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]

One of the quotes you used to damn evolution will, in turn, damn you.

Which one would that be?

Why, the mere mention of micro-evolution, of course!

Which one would that be?

What micro-evolution is espoused to lack, and where Young Earth Creationists like to divide the two when they are in fact the same, is time, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what a medical doctor is qualified to comment on

.

I find it telling that most of those people are not biologists, but are engineers, mathematicians, physics people, and lawyers. I also find it of note that out of hundreds of thousands of scientists, they can get such a small percentage to sign up for that.

Micro and macro evolution were first coined by evolutionists, not creationists.

Care to present a source for this? I first heard it from Kent Hovind. Not exactly a shining example of evolutionary understanding if you ask me.

sfs' link to the evolution apologetics website covers it.

Ones profession has nothing to do with ones ability to understand evolution. If that were the case most participating on this forum defending evolution would be disqualified.

It is true that the evidence is abundant for anybody who would search for it. Anybody inclined not to believe in evolution, however, would have a very easy time ignoring it if they weren't in the field. The Steve project linked to earlier is rather telling in regards to the proportion of actual biologists and what they specifically feel regarding the theory of evolution.

This is really nothing more than an appeal to popularity though. More and more scientists are beginning to question the validity of Darwinism. Whether or not Darwinism is viable itself is a separate argument.

That's not to say that most medical doctors don't know how old the Universe is, which is to say that any Young Earth Creationist who considers themselves a doctor should, for the benefit of their patients, recuse themselves from medicine.

Do tell us how ones posistion on the age of the earth or Darwinism affects how they practice medicine.

It stems from the premise that young earth creationism is intellectually dishonest.....

We should accept this premise because they do not hold the same view as Darwinists about evolution?.....

If you are one of the too numerous walking around thinking that the Universe doesn't look a day over 6000 years old..

Did I miss something in the links I provided mentioning young earth creationists or the age of the earth, or are you itching to start another topic in a different thread?

You acknowledge micro-evolution in your quotes. The only thing that separates micro from macro is time. Therefore the only way macro evolution could be ruled out as an explanation for the development of higher orders of species is if evolution did not have enough time to create sufficient diversity. Therefore any individual agreeing to micro evolution but disagreeing with macro evolution is either denying an old earth, or creating a separate argument for the understanding of genetics. Which are you doing?

Please quote my quotes so I know what you are referring to.

[olivergringold]

According to SFS' own source:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

Apparently neither of us are right.

This is really nothing more than an appeal to popularity though. More and more scientists are beginning to question the validity of Darwinism. Whether or not Darwinism is viable itself is a separate argument.

We should accept this premise because they do not hold the same view as Darwinists about evolution?.....

The former quote is factually inaccurate. The notion that there is a growing divide in science over whether or not evolution took place is a myth. All that has happened is Christians have come up with new words to mask Creationism in an attempt to insert it into science classes. This isn't the first time they have fought, nor is it the first time they have lost. Thankfully on the subject of the latter, mounting evidence continues to support common descent. If you truly believe there is a conspiracy of silence within the scientific community over some huge pile of contradictory evidence, please present it here. In the mean time, scientific consensus remains scientific consensus.

As for which quote you used invoking the distinctions between micro and macro evolution?

As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

[Goat]

One of the quotes you used to damn evolution will, in turn, damn you.

Which one would that be?

Why, the mere mention of micro-evolution, of course!

Which one would that be?

What micro-evolution is espoused to lack, and where Young Earth Creationists like to divide the two when they are in fact the same, is time, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what a medical doctor is qualified to comment on

.

I find it telling that most of those people are not biologists, but are engineers, mathematicians, physics people, and lawyers. I also find it of note that out of hundreds of thousands of scientists, they can get such a small percentage to sign up for that.

Micro and macro evolution were first coined by evolutionists, not creationists.

Care to present a source for this? I first heard it from Kent Hovind. Not exactly a shining example of evolutionary understanding if you ask me.

sfs' link to the evolution apologetics website covers it.

Ones profession has nothing to do with ones ability to understand evolution. If that were the case most participating on this forum defending evolution would be disqualified.

It is true that the evidence is abundant for anybody who would search for it. Anybody inclined not to believe in evolution, however, would have a very easy time ignoring it if they weren't in the field. The Steve project linked to earlier is rather telling in regards to the proportion of actual biologists and what they specifically feel regarding the theory of evolution.

This is really nothing more than an appeal to popularity though. More and more scientists are beginning to question the validity of Darwinism. Whether or not Darwinism is viable itself is a separate argument.

That's not to say that most medical doctors don't know how old the Universe is, which is to say that any Young Earth Creationist who considers themselves a doctor should, for the benefit of their patients, recuse themselves from medicine.

Do tell us how ones posistion on the age of the earth or Darwinism affects how they practice medicine.

It stems from the premise that young earth creationism is intellectually dishonest.....

We should accept this premise because they do not hold the same view as Darwinists about evolution?.....

If you are one of the too numerous walking around thinking that the Universe doesn't look a day over 6000 years old..

Did I miss something in the links I provided mentioning young earth creationists or the age of the earth, or are you itching to start another topic in a different thread?

You acknowledge micro-evolution in your quotes. The only thing that separates micro from macro is time. Therefore the only way macro evolution could be ruled out as an explanation for the development of higher orders of species is if evolution did not have enough time to create sufficient diversity. Therefore any individual agreeing to micro evolution but disagreeing with macro evolution is either denying an old earth, or creating a separate argument for the understanding of genetics. Which are you doing?

Please quote my quotes so I know what you are referring to.

Now, on your comment..

How does the fact that term 'micro and macro' evolution was coined by someone who though evolution happened (even though he was not a 'darwinist') have anything to do what so ever the fact the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

Maybe you are using 'diversion' to take away from the point?

[olivergringold]

[strike]

Now, on your comment..

How does the fact that term 'micro and macro' evolution was coined by someone who though evolution happened (even though he was not a 'darwinist') have anything to do what so ever the fact the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

Maybe you are using 'diversion' to take away from the point?

I'd like to remind you that it was you who demanded to know where the terms come from, and stating that non-Darwinian evolutionary biologists aren't an oxymoron is chiefly dishonest...the fact remains that this man's position lie in neither of our camps. What does interest me, and what became the launching point for an argument which you've done a spectacular job of distracting from by asking where you typed your own words, is how the terms are used today, which is by Creationists to state that macro-evolution is a farce, and by those who continually attempt to cry out that there is no difference, ultimately, between the two.

Also:

the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

While I find this statement delicious, I find it only humanly fair to inform you that is a very inadvisable thing to be admitting.[/strike]

[Goat]

Now, on your comment..

How does the fact that term 'micro and macro' evolution was coined by someone who though evolution happened (even though he was not a 'darwinist') have anything to do what so ever the fact the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

Maybe you are using 'diversion' to take away from the point?

I'd like to remind you that it was you who demanded to know where the terms come from, and stating that non-Darwinian evolutionary biologists aren't an oxymoron is chiefly dishonest...the fact remains that this man's position lie in neither of our camps. What does interest me, and what became the launching point for an argument which you've done a spectacular job of distracting from by asking where you typed your own words, is how the terms are used today, which is by Creationists to state that macro-evolution is a farce, and by those who continually attempt to cry out that there is no difference, ultimately, between the two.

Also:

the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

While I find this statement delicious, I find it only humanly fair to inform you that is a very inadvisable thing to be admitting.

Actually, I am the one that wrote the last. Fisherking has not admitted to that truth yet. I don't think he ever will.

[olivergringold]

Err, whoops

Got a bit confused about who said what when, apparently. Sorry 'bout that, goat.

ATTN ANYBODY PASSING THROUGH THIS THREAD: My last post here was in error. Please ignore it.

[Goat]

Err, whoops

Got a bit confused about who said what when, apparently. Sorry 'bout that, goat.

ATTN ANYBODY PASSING THROUGH THIS THREAD: My last post here was in error. Please ignore it.

No problem.. people get confused... I didn't want you to blame Fisherking for being inconsistent. He might be wrong, but he isn't inconsistent.

[Fisherking]

How does the fact that term 'micro and macro' evolution was coined by someone who though evolution happened (even though he was not a 'darwinist') have anything to do what so ever the fact the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

Maybe you are using 'diversion' to take away from the point?

I think there is yet another mix up on who is diverting and saying what. I was responded to this opinion:

What's sad is that this really isn't a debate at all. Science isn't in crisis over evolution/ID nor is there any compelling reason to believe creationism/ID beyond the fact that so many children are indoctrinated to believe nonsense

with this opinion:

I think it is great people are starting to question the viability of Darwinism. The only ones who see a crisis are those that have founded their whole worldview and belief system on shaky metaphysics like Darwinism.

oliveringold seemed to take issue that the physicians and surgeons I linked (practicing biologists) used the term Darwinian macro evolution:

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution, as it is called, contains all the steps needed to evolve higher forms of life. What micro-evolution is espoused to lack, and where Young Earth Creationists like to divide the two when they are in fact the same, is time, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what a medical doctor is qualified to comment on.

-and seems to go off on a rant against young earth creationist and that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution exept the difference of time (and the fact that they are two different words with different definitions). I pointed to the fact that evolutionists coined the terms, not young earth creationists:

Micro and macro evolution were first coined by evolutionists, not creationists.

A source was asked for:

Care to present a source for this? I first heard it from Kent Hovind. Not exactly a shining example of evolutionary understanding if you ask me.

-and before I could get to it sfs supplied the link with:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist....

showing Filipchenko was an evolutionists. I never claimed he was a Darwinist, brought up micro/macro evolution, or brought up young earth creationism.

[Goat]

How does the fact that term 'micro and macro' evolution was coined by someone who though evolution happened (even though he was not a 'darwinist') have anything to do what so ever the fact the majority of those people aren't biologists, and many aren't practicing scientists at all??

Maybe you are using 'diversion' to take away from the point?

I think there is yet another mix up on who is diverting and saying what. I was responded to this opinion:

What's sad is that this really isn't a debate at all. Science isn't in crisis over evolution/ID nor is there any compelling reason to believe creationism/ID beyond the fact that so many children are indoctrinated to believe nonsense

with this opinion:

I think it is great people are starting to question the viability of Darwinism. The only ones who see a crisis are those that have founded their whole worldview and belief system on shaky metaphysics like Darwinism.

oliveringold seemed to take issue that the physicians and surgeons I linked (practicing biologists) used the term Darwinian macro evolution:

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution, as it is called, contains all the steps needed to evolve higher forms of life. What micro-evolution is espoused to lack, and where Young Earth Creationists like to divide the two when they are in fact the same, is time, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what a medical doctor is qualified to comment on.

-and seems to go off on a rant against young earth creationist and that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution exept the difference of time (and the fact that they are two different words with different definitions). I pointed to the fact that evolutionists coined the terms, not young earth creationists:

Micro and macro evolution were first coined by evolutionists, not creationists.

A source was asked for:

Care to present a source for this? I first heard it from Kent Hovind. Not exactly a shining example of evolutionary understanding if you ask me.

-and before I could get to it sfs supplied the link with:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist....

showing Filipchenko was an evolutionists. I never claimed he was a Darwinist, brought up micro/macro evolution, or brought up young earth creationism.

Yet, it was to my comment that most of those people on that list are not practicing scientists, and are very often chemists, physicists, and mathematicians.

If you want to include that person (who was a Russian pre-ww2, and the disbelief in
the Darwin concepts ruined the Russian agriculture), I would say that is showing on just how you have to clutch at straws.

[olivergringold]

-and seems to go off on a rant against young earth creationist and that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution exept the difference of time (and the fact that they are two different words with different definitions).

Have you even watched the videos I linked to for your benefit? Let us presume you did not as a matter of brevity: What are the different definitions of micro and macro evolution? Do tell. And furthermore, tell how the former, given time, could not be said to give rise to the latter.

I pointed to the fact that evolutionists coined the terms, not young earth creationists:

Micro and macro evolution were first coined by evolutionists, not creationists.

A source was asked for:

Care to present a source for this? I first heard it from Kent Hovind. Not exactly a shining example of evolutionary understanding if you ask me.

-and before I could get to it sfs supplied the link with:

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist....

showing Filipchenko was an evolutionists.

An error in your logic. While common descent as an idea has been around long before Darwin, only Darwinian evolution could modernly be said to represent the ideas of people who truly study and understand evolution as a science. Evolution as a philosophy is a misnomer which you appear to be abusing.

I never claimed he was a Darwinist,

Which affects the validity of whether or not he could truly have been said to understand evolution, as pointed out so succinctly by goat.

brought up micro/macro evolution,

I showed you the damn quote!

or brought up young earth creationism.

I believe I have asked before but, then, shall ask again: where do your beliefs distinguish themselves from young earth creationism?