2024-03-29, 07:09 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientists Question Darwinism?  (Read 5529 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« on: 2006-06-23, 17:52 »

Quote
SEATTLE, June 22 (UPI) ? More than 600 doctoral scientists from all around the world have signed a statement of skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution....

...The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.co...22-082506-9872r

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

I'm curious to see what you all have to think about this.

Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2006-06-23, 18:20 »

I have no strong opinion on this matter. Darwinism works. Gene-related research delivers results. Observations match theory well enough, explanations work.

The question whether darwinism is real is as nonsensical a question as asking whether electrons are real or not. It makes no difference to our daily experience. The bored old discussion between darwinians and contra-darwinians is therefore an endless one, just like the one ongoing between realists and antirealists. Neither side will be able to rationalize their stance without falling back on circular justification of foundationalism or failing to produce justification altogether.

This, however, is not a problem. What we do have, is the following: we can grow mice with ears and corn that glows in the dark. Is this because darwinism is spot on? Possibly, who knows? Possibly not, maybe there's a skyhook somewhere; maybe there's a God that allows ear-mice to be created, as a part of a mysterious plan or to trick us. Maybe aliens have created a closed-garden of restricted 'micro-evolution'. Why not? If I didn't get the hunch common sense isn't all that common, I'd say common sense tells us that the latter two are unlikely candidates. Proof or no, science is still justified by results, regardless of the ability to determine what's 'really' going on.

I'll just stick to what I've said before: produce an ID/religious based theory that delivers results, and I'm sure the scientific community will embrace it easily. Produce a theory that allows for no predictions or results, no certainty in observational qualification, and no possibility of falsification in the foreseeable future, then don't expect it to be warmly welcomed by modern day science. If it would, regardless of those properties, it would make the lives of philosophers of science very interesting though...
« Last Edit: 2006-06-23, 18:21 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #2 on: 2006-06-23, 19:02 »

I'm just happy that debate about "established" theory is taking place.  If science is unwilling to examine itself, and modify its point of view based on, as you would say, results (or more properly, empirical data) then what good is it?  I become concerned when theories become written in stone.  That's no longer science.  If there's dissent within the scientific community about one idea, then it encourages broader thinking.  Is that not a good thing?

As for the scientific community "embracing" anything, remember that the community is composed of individual scientists, each with differing ideas and differing fields of expertise.  I would wager that the "consensus" thinking about a great many things is not as broad as people may have been led to believe.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2006-06-23, 20:25 »

I'm all for a critical stance concerning science. For instance, Habermas' technocracy (although certainly a fairy-tale in more than one sense) is not at all a pretty way to go (it's the technological equivalent of the corporatocracy that's looming over us now). I also think it's quite healthy to keep asking if science has all that wonderful an effect on us: ever wondered what the mobile phone has done to aid us? Personally, I think it has done more harm, has made our society less enjoyable, more stressful and hasty.

On the other hand, broader thinking itself is a powerless gesture, much like disagreeing with the cutting down of rainforests, without having the means to prevent such an effect from the indifferent machine of economy and the powers that be. So, I'm all for a more questioning stance. But then, I think everyone should be a little more wary of 'accepted truth'. Preferrably by not simply accepting currently 'unaccepted truths' equally na?vely.


Your second point, although technically true ofcourse, is not accepted by everyone. Theories of science practice and methodology often suggest that there is a 'flow' of scientific progress, not quite under the control of individuals -- especially not those with alternative or radical views and theories. In Kuhns 'normal science' period, for instance, one can hardly single handedly (or even with a small group) bring a scientific revolution about. Scientists won't even try, because they are to busy scoring points on citation-lists and trying to solve puzzles of the paradigm of accepted scientific method of the time (for instance, darwinism). Even if scientists have widely differing ideas, this doesn't mean they'll be able to do anything with them. In Feyerabend's view, for instance, one must be very influential in politics or be in the right place at the right time, to make a difference.

Perhaps there's no concensus amongst scientists that matches the 'paradigm', if there even is such a thing in any meaningful way. Still, the results speak more powerfully than the opinions of men. If one succeeds in launching Voyager craft through a complex pattern for years, planned years in advance without any serious flaw, one won't start doubting the theories that helped one to achieve that. Not even if one feels there is something wrong with the theories. Many scientists (and non-scientists) have denounced darwinism, because they were unable to come to terms with social darwinism, or because they felt ought's drawn from is's (consider Nazi ideology) were somehow justified by it (a mystery to me, to be sure). I'm sure others have been unable to confront the idea of being no more than a gene-vehicle; finding this morbid and frightening, to say the least. Those are all valid reasons for having opinions. As long as the results keep coming, without a more effective theory to encompass them, I don't think they will bring about a shift in scientific practice, 'concensus' or no.
« Last Edit: 2006-06-23, 20:27 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2006-06-24, 06:27 »

Well, certainly it is interesting discussion, and you raise many points I would love to expound upon and converse further regarding, however I will refrain myself from further posting and allow others to voice their thoughts on this.  I want to know what everyone thinks. Slipgate - Smile
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Lopson
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1133

Still Going In Circles

« Reply #5 on: 2006-06-25, 11:06 »

Darwinism fits perfectly in the need for a justification of extintion. Like Tabun said, it works, and it has not only theoretical support, but also material support (by material support I mean out-of-the-paper support). Fortunatly, it still is in need of some more explanations and proofs, so until these things aren't acquired, there will be someone disagreeing with this theory.

Quote
(...) produce an ID/religious based theory that delivers results, and I'm sure the scientific community will embrace it easily. Produce a theory that allows for no predictions or results, no certainty in observational qualification, and no possibility of falsification in the foreseeable future, then don't expect it to be warmly welcomed by modern day science.

You know how it's like: the scientific community will only embrace a theory if most of the research has been already done, they don't want to exaust themselves to work. Obviously that trying to support a theory with little research would give those lazy scientists something to work on.
« Last Edit: 2006-06-25, 11:07 by [KruzadeR] » Logged

Angst
Rabid Doomer
 

Team Member
Elite
***
Posts: 1011

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2006-06-26, 06:19 »

The controversy surrounding the theory of evolution is a perfect example of how science, in recent years, has largely failed.

Science begs to be disproven. A theory does not become a law until you are entirely unable to disprove it. The obsession with getting a phd has caused scientists to do anything possible to defend their work, as opposed to not submitting it until there is no proof against it.

Moving right along, science has been trivialized in the face of sensationalism. Media presenting scientists and pseudoscientists in the same light; citing them as experts.

Logged

"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: