairly rapidly.

Dave

[Bravus]

Two quick points here:

1. As Dave has noted, their skepticism about the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution don't translate into support for recent creationism. In some cases it's support for other (atheistic) evolutionary mechanisms, in some cases for theistic evolution of various kinds. The statement should be understood for what it is (and what it isn't).

2. People, especially the math-based ones, tend to talk about 'random processes', but a basic understanding of evolutionary theory shows that the processes are far from random, they are selected at every turn. Calculations of probabilities/randomness are basically irrelevant.

Again, I'm not advancing a particular view here, just commenting on the science of the views already advanced.

[Dr. Shane]

Most scientists have just as much of an agenda as evangelicals do. So it should be expected that scientists are going to skeptical and even critical of those that disagree with them. That is no surprise at all.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Did you read the article, Bevin? Let's say that the calculations are in error by 50%, would it make it more probable? Look at your watch, Bevin. What is the probability that somehow it came to be by random forces?

---

Let's say the calculations are completely right, but are calculating the completely wrong thing.

I am reminded of the calculations of the ancient Greek's that showed the sun to be only 7000 miles away. Turns out the earth was not flat, the sun is 90M miles away, and the earth has a diameter of about 7000 miles.

Calculations are worth nothing if they are calculating the wrong thing.

My underlying point is this. You like the article because you like its conclusion. This is not a valid way of deciding whether the calculation and model is correct.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I think what is highly improbable is that something came from nothing. Next to that it seems inprobable that life came from nonorganic matter.

Once an environment was suitable for life and a form of life came into existance, the process of evolution could begin. But how probable is it that the environment for life would just happen by chance and that after it did inorganic material would evolve into a life form?

[Gerr]

What makes you think they are calculating the wrong thing?

You say that I accept their calculations because I like their conclusions. Do you reject their method of calculation because their conclusions do not fit your cosmic view?

Again, let me ask you. Look at your watch. Tell me what are the probabilities that the case, the band, the numbers, the hands, the screws, batteries, or spring, came to be by themselves? And the probability of them coming all together into a functioning unit without an Intelligent Designer? Bevin, even a one-celled organism is even more complicated than a watch.

Gerry

[Bravus]

Paley's watch argument is simply invalid because it requires completely random processes as well as intermediate stages that do nothing to ensure their own survival. It is *not* analogous to processes of natural selection. Strawman arguments prove nothing.