Many former evolutionary scientists....the experiment

[Quixotic]

I have emailed a random person on the list asking them if they agree with the below statement.....

This is not excactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:

The email to Martin Poenie
Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology.....

Dear Proff. Poenie,

I do not know if you are aware (I hope you are!) but your name is currently on a list of people who agree with the statement:

"I am 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"

Though I am not a scientist I do understand that all claims should treated skeptically and all evidence for (and against!) a proposition should be carefully examined, reported on and cross examined by piers. Therefore by default I also agree with the above statement and would happily have my name against it.

However it is my understanding that the fundamental tenants of evolution have in fact been tested, many times and back up with a frankly staggering amount of evidence, all papers supporting these claims have been criticized and critiqued by scientific peers going back to Darwin's revolutionary work. Though there is of course much research and study to be done however as far as I am are the is no single piece of evidence which contradicts the basic tenants of evolution. If there was, all biological understanding would change.

Unfortunately (and I am sure you will be horrified to hear this) your name is being used as a signatory to the above statement NOT purely in the name of good skeptical science but FOR the argument of intelligent design and even as far as Creationism.

I am a member of the forum 'Debating Christianity and Religion', the atheistic (of which I am a member) camp has challenged the opposition to produce a list of people to support the claim 'There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists. They have PhDs and are known for their work.' Before the list (including your name) was the sentence 'This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism: '

I chose you name at random from this list and decided to contact you to ask if it were possible to clarify your position on ID and/or Creationism. This is a good chance to set the record straigt either way, the above statement does not inherently support evolution/creationism/ID however it is presented as such.

I will be posting this email on the forum and with your permission I would like to post your response also.

Kindest regards

Richard Washington

[Fisherking]

There is no such thing as "evolutionism".

Yes there is, see above post.

There is a Theory of Evolution which is the modern evolutionary synthesis and it has so many threads that the field of Biology makes no sense (Ref:Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)) without the Theory of Evolution to help explain.

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." ~ Richard Lewontin

The Creation is a myth. It is NOT science as it is not predictive in the scientific sense. Theistic Evolution on the other hand is another separate matter that resolves the problem for biology and the issue of God.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." ~ Michael Ruse

[byofrcs]

There is no such thing as "evolutionism".

Yes there is, see above post.

A neologism. Few people who understand the theory of evolution use this term to describe themselves. It is a derogatory term used by others.

There is a Theory of Evolution which is the modern evolutionary synthesis and it has so many threads that the field of Biology makes no sense (Ref:Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)) without the Theory of Evolution to help explain.

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." ~ Richard Lewontin

Richard Lewontin is a source of much controversy. You quotemine him discussing Natural Selection. This is fine but we're talking about Evolution. Wrong context. The quote also came from “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181

A lot has happened in science since Watergate which has only supported and reinforced the theory of Evolution and has never refuted or damaged it.

The Creation is a myth. It is NOT science as it is not predictive in the scientific sense. Theistic Evolution on the other hand is another separate matter that resolves the problem for biology and the issue of God.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." ~ Michael Ruse

I was talking about Creation as a set of myths. The definition of a religion in the UK for charity purposes is that it must have worship of a supernatural entity. I cannot register something that has Evolution as its reason to be as a charity for religious purposes under UK law.

"That religion for the purposes of charity law constitutes belief in a supreme being and worship of that being."

The ruling does elaborate further for non-theistic religions,

"That belief in a god or gods is not an essential characteristic of religion and a
set of beliefs can constitute a religion if it affirms the existence of the spiritual
or supernatural even though it does not recognise a supreme being or god, for
the following reasons:
§ The views of theologians and leading scholars in comparative religion
as to the meaning of “religion”: in particular sets of beliefs widely
recognised as religions do not affirm the existence of a supreme being;
§ Decisions of courts abroad that non-theistic beliefs may constitute a
religion;
§ The general principles of international law and the European
Convention on Human Rights;
§ The adverse consequences of confining “religion” to theistic beliefs.

(ref: CHARITY COMMISSION

Thus though Michael Ruse may use the wording he is doing this from a point of view of a US model. The US, as statistic show, is an anomaly in the world when it comes to the issue of science and religion.
A scientific theory clearly fails any reasonable criteria for religion and though some may try and contrast a scientific theory as needing faith to believe, without evidence supporting this "faith" it doesn't exist in the minds of the believers.

A true religion needs no evidence as it relies on faith. Science dumps any theory that has no evidence or that requires only faith on the scrapheap as fast as you can say pseudosciencesendmemoneyiamaguruwithevidenceofufosandjesustalkstome.

[Fisherking]

I was talking about Creation as a set of myths.

I am talking about Darwinian Evolution as a set of myths

[steen]

Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

As creationists don't have any theories that are scientific, your claim is false. None of the creationist claims are found valid through the Scientific Method. Please do not spew such falsehoods.

In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.

Nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the Scientific Method. pathetic.

Now, to be something more than an emotional outburst, please show why this statement is nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation for biology in the same way that the Atom Theory forms the foundation for Chemistry. You can not have chemistry without including the atom, just like you can not have Biology without the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.

There is no such thing as evolutionism, your false witnessing none withstanding.

Sure there is:

evolutionism

NOUN:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Evolutionism - Broad Strokes

LOL. Yahoo? As definer of Science? And a fundie "just because I say so" site? So much for evidence for your claim.

[steen]

I was talking about Creation as a set of myths.

I am talking about Darwinian Evolution as a set of myths

Darwinian Evolution? As in the hypothesis proposed by Darwin? As in ignoring the Scientific Theory of Evolution and its 150+ years of Scientific studies, data and evidence evaluated and validated through the Scientific Method?

[Fisherking]

Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

As creationists don't have any theories that are scientific, your claim is false. None of the creationist claims are found valid through the Scientific Method.

Some creation scientific theories are valid and some are not. That is the nature of science.

In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.

Nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the Scientific Method. pathetic.

Now, to be something more than an emotional outburst, please show why this statement is nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation for biology.

You have yet to provide any evidence to support this claim. I have provided numerous definitions from objective sources showing that evolutionisms has very little to do with biology in practice. The response (the usual zealous response of evolutionists) is directed at me personally and never addresses the arguments themselves.

The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.

There is no such thing as evolutionism, your false witnessing none withstanding.

Sure there is:

evolutionism

NOUN:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Evolutionism - Broad Strokes

LOL. Yahoo? As definer of Science? And a fundie "just because I say so" site? So much for evidence for your claim.

The claim "There is no such thing as evolutionism your false witnessing none withstanding", has been shown to be an inaccurate claim on both accounts. All one has to do is type in "evolutionism" it the little search box on a search engine or dictionary and one will see that there is such a thing as evolutionism.

[Goat]

Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

As creationists don't have any theories that are scientific, your claim is false. None of the creationist claims are found valid through the Scientific Method.

Some creation scientific theories are valid and some are not. That is the nature of science.

Show me ONE , just ONE 'creation scientific theory' that is born out by the evidence and is not falsified.

[Cathar1950]

Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

As creationists don't have any theories that are scientific, your claim is false. None of the creationist claims are found valid through the Scientific Method.

Some creation scientific theories are valid and some are not. That is the nature of science.

Show me ONE , just ONE 'creation scientific theory' that is born out by the evidence and is not falsified.

I would like to see him name a non-valid aspect of evolution.
The nature of science is finding validity no declairing it.
I think religion is a good example of evolution in process that always claims to be right.

[Rathpig]

Fisherking,

How do you propose that one obtain an education in the field of biology if they reject evolution?


I will concede the minor point that some biologists can function in practice with little to no daily reference to evolution, but they could never obtain an education in the sciences to reach this point of practice if they reject evolution as fact. Biology is based on evolution. It is the lynchpin of the entire science.


So at the very best you are making a minor semantic point about "working" biologists. If they do not accept evolution then they had to essentially fake their way through college.

The theory of evolution is the basis of biology. That is simply a fact that is not open for dispute.

[steen]

Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

As creationists don't have any theories that are scientific, your claim is false. None of the creationist claims are found valid through the Scientific Method.

Some creation scientific theories are valid and some are not. That is the nature of science.

There is only one Scientific Theory of Evolution. There is only one Scientific Theory of any subject your false claim none withstanding.

In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.

Nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the Scientific Method. pathetic.

Now, to be something more than an emotional outburst, please show why this statement is nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method.

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation for biology.

You have yet to provide any evidence to support this claim. I have provided numerous definitions from objective sources showing that evolutionisms has very little to do with biology in practice. The response (the usual zealous response of evolutionists) is directed at me personally and never addresses the arguments themselves.

There is no such thing as "evolutionisms," and I have seen no "objective sources" from you.

The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.

There is no such thing as evolutionism, your false witnessing none withstanding.

Sure there is:

evolutionism

NOUN:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Evolutionism - Broad Strokes

LOL. Yahoo? As definer of Science? And a fundie "just because I say so" site? So much for evidence for your claim.

The claim "There is no such thing as evolutionism your false witnessing none withstanding", has been shown to be an inaccurate claim on both accounts. All one has to do is type in "evolutionism" it the little search box on a search engine or dictionary and one will see that there is such a thing as evolutionism.

Nope, there are creationists claiming such. I take it you are admitting using creationist lies proving your own creationist lies.