A scientific dissent from Darwinism

[Zohrvos]

The first link is to the homepage, the second is a shortcut to the singed petition:

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Here is the Wikipedia page that summarizes the criticism surrounding the document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scie...From_Darwinism

Now, before you let confirmation bias run wild one way or the other, realize that "Right or Wrong" is not the objective of this post.
think about how this may help you better relate to theists, agnostics, and atheists. People are dug in deep.... no one wants to leave the trench when under fire.

"I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." - Christopher Hitchens.

"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." - Voltaire

[Acidbaron]

Skepticism is healthy as from time things are discovered that shed a new light, however if this is an attempt to legitimize creationism on the same level as darwinism. Any person who is in favor of religion doctrine to be taught to kids, let's just say Stalin was right about one thing during his mad reign.

[Zethras]

So... genuinely curious what the point is here?

Is it keep an open mind? Because if that's the case, then I laugh at the hypocrisy.

Evolution and darwinism are directly observable in several different experiments and studies that have been done.

One in particular stands out for me. They took some bacteria (I think it was e. coli) and introduced them to an environment that was hostile to them, and left them in it. Since E.Coli has a very fast rate of reproduction, these scientists were able to watch as different mutations arose down the genetic line, some of which benefitted the e.coli. which enabled them to adapt to their new, more hostile environment, while others that didn't adapt sufficiently died off, until only e.coli that could survive there were left.

Creationism is an outdated concept, as every single year science gets better and better at explaining the mysteries of our universe. I fully expect that within 2-3 generations that creationism will be relegated to the history books, and our grandchildren will read about it, and think "how could we have thought this way, the truth is so much more exciting".

[Mihalik]

Poisoning the well and quote mining. (Look them up).

[Sunseeker]

Made 10 posts just so your 11th could be to push this crap?

Talk about a waste of an account.

[Deleted]

This nonsense will be - rightfully - closed, as only Stalinist conspiracy theories are allowed here.

[Zohrvos]

Skepticism is healthy as from time things are discovered that shed a new light, however if this is an attempt to legitimize creationism on the same level as darwinism. Any person who is in favor of religion doctrine to be taught to kids, let's just say Stalin was right about one thing during his mad reign.

Separation of church and state is crucial for tolerance, and public schools are run by the state. Religious topics should only be in the curriculum academically, as they are inseparable from history and modern day society.

- - - Updated - - -

So... genuinely curious what the point is here?

Is it keep an open mind? Because if that's the case, then I laugh at the hypocrisy.

Evolution and darwinism are directly observable in several different experiments and studies that have been done.

One in particular stands out for me. They took some bacteria (I think it was e. coli) and introduced them to an environment that was hostile to them, and left them in it. Since E.Coli has a very fast rate of reproduction, these scientists were able to watch as different mutations arose down the genetic line, some of which benefitted the e.coli. which enabled them to adapt to their new, more hostile environment, while others that didn't adapt sufficiently died off, until only e.coli that could survive there were left.

Creationism is an outdated concept, as every single year science gets better and better at explaining the mysteries of our universe. I fully expect that within 2-3 generations that creationism will be relegated to the history books, and our grandchildren will read about it, and think "how could we have thought this way, the truth is so much more exciting".

Do you have a PH.D in Biology?

[Deleted]

The first link is to the homepage, the second is a shortcut to the singed petition:

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Here is the Wikipedia page that summarizes the criticism surrounding the document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scie...From_Darwinism

Now, before you let confirmation bias run wild one way or the other, realize that "Right or Wrong" is not the objective of this post.
think about how this may help you better relate to theists, agnostics, and atheists. People are dug in deep.... no one wants to leave the trench when under fire.

"I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness." - Christopher Hitchens.

"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." - Voltaire

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" written by a Christian. Oh well.

[Zohrvos]

Made 10 posts just so your 11th could be to push this crap?

Talk about a waste of an account.

Why is it crap?

- - - Updated - - -

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" written by a Christian. Oh well.

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution.

[Deleted]

Gotta love those "We think that your idea is wrong. We don't provide another, proven, tangible theory, but your's is definetely wrong." The side of religious "science" is a nice addition, while not mandatory, it really serves well when trying to figure out if this is serious or not.

The internet is void of arguments. Just a basic site that says "give us some attention by signing this ".
The wikipedia page is written with a (maybe unintended) sarcastic undertone.

[Zethras]

Separation of church and state is crucial for tolerance, and public schools are run by the state. Religious topics should only be in the curriculum academically, as they are inseparable from history and modern day society.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have a PH.D in Biology?

If I said no, would that make the study illegitimate?

All you've done is link a paper where some person says "I think your idea is wrong, but my only reason is that it conflicts with my beliefs and agenda."

As I mentioned before, this kind of thinking, I think, will be abolished in 2-3 generations, simply because of how silly it is.

[Sunseeker]

Why is it crap?

I'm not here to educate you.

Unless you pay me. Capitalism and all that.

[Stormspark]

Hint: Just because you put "scientific" in the name of an article, does not mean there is any science in it whatsoever. Boy those people are stupid.

[Deleted]

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution.

This one doesn't.

[Mihalik]

Separation of church and state is crucial for tolerance, and public schools are run by the state. Religious topics should only be in the curriculum academically, as they are inseparable from history and modern day society.

You are trolling.

The stuff you posted is not science. The "criticism" is framed in a way to make it appear "scienceish", but is not, and it is essentially meant to present religious nonsense (creationism) as a "scientific" alternative (which it isn't). I can't be arsed to explain why because you very well know why.

Last post in this thread.

[Zohrvos]

If I said no, would that make the study illegitimate?

All you've done is link a paper where some person says "I think your idea is wrong, but my only reason is that it conflicts with my beliefs and agenda."

Please click the second link, and notice the 1000+ signatures.

[Deleted]

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution.

A scientific theory is nothing that you believe in. Once it has a good theoretical basis, which mostly consists of experiments, it is valid until proven wrong.

Evolution theory is the thing most proven and the most understandable that explains the questions "how come things are like that".

[Zohrvos]

You are trolling.

The stuff you posted is not science. The "criticism" is framed in a way to make it appear "scienceish", but is not, and it is essentially meant to present religious nonsense (creationism) as a "scientific" alternative (which it isn't). I can't be arsed to explain why because you very well know why.

Last post in this thread.

You have terrible reading comprehension, or more likely didn't bother to click any of the links.

[Sunseeker]

Please click the second link, and notice the 1000+ signatures.

Experiments make science correct (or incorrect), not signatures.

[Zohrvos]

Hint: Just because you put "scientific" in the name of an article, does not mean there is any science in it whatsoever. Boy those people are stupid.

It is a dissenting opinion from 1000+ PHDs many of which are biologists.