New NAS book on Evolution & Creationism

Um ... it looks like the summary brochure is available for the free download; the book still costs money. Not that I begrudge the NAS having a revenue stream.

Not true, read the book and then click download. You need to 'register'

Just [SIGN IN] under "PDF".

Hopefully this link will be up soon: http://www.scribd.com/doc/960325/Science-Evolution-and-Creationism

Shouldn't that be FrumiousBandersnatch? You've conflated The Hunting of the Snark with Jabberwocky.

this is great. NAP has a treasure trove of publications that are accessed by scholars of every discipline. now with this title becoming available a scholars from outside the life sciences are going to have a quick and clean source of information that can be used to dismiss the pompous but frivolous babble that is dished put by the likes of Denyse O'Leary

Joel: Shouldn't that be FrumiousBandersnatch? You've conflated The Hunting of the Snark with Jabberwocky.

The Boojum tree is in the Hunting of the Snark, right?

No doubt the Discovery Institute will respond with its usual blather.

Ignoring the non biologists, and the academics from outside USA and the faculty of diploma mills, there is probably less than 50 people worth contacting on the list of "700 dissenters".

If we, science supporters, ask them to comment on a few more topics other than the carefully crafted big tent statement they (allegedly) signed. If we could get their views on the age of Earth, on common ancestry between chimpanzee and humans and on the scientific status claimed by ID, the responses would prove to be quite interesting.

Lurkers, please check if there is anyone on the list from your univ or institution. See if you could get them to explain their endorsement of DI/ID.

The NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, hyping it as "the foundation for modern biology." This outrageous claim continues to meet a growing skepticism from scientists around the world. Over 700 doctoral scientists have publicly declared their disagreement by signing a list dissenting from Darwinism, including National Academy of Sciences member Phillip Skell.

Instead of treating evolutionary theory as an area open to further scientific inquiry, the NAS report canonizes evolution as perfect and immutable, "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it."

"Under their definition, a theory is not a testable area of science but rather an unquestionable dogma," said CSC program officer Casey Luskin.

Of course, this should come as no surprise, given the NAS's bias against intelligent design, which challenges Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds. Rather than addressing the science of ID, the report misrepresents the theory as an untestable religious belief. While the report ignores what design theorists actually claim, it chooses to cite the Kitzmiller ruling instead, apparently trusting a judge who copied the ACLU and disregarding the academic freedom of the scientists who stake their reputations and careers on the scientific merit of intelligent design.

At bottom, this report does little more than reveal a tired and weary voice of an establishment unwilling to actually address the scientific claims or the thoughtful skepticism of a growing number of scientists who disagree.

If we could get their views on the age of Earth, on common ancestry between chimpanzee and humans and on the scientific status claimed by ID, the responses would prove to be quite interesting.

— Ravilyn Sanders

I took a close look "Dissent from Darwin" list in October. Of its 704 signatories, 314 (45%) self-report being in a life sciences field. Only 159 (23%) were in a life science directly related to the study of evolution.

I started a similar analysis of the Project Steve list but never finished. I looked at 126 of the PS signatories. 84 (67%) were in the life sciences and 58 (46%) were in a field directly related to evolution.

How many Project Steve signatories are NAS members?

Long time, non-biologist, layman lurker here.

Recognizing P.T. Barnum's observation, there may be little the NAS nor other well intentioned organizations nor individuals can do to quell the yapping terriers of ignorance. No one can force them to change their minds - they have to do this on their own and it may help a little for them to reap the consequences of their misguided political and social activities: leave them to their own devices and allow more Kitzmillers to occur.

Dave

Ravilyn Sanders: Lurkers, please check if there is anyone on the list from your univ or institution. See if you could get them to explain their endorsement of DI/ID.

2Hulls said: ...there may be little the NAS nor other well intentioned organizations nor individuals can do to quell the yapping terriers of ignorance. --

I think the scientific community needs to start hiring publicists.

The NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, hyping it as “the foundation for modern biology.” This outrageous claim continues to meet a growing skepticism from scientists around the world. Over 700 doctoral scientists have publicly declared their disagreement by signing a list dissenting from Darwinism, including National Academy of Sciences member Phillip Skell.

By the way, I managed to catch blurbs about this book on two of the three old-line networks last night. NBC and ABC seem right, but I can't be sure.

I thought that both were fairly good, if quite short, reports, telling of the scientific acceptance of evolution and the perceived need to combat antievolutionists. Sure, they had the detractors come on with their pablum, but I didn't think that they appeared especially convincing to anyone who wasn't sure about the issue (and I was trying to see it from the viewpoint of the populace). I was pleased to see it hit the news despite the hoopla over the Iowa caucuses.

Then again, those reports probably had less of an impact, due to the caucuses, than they'd have had on a more usual night. I can't blame the networks for that, though, and I wonder if the timing of the release was very well planned.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Recognizing P.T. Barnum’s observation, there may be little the NAS nor other well intentioned organizations nor individuals can do to quell the yapping terriers of ignorance.

— 2Hulls

The NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, hyping it as “the foundation for modern biology.” This outrageous claim continues to meet a growing skepticism from scientists around the world. Over 700 doctoral scientists have publicly declared their disagreement by signing a list dissenting from Darwinism, including National Academy of Sciences member Phillip Skell.

Hey, real quick, folks: With reference to the Dishonesty Institute's infamous list of 700 "dissenters" - that's 700 out of how many? What's the sum total of all scientists? Anybody got a plausible number? (I'm in a debate on another blog.) Thanks

Having lived in Va. Beach (location of CBN, 700 Club, etc) in 1985 when Pat Robertson "turned" hurricane Gloria away from the coast via prayer, I and others figured out the true origin of the name, "700 Club." It's because membership is limited to those who scored less than 700 (combined math and verbal) on their SATs.

Little know trivia: when it was pointed out to Pat that after bypassing Va. Beach, Gloria made landfall on Long Island, he was asked, "Why didn't you help those folks as well?"

Pat: They're Catholics.

Hey, real quick, folks: With reference to the Dishonesty Institute’s infamous list of 700 “dissenters” - that’s 700 out of how many? What’s the sum total of all scientists? Anybody got a plausible number? (I’m in a debate on another blog.) Thanks

Frank J: How dare you steal my line!

Instead of treating evolutionary theory as an area open to further scientific inquiry, the NAS report canonizes evolution as perfect and immutable, “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it.”

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. (Emphasis added)

For anyone who believes that the NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, be aware that evolution is alive, well, and increasingly successful in the scientific literature.

I'll expect AiG to pick up on this over the next few days.

On the news broadcast, Dr. Menton was seen asking: “Why are the evolutionists so defensive? If their ideas are so compelling, I would think they would welcome a challenge.”

Dr. Menton: Why are the evolutionists so defensive? If their ideas are so compelling, I would think they would welcome a challenge.

Peter Henderson: Furthermore, I just wonder what will happen to science standards in the US if Mike Huckabee were to become president (in light of last night's result in Iowa this could now be a real possibility) ? Will he endorse Ham's museum ?

Sorry - I know I'm off topic... I always feel so "dumb" when I post here (I'm just a stay at home mom) but I thought this might be helpful to any of you that didn't have the "Dissent List"
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Raven was talking about the 700 signatures and I thought this would be a good place to start. Sorry in advance if you are already aware of this.
- Stacy -

Hey, real quick, folks: With reference to the Dishonesty Institute’s infamous list of 700 “dissenters” - that’s 700 out of how many? What’s the sum total of all scientists? Anybody got a plausible number? (I’m in a debate on another blog.) Thanks

— Paul Burnett

I did a quick scan of that list of 700, and I saw three from the University Of Iowa, Arruugghh!!! Fred Skiff I've seen, and Ms. Smith commented on him too. But there is also a Ge Wang and Andrew Schmitz too. Don't know about them. But I would like you to know that the U Of Iowa also has me, a specialist in Blood Banking and my son Stephen, a graduate student in Applied Math. So there is at least three good guys to balance out the three on that list.

Claim CA111: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism. Source: Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). h ttp://www. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163 Response: 1. Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. 2. Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. 3. One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on. Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

Peter Henderson: AiG has indeed picked up on the release of the book:

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.

Stacy refers to a list of 700 dissenters who doubt that Darwinian theory is sufficient to explain the complexity of life. Of course, most evolutionary scientists would immediately sign on for such a claim, even Darwin was aware that there were likely to be other evolutionary mechanisms.

Further more many of the 700 are not involved in the life sciences. Compare this to over 800 Steves from life sciences. Since about 5% of the names are 'Steves' this translates to 95% versus 5%. Correcting for the pollution of the 700 list with non life science 'scientists' and correcting for the ambiguity of the DI's claim and it would not surprise me if the total number drops under 1%

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that there are quite a few NCSE Steves who are not from the life sciences. I haven't been through all 860 to see what fraction are in the life sciences or closely related fields.

FWIW, I counted five Steve's in the DI "Dissent from Darwinism" list, although my count may be off a little bit due to fatigue.

So, after all these years the number is still "more that 700". In other words, they still haven't hit 800 yet. I wonder why? Don't they need to at least get one new person to sign every year in order to claim that the number "is growing"?

I mean really, this is pathetic. If science really worked this way, all we would have to do would be to get a bunch of people to sign a statement saying that they are skeptical of the claim that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that would be that. Really, who cares if some yahoo is "skeptical" of something they don't understand? Besides, real scientists are by definition skeptical of everything all the time. Grow up, get a life and do some real science if you want to convince anyone of anything.

Les Lane: For anyone who believes that the NAS exaggerates the success of evolution, be aware that evolution is alive, well, and increasingly successful in the scientific literature.

David Stanton: So, after all these years the number is still "more that 700". In other words, they still haven't hit 800 yet. I wonder why? Don't they need to at least get one new person to sign every year in order to claim that the number "is growing"?

Wikipedia : The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004[18], over 400 in 2005,[19] over 600 in 2006 (though in 2006 the Discovery Institute began to include scientists from outside of the United States),[20] and over 700 in 2007.[15][21] The Discovery Institute includes a description of the list in a response to one of its "Top Questions".[22]

I’m not the greatest Huckabee fan, nor am I comfortable with some of his statements of evolution, but read his statements carefully. He refers to “the creation process” (I don’t think I’ve heard anyone other than a theistic evolutionist refer to creation as a “process”) and says that, although he believes Genesis, that Genesis leaves out the “when” (bye-bye young-earthers) and the “how” (bye-bye anti-evolutionists). Sure, regarding scientific matters, he may not be the worst – but he might not be as bad as you think.

Huckabee said if given a chance to elaborate on the question from MSNBC moderator Chris Matthews, he would have responded: "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process." Huckabee said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism. "We shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school," he said. "I wouldn't want them teaching creationism as if it's the only thing that they should teach." Also, students should be given credit for having the intelligence to think through various theories for themselves and come to their own conclusions, he said. He said it was his responsibility to teach his children his beliefs though he could accept that others believe in evolution.

Wicked Lad: Is it reasonable to label people who sign that statement as dissenters from “Darwinism”? If one is skeptical of something, does that mean one “dissents from” it?

"We are skeptical of claims that the current forms of life on earth could be produced via evolutionary processes without the periodic interference of an intelligence whose nature is beyond our ability to investigate".

Ravilyn Sanders said: Let us change the topic from debating “evolution vs ID” to something like the validity of this dissent list. Dishonesty Institute has invested some PR capital in this list and it provides the fig leaf to their argument, “there is still some doubt… there are scientists who disagree” etc. Let us dig and find how much disagreement exists among this “Select 700” about age of earth, common ancestry, etc and make it the topic of discussion.

Huckabee Not Sane

In case this opinion is of any use to someone...

Raven -- the passage from Talkorigins referring to only 700 scientists out of 480,000 is not a reference to the DI list of 700 scientists.

It is instead a reference dating from 1987 (follow the link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ) and it refers to the approximate number of members of the Creation Research Society. A giveaway is the date, but also the statement that these 700 scientists are "creation scientists", not ID supporters (and I know that IDCs are just a subset of CS, but that's not the point here.)

That 480,000 scientists statistic also dates from 1987, and is doubtless too low by probably 20% (just a guess) since there has been such a proliferation of scientists in the last 20 years. But I don't know the source of that 480,000, either, since it is a second hand reference to a Newsweek article.

Wicked Lad notes the statement attested to by the signers of the DI 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." He points out that this is certainly a mild statement.

As discussed by Skip Evans (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr87_11292001__doubting_dar_11_29_2001.asp ) (scroll down to "Signatories") the DI "Dissent from Darwinism" project deviously conflates legitimate skepticism over the power of natural selection -- an evolutionary mechanism that in fact is not the only mechanism affecting evolution, though extraordinarily important in producing adaptations -- with doubts over whether or not living things have common ancestors. Although signers of the DI statement attested only to skepticism as to the importance of the mechanism of natural selection, the project as a whole is used as evidence of rejection of the "big idea" of evolution, common ancestry.

Pretty underhanded, but it works well, since the public automatically equates the word "Darwinism" with evolution, so "A Scientific Dissent to Darwinism" is translated by the public as "scientists are doubting evolution".

Also note that Skip received replies from a handful of signatories (before -- we assume! -- the DI told them not to reply to us!) that yes, in fact, they accepted common ancestry, but just were a little suspicious about the power of natural selection.

Also note Skip's analysis of the first 103 signatories. "The list consists of 41 biologists (over half of whom are biochemists), 16 chemists, 4 engineers, 2 geologists/geophysicists, 8 mathematicians, 10 medical professionals, 4 social scientists, 15 from physics or astronomy, and 3 whose specialties we were unable to determine."

It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing.

And meanwhile, Project Steve continues to attract new members.

Genie

I have a cunning plan . . .

The "dissenting scientists" statement is so widely phrased that it is almost anodyne. * All * scientific claims, whether made by Darwin or his second cousin's parlourmaid's younger sister's boyfriend, have to be viewed "sceptically". As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the DI's text that even the most ardent Pandaproponentsist(TM) would object to. Its value to the DI is just as a propaganda piece.

So why not fight fire with fire? (Or perhaps, bullsh*t with bullsh*t): what if all the Steves on the Project Steve list asked to endorse the the DI statement? If the DI refused (or, more likely, started playing word games with them) it would be the biggest footbullet imaginable. And if the DI accepted, the fact that all those Steves proclaimed their support (albeit sceptical support, as it must be) for evolution would hugely diminish the propaganda value of the statement even in the True Believing Heartland.

Just a thought.

Amadan said:
"So why not fight fire with fire? (Or perhaps, bullsh*t with bullsh*t): what if all the Steves on the Project Steve list asked to endorse the the DI statement?"

Good idea - but not the DI's statement - just one with the exact same wording.

It’s almost as if [Huckabee] has some anti-evolution think-tank providing him with the terminology to use.

— Wheels

Stacy S. : Amadan said: "So why not fight fire with fire? (Or perhaps, bullsh*t with bullsh*t): what if all the Steves on the Project Steve list asked to endorse the the DI statement?" Good idea - but not the DI's statement - just one with the exact same wording.

Amadan:

Stacy S. : Amadan said: "So why not fight fire with fire? (Or perhaps, bullsh*t with bullsh*t): what if all the Steves on the Project Steve list asked to endorse the the DI statement?" Good idea - but not the DI's statement - just one with the exact same wording.

Disagree: just think of the propaganda value if (a) the DI agrees, and then has to wave the Steves around with the rest when using the statement, or (b) they refuse, highlighting that the subtext of the statement is creationism and/or contrariness. A separate, non-DI, statement would be too easy to ignore. Remember, the target audience is people who discount anything that doesn't come from on-message sources like the DI.

Oops! Here's the link to the thread if you are interested - http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=352#comments

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of irreducible complexity and specified complexity to account for the complexity of anything. Careful examination of creationist claims against Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

We should come up with a list of scientists who doubt the standard model of physics. They could even be all physicists, since, of course, most physicists think it's inadequate.

Despite all of the doubts of the sufficiency of the standard model, however, there would be almost nobody against teaching it, because it's the best empirical account thus far.

It really would be a good thing if this were done, you know, because not only would it put "doubts" about evolutionary theory into perspective, it would educate the public about what science is--contingent, practical understanding of the world, which doesn't pretend to deal with the claims of religion (and only does so accidentally, if it happens to overlap with religious notions). Likely it wouldn't require a great amount of work, either.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen Davidson: We should come up with a list of scientists who doubt the standard model of physics.

Today's Diane Rehm show had an interesting segment on the NAS. It was fun to hear Diane Rehm stuff John Calvert back in his box on a couple of occasions. Audio is available from wamu.org/programs/dr/

Make that "on the NAS publication".

Shebardigan: Today's Diane Rehm show had an interesting segment on the NAS. It was fun to hear Diane Rehm stuff John Calvert back in his box on a couple of occasions. Audio is available from wamu.org/programs/dr/

isn’t it people like me that you need to educate? Unfortunately, we need to be entertained as well.

Bill Gascoyne:

isn’t it people like me that you need to educate? Unfortunately, we need to be entertained as well.

"Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about either."
Marshall McLuhan

Stacy S. : She was sooo slow. I had trouble listening to the whole thing. I can't imagine that the "average Joe" would ever listen to that show. (I've never heard of it)

Stacy S.: I don’t know if I’m supposed to be insulted or not by that. I’m just saying that the general public has gotten used to being entertained. In order to combat ignorance - you may have to bring it down a notch.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be insulted or not by that. I'm just saying that the general public has gotten used to being entertained. In order to combat ignorance - you may have to bring it down a notch.

Bill Gascoyne:

I don't know if I'm supposed to be insulted or not by that. I'm just saying that the general public has gotten used to being entertained. In order to combat ignorance - you may have to bring it down a notch.

And Marshall McLuhan and I both agree with you, no insult intended at all. Bringing it down a notch has nothing to do with anything. I think anyone at any level learns better if they're being entertained at the same time. Someone who is smarter may be more able to learn in spite of not being entertained, but that's both a credit to those students and a put-down of the boring teacher who is reaching only a small portion of the class. (I teach and develop corporate engineering classes for a living. They don't work well if they're boring, and I say that having the benefit of students with engineering degrees and distinctly above-average intelligence.)

The scientific community probably ought to find some popular athletes and actors/actresses to promote science.

— Stacy S.

Alas, Ben Stein, soon to be pseudoscience's #1 celebrity promoter, was also a semi-regular on "The Wonder Years."

Bill Gascoyne said: "Queen guitarist Brian May has completed his doctorate in astrophysics." !!! -
Too Cool!!My 12 yr. old is in "total awe" now!

Frank J: Alas, Ben Stein, soon to be pseudoscience's #1 celebrity promoter, was also a semi-regular on "The Wonder Years."

Stacy S., you rock! Thanks for going beyond your admitted comfort zone for this very important issue. Hang in there, keep seeking to learn more science, and don't let the trolls get ya down!

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Stacy S., you rock! Thanks for going beyond your admitted comfort zone for this very important issue. Hang in there, keep seeking to learn more science, and don't let the trolls get ya down!

Eugenie C. Scott: It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing.

Eugenie C. Scott: It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing.

Gaak! I've heard that the list had some non-US citizens, but I had no idea that it was so geographically warped.

It is at least 5 persons from Finland on it. And at least 1 swede, ouch!

At first I thought Sture Blomberg was a fake, since the more correct english form "The Sahlgren University Hospital" is usually referred to as "Sahlgrenska University Hospital", close to the native term.

But Blomberg has a series of publications, at least from 1989 to 2000, where other researchers at the same institute accepts his spelling, while using the conventional. (They don't always accept his results or reviews, of course. :-P)

The short of it is that Sture Blomberg is an active creationist. I found a reference to a main swedish skeptics organization's publicized description of Blomberg's creationist texts 2006-2007 in a swedish journal on anestethics.

I also found that Blomberg made a creationist presentation at a local Gothenburg church late 2007, but now under the more appropriate title "senior physician". I can't find that he is currently associated with the university part of the hospital.

anestethics.

Numbing ignorance about evolution: Publicized in Folkvett [roughly: Public knowledge] no 2/2007. Dan Larhammar [Professor of Molecular Cell Biology at Faculty of Medicine, Uppsala University] comments on a never ending ignorance. An evolution biologist recently described in a journal for evolution biologists that narcosis occur thanks to an intelligent force that uses its supernatural abilities to achieve stupor at exactly the moment the anestheticist starts to inject the drug. Another evolution biologist proposed in the next edition of the journal that the drug reasonably had an effect in itself and that no supernatural beings needed to be postulated. [Yet] another reader pointed out that the author's references were on average 35 years old and that no reference was younger than 20 years. But not only had the author to defend his opinion, the journals editor made smoke screens by general thoughts on the relation between religion and science. No, I'm joking, it was in the 19th century such discussions on narcosis happened, and of course they were done among the medical science where they belong. But the fact is that SFAI-tidningen [en: SFAI magazine] from Svensk Förening för Anestesi och Intensivvård [en: Swedish Association for Anesthetics and Intensive Care] in no 3 this fall, anno 2006, contained an article about evolution controlled by an intelligent force (intelligent design, ID). The article had the heading "Darwin's theory on evolution - is it really believable?" and was written by associate professor Sture Blomberg, Anesthetics & Intensive Care, Sahlgrenska university hospital. After the anesthetics doctor Erik Lindeman in the next edition pointed out a few of the worst misunderstandings in Blomberg's text the later got space to defend himself and at that time exposed even more misunderstandings. The journal's chief editor, senior physician Bror Gårdelöf at the anesthetics clinic in Linköping university hospital, recommended two web links, one critical to ID and, remarkably, one to Livets Ord's [en: Word of Life, an early swedish televangelist church] Krister Renard (the link contains more misunderstandings about evolution, but Gårdelöf avoided pointing these out). After that Gårdelöf embarked on general arguments about religion and natural science without excusing the mistake made when giving space to coarse pseudoscience. When creationists and ID-followers can't make a scientific argument they try, apparently at times with success, smuggle in their pseudoscientific thoughts in places where there is a lack of expertice to see through the blather. The argumentation of Blomberg relied among others on Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis from 1986 (in spite of that Denton later changed opinion and left the fundamentalistic lobby organization Discovery Institute). In his reply Blomberg added on with the book Darwin's black box (1996) by the catholic ID proponent Michael J. Behe that during the Dover trial in US the fall of 2005 was forced to confess that he had incomplete knowledge about the evolutionary mechanisms for the biochemical processes he promoted as examples of "irreducibly complex systems" (and that later has been explained in great detail by evolutionary processes). Also Blomberg recounted that the book that got him to abandon evolution was Arthur Koestlers Janus from 1978 there the later claimed that eminent biologists criticized evolution theory. As Koestler wrote "random mutations were shown to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology" (pp 184-5) one is left to ponder which researchers he trusted as he was fooled by such heresies. In well known manner among creationists (and other pseudoscientists) Blomberg then tries to look like a brave martyr that has dared to leave darwinism. He is on Discovery Institute's list on scientifically schooled people that rejects evolution, together with other pseudoscientists such as the ID proponents Michael J. Behe and William Dembski[,] and the swedish senior scientist Lennart Möller. One wonders how Gårdelöf and Blomberg would have reacted if a non-anesthecist in a journal within a completely different area had tried to claim that narcosis drugs works with spiritual forces as Galenos claimed 2000 years ago.

If I could do it all over, I would not sign the list of dissenters. Even when I signed it, I realized that what I was signing was a neutered statement—that it was a political statement not a scientific one. However, at the time I didn’t know much about the ID movement. In particular, I didn’t know about the Wedge Strategy. And I didn’t know about the unscientific “big tent” and its third rail: the question of the age of the earth. I didn’t foresee the unseemly zeal with which ID Inc. would embrace victimhood status. I didn’t appreciate the unbiblical ends-justify-the-means strategy of the movement. And I didn’t recognize the considerable shortcomings of the ID leadership. I believed that I was signing on with a group of like-minded Christians/scientists who believed (as I still do) that science will never fully explain the origins of life—even though it should keep on trying. In short, I didn’t do my homework until after I signed, and have no one to blame but myself. My bad.

In short, I didn’t do my homework until after I signed, and have no one to blame but myself. My bad.

I believed that I was signing on with a group of like-minded Christians/scientists who believed (as I still do) that science will never fully explain the origins of life

Torbjörn writes about a Swede who has signed the Dissent from Darwinism list - Sture Blomberg. Here is another one,
Professor Lennart Möller, Professor of environmental medicine
at "Karolinska institutet", Stockholm. Googling shows that
he has also been criticized in "Folkvett" for pseudoscientific
activities. Möller belongs to a low-church Lutheran group (EFS).

I find one Norwegian, Øyvind A. Voie, who works with environmental questions at the Norwegian Defence Research
Establishment. When he writes about the genetic code in
the journal "Chaos, solitons and fractals" he uses his home
address.

I also checked whether there were any people on the list who
I would know or know of through my own scientific activities as a theoretical chemist. I find three:

Lyle H. Jensen, Professor Emeritus at the University of
Washington, a well-known X-ray crystallographer, with whom some friends of mine have post-doced. As far as I know, Jensen is now about 90 years old, and a 7th-day Adventist.

The two others are Henry F. Schaefer III, at the University of Georgia, a highly regarded and extremely productive computational quantum chemist, and Donald H. Kobe, a theoretical physicist at the North Texas State University with a respectable list of publications in his field. Both these people have strong Christian convictions.

I don’t know if I’m supposed to be insulted or not by that. I’m just saying that the general public has gotten used to being entertained. In order to combat ignorance - you may have to bring it down a notch.

The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption. It no longer has its once fairly good foundation. Athiests are worse then creationists. You can no longer cling to this dis proven theory. You must have more faith than christians to be able to believe this. Keep looking evolution is not true.

Anono-mouse: The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption. It no longer has its once fairly good foundation. Athiests are worse then creationists. You can no longer cling to this dis proven theory. You must have more faith than christians to be able to believe this. Keep looking evolution is not true.

Anono-mouse: The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption. It no longer has its once fairly good foundation. Athiests are worse then creationists. You can no longer cling to this dis proven theory. You must have more faith than christians to be able to believe this. Keep looking evolution is not true.

Provide a source for this claim, please.

Flint: What sort of reply do you seriously expect?

No one can POSSIBLY be that much of an Idiot.

"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticisms of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairytale of evolution."

AAaack! Why are you trying to scare me Cheryl? Now I'm going to have nightmares!! 8)

Anono-mouse: Athiests are worse then creationists.

The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption.

Are you familiar with the phrase about “giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with”?

Flint:

Are you familiar with the phrase about “giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with”?

In this case, the someone is so long-dead not even bones are left. I think the spectacle was over before this dude was in first grade...

Glen Davidson: We should come up with a list of scientists who doubt the standard model of physics. They could even be all physicists, since, of course, most physicists think it's inadequate. Despite all of the doubts of the sufficiency of the standard model, however, there would be almost nobody against teaching it, because it's the best empirical account thus far. It really would be a good thing if this were done, you know, because not only would it put "doubts" about evolutionary theory into perspective, it would educate the public about what science is--contingent, practical understanding of the world, which doesn't pretend to deal with the claims of religion (and only does so accidentally, if it happens to overlap with religious notions). Likely it wouldn't require a great amount of work, either. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Anono-mouse has decisively refuted the Theory of Atheism in favor of The Creationists. Any further discussion will just embarrass the science-dazzled.

heddle: If I could do it all over, I would not sign the list of dissenters. Even when I signed it, I realized that what I was signing was a neutered statement—that it was a political statement not a scientific one. However, at the time I didn’t know much about the ID movement. In particular, I didn’t know about the Wedge Strategy. And I didn’t know about the unscientific “big tent” and its third rail: the question of the age of the earth. I didn’t foresee the unseemly zeal with which ID Inc. would embrace victimhood status. I didn’t appreciate the unbiblical ends-justify-the-means strategy of the movement. And I didn’t recognize the considerable shortcomings of the ID leadership. I believed that I was signing on with a group of like-minded Christians/scientists who believed (as I still do) that science will never fully explain the origins of life—even though it should keep on trying. In short, I didn’t do my homework until after I signed, and have no one to blame but myself. My bad.

How did you get the list to sign? You admit that you knew that it was a political statement, so how did you know that?

Do you really believe the IDiot claims that they really want to teach more about evolution, when they are the same perps that got you to sign this list and perpetrated the teach ID scam?

Who do you think is a person that you can still trust in the ID movement? Are there any?

Torbjörn writes about a Swede who has signed the Dissent from Darwinism list - Sture Blomberg. Here is another one, Professor Lennart Möller, Professor of environmental medicine at “Karolinska institutet”, Stockholm. Googling shows that he has also been criticized in “Folkvett” for pseudoscientific activities.

I find one Norwegian, Øyvind A. Voie, who works with environmental questions at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. When he writes about the genetic code in the journal “Chaos, solitons and fractals” he uses his home address.

[...] Overall, it's a rather dreadful paper. It's one of those wretched attempts to take Gödel's theorem and try to apply it to something other than formal axiomatic systems. [...]
He starts off by providing a summary of the incompleteness theorem. He uses a quote from Wikipedia. The interesting thing is that he misquotes wikipedia; my guess is that it's deliberate. [...]
The reason that I believe this removal of the footnote is deliberate is because he immediately starts to build on the "truth" of the self-referential statement. For example, the very first statement after the misquote:

Gödel's statement says: "I am unprovable in this formal system." This turns out to be a difficult statement for a formal system to deal with since whether the statement is true or not the formal system will end up contradicting itself. However, we then know something that the formal system doesn't: that the statement is really true.

The catch of course is that the statement is not really true. Incompleteness statements are neither true nor false. They are paradoxical. [...]
And now, the crowning stupidity, at least when it comes to the math:

In algorithmic information theory there is another concept of irreducible structures. If some phenomena X (such as life) follows from laws there should be a compression algorithm H(X) with much less information content in bits than X [17].

Nonsense, bullshit, pure gibberish. There is absolutely no such statement anywhere in information theory. [...]
This stinker actually got peer-reviewed and accepted by a journal. It just goes to show that peer review can really screw up badly at times. Given that the journal is apparently supposed to be about fractals and such that the reviewers likely weren't particularly familiar with Gödel and information theory. Because anyone with a clue about either would have sent this to the trashbin where it belongs.

Turning back the clock to a simpler version of science should also lead us to eventually living in caves again, if we wish to be consistent.

The catch of course is that the statement is not really true. Incompleteness statements are neither true nor false. They are paradoxical.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: provided a translated article which included the hypothesis that: "...narcosis occur(s) thanks to an intelligent force that uses its supernatural abilities to achieve stupor at exactly the moment the anestheticist starts to inject the drug."

Stacy S. :

Anono-mouse: The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption. It no longer has its once fairly good foundation. Athiests are worse then creationists. You can no longer cling to this dis proven theory. You must have more faith than christians to be able to believe this. Keep looking evolution is not true.

Do you realize that you just called Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and many more religious people - athiest? What's wrong with you? No one can POSSIBLY be that much of an Idiot.

Well, maybe only Morons protest "that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption". So they might qualify as IDiots.

Or perhaps learn to spell, among other things.

Once they learn how to learn, that is.

RBH: Stacy S wrote

I don’t know if I’m supposed to be insulted or not by that. I’m just saying that the general public has gotten used to being entertained. In order to combat ignorance - you may have to bring it down a notch.

The best training I had for college professing was participating in drama productions at dear old Macalester in the late 1950s. - - -

Heddle:

Thank you for the reply. It is more than I expected.

They really just sent out the statement and asked people to sign it? There must have been some context. It sounds like you got swept up in the second wave. The original list was supposed to be against the PBS show Evolution (around 2001), but they just had their anti "Darwinism" statement.

I would like to know how they sold the later list.

My blog has taken on a decidedly Intelligent Design slant.

[An] Ohio State University Graduate student .... who apparently argues in his thesis that the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution should be taught in high school, is under attack by unscrupulous professors.

The three yahoos at the heart of this story are OSU Professors Rissing, McKee, and McEnnis.

Stacy: As stated above, I would commend the articles in Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia "evolution" article is less accessible than the article "Introduction to evolution" or even the Simple Wikipedia article " Evolution".

On the fraction of ID supporters in science inferred from the Dissent list: From "Level of support for evolution, there are well over 1 million biologists and geologists in the US according to a 1999 US government estimate, and at most, only about 1/4 of the 700 signatories of the DI list are in relevant fields, and even fewer are in relevant fields and in the United States, so the 700 represent a fraction of 0.01% of the scientists in relevant fields. The Wikipedia article on the DI list includes several examples that demonstrate that the list is not really what it purports to be.

Filll: Stacy: As stated above, I would commend the articles in Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia "evolution" article is less accessible than the article "Introduction to evolution" or even the Simple Wikipedia article " Evolution". On the fraction of ID supporters in science inferred from the Dissent list: From "Level of support for evolution, there are well over 1 million biologists and geologists in the US according to a 1999 US government estimate, and at most, only about 1/4 of the 700 signatories of the DI list are in relevant fields, and even fewer are in relevant fields and in the United States, so the 700 represent a fraction of 0.01% of the scientists in relevant fields. The Wikipedia article on the DI list includes several examples that demonstrate that the list is not really what it purports to be.

Is there any chance that an apology is in the offing?

The bottom line is I think (my opinion) that you took an unscholarly and, for lack of a better word, sissy route. You fought the battle publically and politically.

Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.

If you are looking for an apology on the tone of my post, for example using the word yahoos, then I would be more than happy to offer one.

... a letter to the dean made its way to Inside Higher Ed.

I would not have fought the fight, or allowed others to fight it, on the blogs.

Honestly, what I would have done is to have some balls. I would have gone to the defense and asked the toughest questions I could.

Professor McEnnis,

If you could elaborate on just one point: I recall the letter raised the possibility of unethical behavior and human experimentation on Leonard's part. To what, precisely, did that refer?

heddle: Professor McEnnis, If you could elaborate on just one point: I recall the letter raised the possibility of unethical behavior and human experimentation on Leonard's part. To what, precisely, did that refer?

heddle: Professor McEnnis, If you could elaborate on just one point: I recall the letter raised the possibility of unethical behavior and human experimentation on Leonard's part. To what, precisely, did that refer?

There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical.

Torbjörn writes about a Swede who has signed the Dissent from Darwinism list - Sture Blomberg. Here is another one, Professor Lennart Möller, Professor of environmental medicine at "Karolinska institutet", Stockholm. Googling shows that he has also been criticized in "Folkvett" for pseudoscientific activities.

I dunno why IDC wants to saddle up with YECers, but I guess they have to scrape the barrel.

Brian McEnnis:

heddle: Professor McEnnis, If you could elaborate on just one point: I recall the letter raised the possibility of unethical behavior and human experimentation on Leonard's part. To what, precisely, did that refer?

Ron's comment above is accurate. In our letter we wrote (this was also quoted by Inside Higher Ed)

There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical.

Note that this was an experiment, not just an observational study. The student's testimony before the Kansas Board of Education made it clear that the lesson plan referred to by Ron (see here) was being used. For any institution involved with human subject research, the Department of Health & Human Services requires that it establish an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review proposals and to approve research protocols. We requested in our letter (immediately after the section quoted above) that the University investigate whether this research fell within the guidelines of its IRB protocol. I do not know how that turned out.

The difference between intelegent design and Evolution is that intelegent design has a basis where Evolution is merely an asumption. It no longer has its once fairly good foundation. Athiests are worse then creationists. You can no longer cling to this dis proven theory. You must have more faith than christians to be able to believe this. Keep looking evolution is not true.

— Anono-mouse

The NAS book has been thoroughly refuted at http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5620 and the refutation is also available as a pdf. Actually, most of the refutations have been around for over a decade and it's hard to imagine that the authors were not aware of them. So it looks like the NAS book was intended to persuade the uninformed.

Taking scientific criticisms against creationism and parotting them back at us as if they were relevant to science only maks you look childish. That "refutation" is the usual ignorant garbage like this:

"Even if they were right, all they found was a virus changing into a virus, which says nothing about how viruses might have evolved into virologists. It also says nothing about how viruses could have originated in the first place."

In other words, evolution among cats doesn't count until we show cats morphing into dogs, and derive the very first cat. [YAWN]. Criticisms like that only illustrate the extent of your ignorance. They will not persuade anyone with the slightest understanding of evolution.

Thanks for your efforts! its really hard to achieved the target, but your posted experience help me a lot, that how to make it more simple and manageable, Thank you for very helpful tips.
dissertation writing

Very nice and impressive article you have posted. Its very helpful, i have read and bookmark this site and will recommend it to more other peoples.
speech writing

Hi,
Thank you so much for posting this! What a great idea!

Hi,
A fantastic read….very literate and informative. Many thanks….what theme is this you are using also

Coursework Help

Hi,
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Thanks

Custom Term Paper

Interesting topic! Hope you will elaborate more on it in future posts

Custom Essays

Blog is very good, I learned many things for this blog, thank you very much for your information, nice job keep it up.