|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,580 Year: 2,837/9,624 Month: 682/1,588 Week: 88/229 Day: 60/28 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2860 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Done - thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Swop out 28 for 29....
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Aug-2005 07:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2860 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Found some more - this is fun
(DELETED) /Soren This message has been edited by kongstad, 18-Oct-2005 03:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18248 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Maybe Brad McFall can decipher godfearingatheists posts! Actually, I think that he(GFA) does know better and just fools around here...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cmanteuf Member (Idle past 6756 days) Posts: 92 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Hey Charles,
Check the gmail account that you posted earlier (the dropdead gmail one). I sent you some more email addy's. Working on some more now. Is that where you want them? I figured it was nicer to send them there than put them out on the forum where spambots might pick them up. Chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DouglasGFrank Inactive Member |
Greetings.
Since you were looking for contact information for credible scientists on this list, I thought I would save you the effort and help you find me. I am a scientist/inventor/businessman/teacher who is prominently published (e.g. the covers of Science and Naturwissenschaften), daily practices the scientific method, teaches math and science to extremely bright young people (at a school for gifted students), and runs a business. Regardless of my credentials, one should carefully consider the statement above the list of names which endorses it before marginalizing those on the list. Who knows, one might agree with the statement: "We are 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." Certainly, the 2nd sentence should pose no issue. Any open-minded, intellectually honest scientist would agree. The first statement is simply a scientific opinion/question held by many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould ('Mr. Evolution' according the AAAS. I discussed this point with him over lunch a few years ago, and we agreed). Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotion to any particular 'ism' is not science. Paradigms change... As Einstein put it, "Any scientist who believes his own theory ceases to be a scientist." Happy to contribute! Dr. Douglas G. Frank, PresidentPrecision Analytical Instruments, Inc. Blue Ash, OH ToolsForAnalysis.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, Dr. Frank, what area of study did you get your scientific degree in, and have you ever or do you currently work as a professional scientist in any field related to Evolutionary Science?
Can you please also provide a few citations of your relevant peer-reviewed work in the field? Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotionto any particular 'ism' is not science. This is not the forum to post these demonstrations of insufficiency but I'd sure like to see them. Since I don't know what you would be refering to I can't guess where you should post them. I suppose that since Darwin didn't consider the isolation of populations as a part of speciation then we could easily agree with the first sentence of the statement. However if that is all that the statement really means, to promulgate such a statement and suggest that it means there is a good reason for accepting an intelligent designer then appears to be deliberately misleading, even dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Does this matter. I'm not so interested in Dr. Frank's personal accomplishments as I am in seeing what exactly he means by supporting the statement and what evidence and reasoning he uses to arrive at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh, well, that kind of blows the validity here, but it's definitally interesting to hear from one personally (if you are who you claim to be, at least)
either way, welcome to the board.
daily practices the scientific method, that's kind of a suspicious wording. last i checked, the scientific method isn't "practiced" like law or, well, religion.
"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Certainly, the 2nd sentence should pose no issue. Any open-minded, intellectually honest scientist would agree. yes, agreed. that is essentially true for ANY theory.
The first statement is simply a scientific opinion/question held by many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould ('Mr. Evolution' according the AAAS. I discussed this point with him over lunch a few years ago, and we agreed). i'm sorry, but i'm frankly quite skeptical of THAT claim. gould does not strike me as an id'er or creationist, although i don't know much about his personal faith. but even just opening his book and leafing through it, and looking at the pictures in some similar (though less popularist) fossil books has me totally satisfied with the claim that random mutation and natural/sexual selection can account for the complexity of life. if i had to bet on gould's take on it, being a lot more educated in paleontology than i, i'm willing to put my money of "he's not a creationist." besides, the "look what gould said!" claims are kind of old among the creationist community, we've all seen them before, and every one of them has been false or out of context. so when i say i'm skeptical, it's because i'm skeptical and past example has proven this particular brand of argument to be wrong, not out of any kind of devotion to gould.
Darwinian mechanisms alone have been scientifically demonstrated over and over again to be insufficient to account for the complexity we observe. There may be other natural mechanisms, to be sure, but devotion to any particular 'ism' is not science. i'd like to note to the other people reading this that here is not the place to debate this specific claim. however, i think i speak for the rest of when i say that we hope you'll stay on to debate this particular bit elsewhere on this forum. but i'd like to ask for some clarification. by "darwinian mechanisms" do you mean strict "origin of species" darwinism, or are you including more modern adaptions of the theory, including convergent evolution, cooption, punctuated equilbrium, various other selection techniques and the like? also, do you find that personal faith (no matter what it is) plays some kind of role in this particular decision (be honest).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Does this matter. I'm not so interested in Dr. Frank's personal accomplishments as I am in seeing what exactly he means by supporting the statement and what evidence and reasoning he uses to arrive at that. i think we hased this out a bit before. i forget what we decided. certainly, someone working the field is a little more qualified to their take on the evidence than someone who got a masters and now teaches homeschool. basically, the question is: "are you a working scientist, or did you just get a degree in science and then never use it?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Getting a degree in hydraulics, for example, makes one less an expert in the ToE than say someone with a degree in Biochemistry.
Also, getting a PhD and then never working with theory, as a professional scientist, also makes one less credible when critiqing theory. All of the real, practicing scientists I know readily admit to ignorance and lack of appropriate expertise of many other branches of science and wouldn't dream of pronouncing the foundational theories of other fields as invalid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
All of the real, practicing scientists I know readily admit to ignorance and lack of appropriate expertise of many other branches of science and wouldn't dream of pronouncing the foundational theories of other fields as invalid. imagine if a biologist attacked one of euclid's axioms. kinda silly, isn't it? why then can a mathematician be taken seriously for attacking an axiom of biology? actually, i should rephrase. having grown up in a math department. mathematicians don;t take dembski seriously. they seem to rank him with numerologists and engineering students.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2292 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Let's remember the reason behind this thread folks. Its not a debate thread.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dr Frank,
Welcome to the fray. As pointed out this is a {link and information} thread and not one for discussion. As one of the originals in this issue, I'd like to say that this point is also discussed on a parallel thread: {The DI loses one}http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute loses one see message #13 for example. A final note: the purpose of the excercise is not regarding what the statement says but how it is used by the discovery institute and whether the people on the list are aware of that useage. Please feel free to help. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024