Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

Recently the  U.S. Office of Special Counsel issued an initial finding that Smithsonian Scientist Richard Sternberg had been the victim of workplace retaliation and had been essentially "run out" of the institution after Senior Scientists created an unbearably hostile workplace environment. Sternberg's crime? Agreeing to publish a research paper by Stephen Meyer entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" which dared to question whether Darwinian evolution could explain what scientists refer to as the Cambrian explosion.

As even militant atheists like the late Stephen J. Gould have pointed out, as the evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution has continued to crumble, its proponents have become increasingly fanatical in its defense, essentially arguing that any theory that might more adequately explain the current data is in fact simply sophisticated creationism and quasi religious mumbo-jumbo. Gould himself coined the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism" to describe this movement to forcibly supress even the discussion of competing theories, and which has lead to the smearing of even outspokenly non-religious scientists, including at least one non-practicing Jewish biologist, with the label "bible thumper" for daring to assert that the evidence for ID (intelligent design) is scientifically compelling.

In any event here are two articles on the recent events:

Washington Post
NROnline

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Seagoon
the evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of evolution has continued to crumble,  

Hmmm... I detect some theological wishful thinking...

Sources?

[Chairboy]

If the above were a Wikipedia article, I'd have to call in some serious NPOV violations.

Sandman nailed it.

[Seagoon]

Hi Sandman,

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I detect some theological wishful thinking...

Sources?

The two articles actually contain some links to some of the recent discussion in the scientific community.

But actually there are two major camps in the scientific community who have been pointing out the inability of Darwinism to explain the current evidence available.

The first is the ID or Intelligent Design community, who are not to be confused with biblical creationists like myself. They simply believe that the scientific data including the current DNA and fossil evidence is far better explained by intelligent design. Issues like the fact that mutation does not produce biological improvements and irreducibly complex organisms would tend to point in this direction.

Then there are those, like the aformentioned Gould, who believe that the failures to find the transitional life forms that Darwinian evolution requires, or evidence supporting gradual macro-evolution, or the increasing evidence that the Darwinian tree of life went from more life forms to less, not the other way round, requires the development of new scientific paradigms.

In 2001 about 100 of these scientists from both camps, fed up with being forced to accept a paradigm they no longer felt explained the evidence signed a "Dissent From Darwin". Since that time even more have signed on, some because they are simply sick of working in an environment where questioning the status quo has become impossible.

Here's an article on the subject:

400 scientists skeptical of Darwin
Theory 'great white elephant of contemporary thought'
Posted: July 21, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

More than 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of skeptics of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, or CSC. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."

The Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001.

The think tank challenged statements made in the PBS "Evolution" series, which claimed that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution.

"The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life," said John G. West, associate director of the CSC. "We expect that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more rapid pace than we've seen this past year."

The institute says that in the past three months, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have signed the statement, which includes more than 70 biologists.

Two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University, Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, are recent signers.

Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Beloussov is a professor of embryology. Both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."

West says the talk in media about "science vs. religion" is misleading.

"This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds," he said.

Other prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe;Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information;and Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum.

The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and the University of Washington.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Gentlemen,

Did you read the Washington Post article? Give it a read. The issue isn't over whether or not you believe in Evolution, Biblical Creation, Intelligent Design, or that Aliens created huge obelisks that taught men how to use tools.

The issue is over whether all discussion of the subject has to be totally forbidden, and whether anyone, regardless of their scientific credentials must be silenced using disinformation and lies. At one point for instance, Sternberg's (who isn't a creationist) boss had to circulate his C.V. in order to combat email lies that he wasnt' a scientist. The situation is such that any dissent from the current paradigm has become scientific heresy punishable by excommunication from the community.

Give at least the WP article a try, the Post is hardly a mouthpiece for creationism.

- SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Seagoon
The first is the ID or Intelligent Design community, who are not to be confused with biblical creationists like myself. They simply believe that the scientific data including the current DNA and fossil evidence is far better explained by intelligent design.
- SEAGOON

With respect, that is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong in almost every respect.

It is the fervent wish of creationists that the public will believe that 'Intelligent Design' is unrelated to religion so that creationism can get a foothold in the classroom as being as relevant as evolution.

ID'ers are essentially saying: "Ok ok, unrelated to god...  let's assume that SOMETHING created all life.  We won't call it god, we'll call it..  hmm...  'Deius'.  Yes, that's it.  So, not God, but 'Deius' created the universe and life."

Science needs evidence.  Evolution has evidence.  Creationism (aka 'Intelligent Design' without the fancy suit) can be described as "Well goodness, doesn't it SEEM like things are too ordered?"

As long as creation myths lack physical evidence, they belong in the theology part of school, not in science.

Remember, the human brain finds patterns.  That's how babies recognize faces.  It also means that we see people and objects when we look at clouds.

[Sandman]

On the other hand...

Intelligent Design: Bad Science, Bad for Religion
Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics


ID or creationism requires faith... and that's my problem with it.

[GtoRA2]

Interesting read.

I am not a creationist.


My observation is, isn’t part of being a good scientist keeping an open mind? Some of the people quoted sound like they don’t have very open minds.

Sounds like Darwinism is almost a religion to them.



I don’t see why they had to get the attack machine going, if there is nothing to this theory then counter it with science instead of slander.

[bustr]

Now I'm just confused..................... ....

I understand chilling debate in politics or religion. I thought the root of the scientific process was to pose questions and work with the results to see where they lead. There are no right or wrong answers. There are just "answers" to help light the way---->>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Chairboy]

You're right, and that is the way to counter it.

It's unfortunate, however, that the scientists will never be able to use science rationally to counter religious arguments, because of one big weapon the religious types have:

Faith.

Faith means that 'no matter how outlandish something is...  no matter how absolutely incorrect, no matter HOW much evidence is presented...  if I maintain my faith, I will be rewarded.'

Arguing with people who have religious convictions about creationism is like trying to teach a cat to fetch a stick.  It ain't gonna work, and it's just going to piss off the cat.

[bustr]

I'm sorry but don't tell my 3 year old Norwegin Forest cat that. He dosen't know he's not supposed to fetch...we discovered that by accident. I threw a paper roll at him while I was on the can to get him to leave me alone. It flew out the room and down the hall. He ran after it and brought it back to me. I threw it again to test for the anomoli factor. He is a Norwegin Forest Cat Retreiver......

Im confused then by your assersion...what is faith? Leave religion out of the answer....that would be too easy for imagry.

[Seagoon]

Hi Chairboy,

Originally posted by Chairboy
With respect, that is disingenuous, misleading, and wrong in almost every respect.

It is the fervent wish of creationists that the public will believe that 'Intelligent Design' is unrelated to religion so that creationism can get a foothold in the classroom as being as relevant as evolution.

Do you seriously believe that every scientist who doubts Darwinian evolution does so because he wants to get "Religion in the Classroom?" How then do you explain the number of non-religious (even atheistic) scientists who signed on to the Dissent? The article I posted even deals with this:

"Two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State University, Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir L. Voeikov, are recent signers.

Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and Beloussov is a professor of embryology. Both are members of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."

West says the talk in media about "science vs. religion" is misleading.

"This list is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge Darwinian theory on scientific grounds," he said.

On a serious note related to the real issue of whether dissent is possible, I've been reading material on this subject for over ten years now, including a reread of Darwin's Origin of the Species, Gould's The Panda's Thumb, Pinker's How the Mind Works, Sagan's Cosmic Connection, Dembski's "Intelligent Design" and a host of articles in scientific journals on both sides. But even here, when one attempts to discuss it, one is immediately told it is all a theological plot to overthrow humanism, and while I am forced to examine the evidence for Darwinism, apparently no research is required into books refuting Darwinism in order to condemn them. Have you read any books on Intelligent design Chairboy? I ask this because you assert that it is all a matter of faith and patterns, however men like Meyer who wrote the original article are showing how the EVIDENCE now seems to contradict Darwinian evolution and point in other directions. Give his article a read and then point out to me how it is all "Faith" and "Pattern" rather than evidence:
 The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

As it happens I don't support or endorse ID being a biblical Creationist myself, but I'm willing to examine the data.

What is so threatening about the idea that an old theory regarding our origins (Darwinian evolution) might be no longer be scientifically supportable and a new paradigm needs to be adopted anyway?

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hi Chair,

Originally posted by Chairboy
You're right, and that is the way to counter it.

It's unfortunate, however, that the scientists will never be able to use science rationally to counter religious arguments, because of one big weapon the religious types have:

Faith.

Faith means that 'no matter how outlandish something is...  no matter how absolutely incorrect, no matter HOW much evidence is presented...  if I maintain my faith, I will be rewarded.'

Arguing with people who have religious convictions about creationism is like trying to teach a cat to fetch a stick.  It ain't gonna work, and it's just going to piss off the cat.

This may surprise you, and I hope you will forgive me if I respectfully point this out, but you and Sandman are the ones who brought up the issue of faith. At no point in the WP article or the original text I posted was the issue of "Faith" raised. In fact Sternberg, the man who was run out of the Smithsonian, is not "a man of faith" in fact in talking about his motivations for publishing the article that has caused his life and career to disintegrate, he simply pointed out:

"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."

I want to suggest, and that again respectfully, that the "faith" argument is in fact a straw-man. Let me ask you, in your own debates with me, when have I retreated to naked fideism or defended a point saying simply "faith, faith! You HAVE to believe this contrary to all evidence!" Have I not attempted to present reasons for what I believe to be true?

In this argument in particular, it seems that the Darwinian side simply assumes that every contrary argument is part of a great conspiracy of fideistic ignorance attempting to overthrow reason. What I would suggest is that Darwinianism itself has become a blind and faith of its own which zealously safeguards its hegemony and tolerates no dissent. All evidence against it is automatically false, and anyone who dissents isn't a real scientist. Read the article, why would a rock solid theory founded on indisputable fact require so much coordinated intimidation, harrassment, and outright slander in order to suppress any dissent? As others have pointed out, the whole thing smacks of what Galileo endured.

- SEGOON

[XrightyX]

Hi all. Good debate.  One that I do not dare tread in my workplace.

1st, to Chairboy and Sandman...I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination.  I don't go to church, I don't pray to God or god however I should be writing that.  I laughed at my "religious nut" friends and throughout my college time in the deep South.  One of my chemistry teachers even gave a lecture that touched on Itelligent Design.  I buried my head in my arms and bit my tongue to stop myself from laughing.

However, my current work has me questioning my previous smug convictions.  I'd take the time to explain why, but I can't post a trillion pictures/diagrams in here.

Suffice to say, I am not convinced that Darwinian evolution can explain the creation of DNA, the protein machinery to translate it into RNA and then into proteins.  

In brief:

The mantra is: DNA-->RNA-->protein.  Yet the process itself requires proteins to carry out the translation.  It's like having machines build machines, but how did the first machines get built?

I don't care if you say God did it, aliens, space dust, Allah or whoever...just count me as one scientist who doesn't believe Darwin's theory of evolution in whole.

[Leslie]

If Darwinian Evolution is not provable, what is wrong with mentioning Darwin himself had no way of explaining the origin of life, and that his co-writer Russell admitted a creator must have started life?

What doesn't make sense to me is, if Darwin's co-author and scientific colleague alluded to a creator, why is this point not mentioned in any discussion of Darwinian Evolution?




Les