Hi, Rahvin,
Thanks for the info, I couldn't see the trees for the forest.
But can that quote be attributed to those 70 Scientist?
Or was it something that had been put in the brief that their names are attached to?
Just wondering.
God Bless,
Seriously?
I don't know, ICANT. Was the Declaration of Independence something that can be attributed to all of the signatories, or is it something all of their names are "attached to?"
From what I can tell, the brief was filed
by the 72 Nobel Prize winners as a clear statement of the opinion of actual scientists on the matter being discussed. They were demonstrating to the judge that the "controversy" and doubt contained in the law regarding the Theory of Evolution does not actually exist among
actual scientists, and that to teach evolution as some sort of halfassed "it probably isn't true" hypothesis that many scientists disagree with is
completely dishonest and inaccurate.
And what do you mean by "their names are attached to" anyway? Do you really think some lawyer wrote up the brief and then just randomly chose the names of 72 Nobel Prize winners to "attach?" Do YOU sign documents related to
court trials that you don't agree with? I know I certainly wouldn't.
It's amusing that your question seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity and the support of the Nobel Prize winners of this document, in much the same way the law they were fighting intended specifically to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. The fact is that this was a legal brief filed witht he support (and likely authorship) of those Nobel Prize winners specifically to affirm that the Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science, on par with any other biological theory, and that attempts to cast doubt specifically on the Theory of Evolution because it is (in part) a theory of human origins but
not on any other theory demonstrates a clear religious motivation.
The truth is, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be as reliable in the accuracy of its predictions as the Theory of Gravity - both are theories backed by mountains of evidence, and yet no reasonable person would question the Theory of Gravity. Questions pertaining to the Theory of Evolution are
solely the purview of those whose religious beliefs run counter to the predictions of the Theory of Evolution, in
exactly the same way that the Heliocentric model of the solar system was once persecuted by religious authorities.
The questions asked of the Theory of Evolution in this thread have been mindbogglingly idiotic and inconsistent, so much so that I've avoided the thread until now. Our "friend" John has run nearly the full circuit of dishonest and ignorant arguments commonly used by Creationists who argue against evolution, not because they comprehend it and have found some legitimate flaw, but rather because
they don't like it.
Shifting the goalposts to insist that biologists be prepared to demonstrate the evolution of not only a new species (which has been done and examples given in this thread), but completely new classifications even above families and genera within the lifespan of human beings is something that any scientist or even moderately educated layman would disregard with prejudice. Applying a double-standard by accepting
other scientific theories supported by similar amounts of evidence and held with exactly the same tentativity as the Theory of Evolution simply because
John disagrees with evolution on religious grounds is the mark of extreme bias, and demonstrates his complete and utter lack of objectivity.
The phrase "true science" is his
worst addition, however. That phrase has been brought up by nutjobs and idiots before in many places, and its actual meaning is painfully clear: "true science" refers to
anything a scientist says that John agrees with. Anything not in that category, including the Theory of Evolution (and likely all of geology cosmology, astronomy, and most of physics to name a few) is
not "true science.[/i] This is the argument of someone completely ignorant of science in general and the topic in particular. Agreement is a subjective, emotional response that can be affected by predetermined worldviews such as those of Creationists as well as personal incredulity.
Whether John
agrees or not, the Earth orbits the Sun, water is wet, and the Theory of Evolution is an extremely accurate explanatory framework derived from the
factual direct observation of real-world populations evolving over generations. Extrapolating the predictions of the Theory of Evolution backwards in time predicts a fossil record
exactly like the one we observe in reality. Johns equivocation over "true science," his insistence on shifting the goalposts, applying double-standards, arguing from ignorance and incredulity, arguing against insipidly constructed strawmen, and his complete and utter lack of objective reasoning as it pertains to science and the Theory of Evolution are completely irrelevant to the
fact that the Theory of Evolution accurately fits the evidence to an extremely high degree.